Equities

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversations, which we held remotely for a second year in a row due to the COVID-19 pandemic.   Mr. X: It is typically the case that I look forward to our end of year conversations, as they always help clarify the investment landscape for my daughter and I. This year, the feeling of excitement has unusually given way to a sense of foreboding. As far as the pandemic is concerned, clearly this year was a better one than last year, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made around the world at protecting people from COVID-19 – although I do have some questions about the recent discovery of the Omicron variant. Risky assets have generally performed well year-to-date, and our portfolio has benefitted from that. But the longer-term investment outlook has certainly deteriorated: equity market multiples remain extremely elevated, government debt loads are still extraordinarily high, and now we have finally seen a surge in inflation – which, as you know, I have been concerned about for several years. I feel strongly that investors are unprepared for the eventual policy consequences of what has happened this year. Financial markets have been underpinned by easy money for too long, and if interest rates have to rise on a structural basis to control inflation, the financial market consequences will be severe – let alone the potential political and social consequences! I have steeled myself for a depressing conversation. Ms. X: As you may have sensed during our discussions over the past few years, I tend to have a more optimistic outlook than my father does. At a minimum, I believe that there are always investment opportunities that one can pursue, regardless of whether the macro regime is bullish or bearish for economic activity and risky asset prices. But I do have to say that the extent of the rise in consumer prices this year has unnerved me and made me marginally more inclined to agree with my father’s pessimistic long-term outlook. It is very unsettling to see headline inflation in the US at its highest level in three decades, and I very much hope that you will be able to provide some perspective about whether elevated inflation is here to stay. But before we get into our discussion of the outlook, perhaps we can briefly review your predictions from last year? BCA: Certainly. A year ago, our key conclusions were the following: In 2021, stocks will outperform bonds thanks to the global economic recovery, the lack of immediate inflationary pressures and the prospects of a resolution to the pandemic. Imbalances in the global economy are growing, and the explosion in debt loads witnessed this year will carry significant future costs. Rising inflation is the most likely long-term consequence because of rising populism and the meaningful chance of financial repression. This change in inflation dynamics will generate poor long-term returns for a 60/40 portfolio, especially because asset valuations are so expensive. Compared to the past two years, geopolitical uncertainty will recede in 2021, but will remain elevated by historical standards. China and the US are interlocked in a structural rivalry, which means that flashpoints, such as Taiwanese independence, will remain a source of tensions. Europe will enjoy geopolitical tailwinds next year. For now, no central bank or government wants to remove economic support too quickly. Monetary policy will remain very stimulative as long as inflation is low, which means no tightening until late 2022, at the earliest. Fiscal deficits will narrow, but more slowly than private savings will decline. The US will grow faster than potential thanks to this policy backdrop. Moreover, household finances are robust and industrial firms are taking advantage of low interest rates as well as surprisingly resilient goods demand to increase their capex plans. Outside of the US, China’s stimulus and an inventory restocking will fuel a continued upswing in the global industrial cycle that will push 2021 GDP growth well above trend. However, at the beginning of the year, we will likely feel the remnants of the lockdowns currently engulfing Western economies. Bond yields can rise next year, but not by much. Ebbing deflationary pressures and the global industrial cycle upswing will lift T-Note and T-Bond yields. However, the extremely low probability of monetary tightening in 2021 and 2022 will create a ceiling for yields. We favor peripheral European bonds at the expense of German Bunds and US Treasuries. Corporate spreads should stay contained thanks to a very easy policy backdrop and the positive impact on cash flows and defaults of the ongoing recovery. We also like municipal bonds but worry about pre-payment risks for MBS. Global stocks should enjoy a robust advance in 2021, even if the market’s gains will be smaller and more volatile than from March 2020 to today. Easy monetary conditions will buttress valuations while recovering economic activity will support earning expectations. Within equities, we favor cyclical versus defensive names and value stocks relative to growth stocks. As a corollary, we prefer small cap to large cap and foreign DM-equities to US equities. We are neutral on EM equities due to their large tech sector weighting. The dollar bear market is set to continue, and high-beta European currencies will benefit most. The yen remains an attractive portfolio hedge. Oil and gold have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand. Gold will strengthen as global central banks will maintain extremely accommodative conditions and global fiscal authorities will remain generous. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 1.0% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.1% a year between 1990 and 2020. Most of our investment recommendations panned out quite well this year (Table 1). Global stocks significantly outperformed long-maturity government bonds, advanced economies grew meaningfully above trend, monetary policy remained extremely easy, long-maturity bond yields rose moderately, and our call to favor cyclical sectors was a profitable one. Our bullish oil call worked out especially well, with Brent prices having risen roughly 60% from the beginning of the calendar year until the discovery of the Omicron variant. It remains 43% above its late-2020 level. Table 12021 Asset Market Returns A few calls did not perform in line with our expectations, however. We favored value versus growth stocks this year, and this call did work out in the first half of 2021. However, growth rallied in the back half of the year, in response to a renewed decline in long-maturity bond yields that was catalyzed by the emergence of the Delta variant. We would note that financials did outperform broadly-defined technology stocks this year (the two main representative sectors of the value and growth styles, respectively), underscoring that other factors impacted the overall value versus growth call. DM ex-US stocks underperformed this year, contrary to our expectations. When considering the euro area as a proxy for DM ex-US and when examining combined sector effects (both sector weight and performance) in local currency terms, almost all of the underperformance this year occurred due to the euro area’s comparatively low weight in the information technology and communication services sectors, underscoring that there has been a value vs. growth dimension to European equity underperformance. But when measured in common currency terms, the underperformance of DM ex-US stocks has mostly occurred due to the rise in the US dollar. The dollar was flat to down for the first half of the year, in line with our prediction, but rallied in the back half – especially over the past month, as new COVID cases surged in several European countries. Within the commodity space, our oil call worked out extremely well but gold fared poorly. This underscores that gold is far more sensitive to real interest rate dynamics than it is to the US dollar trend, which likely has bearish long-term implications for the yellow metal. We can address that later when we discuss the commodity outlook. Finally, we argued last year that we were experiencing a secular inflection point in inflation, but we did not anticipate the magnitude of the rise in consumer prices this year. As we will discuss in a moment, that reflects major pandemic-induced supply-side effects affecting consumer prices, which we believe will wane next year on average. That does not, however, mean that demand-side factors are irrelevant, and we do believe that core inflation will come in higher than the Fed currently expects in 2022. Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Ms. X: You mentioned the pandemic in your comments about supply-side inflation, and I feel that it would be a good idea to get your thoughts about COVID-19 up front. As my father noted, there has been enormous progress made this year towards ending the pandemic, but it is not yet over – as evidenced both by Europe’s recent 5th wave, as well as this highly concerning Omicron variant. I understand that you are not medical professionals, but what is your base case view of what is likely to happen next year? BCA: When we discussed last year’s outlook, it was certainly our hope that we would have declared a decisive victory in the war against COVID-19 by this point. That has not occurred, due to three major factors. Chart 1Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating The first was the emergence of the Delta variant of COVID-19 in the middle of the year. Delta’s transmission and serious illness rate is higher than the original SARS-COV-2 virus and its Alpha variant, which rendered the goal of true herd immunity unachievable. The Delta variant of SARS-COV-2 has accounted for all new confirmed cases of COVID-19 around the world (until very recently), meaning that the bar for ending the pandemic has risen this year. Vaccine hesitancy and a slow approval process for vaccinating children is the second factor that has prolonged the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. While vaccine penetration has generally been high in most countries, a combination of hesitancy and the inability to vaccinate children under the age of 12 has left 1/4th to 1/3rd of the population of advanced economies unprotected against COVID-19. That might have been enough to prevent rising transmission of the original SARS-COV-2 virus, but it has proven to be too low to durably stop the ongoing spread of the Delta variant once disease control measures are relaxed or eliminated (Chart 1). In fact, as you noted, Chart 1 highlights that a 5th wave of the pandemic is in the process of occurring, especially within Europe. The vaccination of children has already begun in the United States and a few other countries, and many countries will likely follow suit in the weeks and months ahead. However, vaccination rates are likely to be lower among children given the considerably lower risk of severe illness, and it is clear that vaccine hesitancy among adults is sticky. The extent of vaccine hesitancy is most visible in the United States, where it has taken on a political dimension. Chart 2 highlights that US state vaccination rates are strongly predicted by the 2020 US Presidential election results, with states that voted for Donald Trump having on average a 12% lower vaccination rate than those that voted for Joe Biden. The third factor that has prolonged the pandemic, which seems to be linked to the emergence of the Omicron variant, is the fact that poorer parts of the world have not been able to make as much progress in vaccinating their populations, at least in part due to vaccine nationalism. We do not pass judgement on the governments of richer economies for prioritizing their own citizens, and indeed it would be hypocritical for us to do so as most of us at BCA have personally benefitted from that. But the consequence of those decisions is that some parts of the world, especially in Africa, have been left as de-facto breeding grounds for new variants. While the Omicron variant only came to light in the days leading up to the publication of this report, it does appear based on the available data that the variant emerged in Africa. Given all of this, we would be considerably more cautious in our outlook for the global economy next year if the progression of the pandemic were only dependent on the vaccination rate, especially now given the emergence of Omicron. However, two other factors will strongly influence the evolution of the pandemic and its impact on economic activity over the coming 12 months. First, in the US, states with a comparatively low vaccination rates likely have higher acquired immunity levels from previous infections, given that these states have recorded higher confirmed cases on a per capita basis. Chart 3The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs Second, and much more important, is the fact that anti-viral drug treatments with the ability to significantly reduce hospitalization and death have been discovered and are already under production. Molnupiravir, developed/produced by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization by 30%, and Merck is projecting that 10 million courses of treatment will be available by the end of December 2021, with at least 20 million courses to be produced next year. 1.7 million courses of treatments are set to be delivered to the US upon FDA approval, which compares with approximately 2 million COVID-related hospitalizations in the US over the past year. Chart 3 highlights that US ICU bed occupancy has already lessened, and the imminent deployment of effective drugs should lower ICU utilization even further over the winter months. Paxlovid, Pfizer’s oral anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, has been shown to be even more effective at reducing hospitalization, and news reports suggest the US government will order enough Paxlovid to treat 10 million Americans. Pfizer expects to produce roughly 50 million courses of treatment in 2022, and recently agreed to allow 95 developing countries to produce Paxlovid locally, suggesting that the impact of COVID-19 on the global medical system will be greatly reduced next year. This seems likely to be true even given the emergence of Omicron, as Paxlovid works by stopping the virus from replicating, by blocking an enzyme that does not appear to have mutated since the onset of the pandemic. Paxlovid does not target the spike protein, unlike monoclonal antibody treatments. Ms. X: The development of anti-viral treatments was seen as a very positive announcement because it had the strong potential to reduce or eliminate the impact of vaccine hesitancy on the medical system. But this new variant appears to be vaccine-resistant; doesn’t that mean that we might need far more of these drugs than we originally thought? BCA: Indeed. The fact that Omicron appears to be even more contagious than Delta and at least partially vaccine-resistant is legitimately concerning, because it could mean that many more courses of treatment of Molnupiravir and Paxlovid will be needed than will be available in the coming weeks and months to prevent a sharp rise in hospitalizations and deaths. At the same time, public comments by South African doctor Angelique Coetzee, who chairs the South African Medical Association and treated several patients suspected of having been infected with the Omicron variant, suggest that it may produce milder symptoms – which would be associated with a lower hospitalization rate.1 If Omicron outcompetes the Delta variant of the virus, but produces less severe disease, that could ironically prove to be a positive development. The fact that Omicron could render monoclonal antibody treatments useless could further reduce vaccine hesitancy in advanced economies and encourage the vaccination of children. That would further reduce the total incidence of severe illnesses even if Omicron is partially vaccine-resistant, and thus would be positive from the perspective of reducing the burden on the health care system. Still, South Africa’s population is considerably younger than those of advanced economies, and we will not know for some time whether a reduction in severe illness, if that proves to be true, applies also to those who are older. If Omicron threatens a significant hospitalization or fatality rate among the elderly who have been fully vaccinated, Omicron-specific booster shots for that age cohort will likely be required – which could take 3-4 months to become available. If that proves to be the path forward, the widespread reintroduction of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) – the policymaker codeword for travel bans, school closures, and lockdowns – is certainly a possible outcome in the first quarter. Omicron will have at least some impact on global travel over the coming month, as countries around the world decide to err on the side of caution and impose travel restrictions while more information is gathered about this new variant. To conclude on this question, as you noted, we are not medical experts. And frankly even if we were, we would not be able to project exactly how the pandemic will unfold next year. Thus, there is more uncertainty concerning our 2022 outlook than would normally be the case. Prior to the emergence of Omicron, our base case view was that the pandemic would meaningfully recede in importance next year, which would lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. For the reasons that we have laid out, we have not yet seen enough information to change that view for 2022 as a whole, although the opposite will likely be true for the next few weeks at a minimum. We may have to have you both back for another discussion in the first half of next year to revisit our outlook, but for now it is not our expectation that we are back to square one on the pandemic front. Chart 4A 30-Year High In US Inflation Mr. X: Thank you for your insights. Although this is clearly a concerning development, I suppose that there is no use panicking yet, as we do not have the information that we need to make an informed judgement. Perhaps we can turn to the question of inflation, given that seems likely to be an important economic and policy factor next year regardless of whether Omicron extends the duration of the pandemic. As both my daughter and I highlighted, this year’s rise in consumer prices was extreme, at least by the standard of the past three decades. As you know, I have my own views about why this has occurred, and I suspect that you do not fully agree with me. But for the sake of our discussion, please outline your views about what has occurred this year, and what that implies for policy and financial markets. BCA: As you noted, in both the US and euro area economies, headline consumer price inflation rose this year to their highest levels since the early-1990s (Chart 4). The rise in core inflation has been less extreme in the euro area, but it is also back to early-1990s levels in the US (panel 2). It is understandable that investors are worried about inflation remaining very elevated, and we agree that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast next year. However, our base case view is that investors are currently overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and that actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. As such, we do not expect that inflation next year will lead to a major shift in the monetary policy outlook, and we would continue to recommend that global investors stay overweight stocks versus bonds in 2022. Mr. X: I am surprised that you have a sanguine inflation outlook given how sharply consumer prices have risen this year. It sounds like you are blindly accepting the “transitory” narrative that central banks themselves are now questioning! This year’s surge in consumer prices has several causes, and a review of these factors is necessary to predict how future prices are likely to evolve. Fundamentally, any change in price can be traced to changes in supply and demand, and both of those effects worked in the direction of higher consumer prices this year. Chart 5 outlines the clear evidence of demand-side effects. The US fiscal response to the pandemic was more forceful than in the euro area, and US core consumer prices have correspondingly risen much more than in Europe. The chart highlights that US durable goods prices have been responsible for more of the surge in prices this year than has been the case for services, reflecting strong goods demand from US consumers. Chart 6 highlights that US real goods spending is 9.8% above its pre-pandemic trend, whereas it is 4.5% below for services. Extremely strong goods demand partially reflects the impact of fiscal and monetary stimulus, but also a shift in spending from services to goods owing to the nature of the pandemic and the type of activity that it has restricted. We expect that another shift in spending mix will occur next year in the opposite direction, barring a major extension of the pandemic from Omicron. Chart 5A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects Chart 6US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend You referenced the “transitory” debate in your question, and the answer to whether above-target inflation is likely to be transitory is both yes and no. Many of the supply-side effects that are driving prices are transitory, in the sense that they will not last beyond the pandemic. That view should not be controversial. But, some of the demand-side effects lifting prices are not. Chart 7A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices In the US, supply effects are seen by observing services prices. Services prices in the US have risen despite a collapse in demand, pointing to supply-side effects as the dominant driver of higher prices. A significant decline in labor force participation has caused a shortage of workers, which is driving up wages for the first quartile of wage earners (the lowest paid) who often work in service-providing industries (Chart 7). Faced with higher labor costs alongside low operating margins and the expectation that demand will continue to recover, service providers have raised prices to stay afloat. The specific causes of the ongoing labor market shortage in the US are multifaceted, but most relate directly to the pandemic: There has been a surge in the number of retirees, mainly driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans (who are more vulnerable to COVID-19) shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”. Workers in some sectors of the economy that experienced a surge in demand during the pandemic (technology, health care, food products, transportation, and manufacturing) have experienced burnout and have quit their jobs. Some service-sector workers have complained of difficult working conditions during the pandemic (the need to wear masks, the policing of masks and vaccination passports, overwork due to short-staffed conditions, negative interactions with customers, etc.) and have instead chosen not to work until these conditions improve. Some parents have been unable or unwilling to reenter the labor force due to increased childcare requirements resulting from daycare/school/classroom closures. Chart 8Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Chart 8 highlights that legal immigration to the US collapsed during the pandemic following a restriction in worker visas last year, which has also likely exacerbated worker shortages in some industries. Illegal immigration has surged over the past year, but illegal workers do not necessarily immediately enter the labor market and are often employed in a narrow set of industries. Mr. X: But if these supply-side effects that you are pointing to are mostly on the services side, does that not imply that goods inflation will remain very elevated next year due to excessive demand? BCA: No. As we mentioned, some of this goods spending is being funded by income that would normally go towards services spending. We doubt that a services spending deficit will be sustained if the pandemic recedes next year, meaning that some spending will naturally be diverted away from goods. Chart 9Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs In addition, other supply-side factors are also impacting consumer prices for both goods and services, and on both sides of the Atlantic: Global shipping costs have surged, particularly for cargo containers traveling from China / East Asia to the west coast of the US. US demand for goods has certainly boosted shipping prices, but Chart 9 highlights that supply-side effects have also been present. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Semiconductor shortages have limited automotive production, thereby significantly boosting US vehicle prices. These shortages have occurred, in part, due to a global surge in semiconductor demand stemming from work-from-home policies, but also demand/supply coordination failures last year (auto producers initially cut chip orders on the expectation of collapsing car sales) and COVID-driven plant shutdowns in some Asian countries such as Malaysia. Energy prices have risen this year, partially due to supply-side / policy decisions. In the case of oil & gasoline prices, OPEC’s production decisions clearly reflect a desire to maintain oil prices at roughly $80/bbl, 30% above the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic. US shale producers have focused on repairing their balance sheets over the past year, and have not been able to take advantage of higher prices to boost output. Chart 10 highlights that US tight oil production remains roughly 10% below its pre-pandemic peak. In Europe, the impact of higher energy prices has occurred mainly though a spike in the price of natural gas, mostly due to weather, carbon pricing, Russian supply issues, and a surge in China’s natural gas demand. Chinese natural gas demand has surged in response to very strong manufacturing activity / export demand, but also previous decisions by Beijing to shift towards cleaner energy sources and the limitation of coal imports from certain countries (which has contributed to a collapse in Chinese coal inventories). So while it is clear that there is a strong underlying demand component that has boosted goods prices, supply-side factors have magnified the acceleration in consumer prices this year. Most of these supply-side factors (except for oil) have been directly linked to the pandemic, and thus are likely to wane in 2022 if the pandemic recedes (as we currently expect). In the case of oil, our view is that spot prices in 2022 are likely to average the price that prevailed prior to the Omicron-driven collapse in prices, meaning that the energy component that has been boosting headline price indexes this year will likely disappear next year even if recent travel bans are not long lasting and oil prices fully recover. Ms. X: Even if the pandemic does recede in importance and household spending shifts from goods to services next year, you acknowledged that goods spending is also being boosted by policy. This implies that goods spending will remain above trend next year, and that it will continue to boost consumer prices. Doesn’t that argue for elevated inflation? BCA: We agree that several factors point to above-trend goods spending next year, and this is the basis – in addition to lingering supply-side effects – for our view that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast for 2022 (2.2% headline and 2.3% core). However, Chart 11 shows a historically unprecedented “goods spending gap” relative to the overall output gap. It is unlikely that this has occurred only due to stimulative policy. Services spending collapsed during the pandemic, as Chart 6 highlights. So while goods spending will likely remain above its trend, supported by policy as well as a large stock of excess savings, it is likely to decline next year. Chart 10US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level Chart 11US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone   Lower goods demand in advanced economies will not only ease rising goods prices. It will also help ease Europe’s energy crisis, as it implies less competition for natural gas from China’s power companies which are struggling to supply the manufacturing sector. Chart 12Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Ms. X: One thing that has concerned me is how significantly inflation expectations have risen. Won’t persistent price increases become self-fulfilling if consumers and businesses come to expect inflation? BCA: This is a risk, and the dynamic that you are referring to is explicitly incorporated into modern-day interpretations of the Phillips Curve. However, if this were likely to occur, we should be able to observe a dangerous rise in both short- and long-dated inflation expectations on the part of investors, businesses, and households. Chart 12 highlights that long-term inflation expectations are not out of control. Short-term expectations for inflation have indeed exploded higher, but longer-term expectations remain under control. Inflationary pressure during the pandemic has normalized longer-term household expectations for inflation, which fell following the 2014/2015 collapse in oil prices. And long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have not even risen back to pre-2014 levels, underscoring that investors do not believe that current inflationary pressures are likely to persist. A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations next year would negatively alter our monetary policy and economic outlook, but it is clear that economic agents believe that current price pressure is directly linked to the pandemic. We agree, for the most part, and thus expect concerns about inflation to step down next year. Mr. X: Let’s turn to the question of extremely elevated government debt. We discussed this issue last year, and you noted that the explosion in public debt loads would carry significant future costs. Governments have been kicking the can down the road for a long time now, and I am interested in your perspective about the timing of the endgame. When do you think the day of reckoning will arrive? BCA: It is true that government debt-to-GDP ratios have risen substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been truer in the US and UK than in the euro area, which has seen a comparatively smaller rise in government net debt as a % of GDP since the early 2000s (Chart 13). In the US, the government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War. Chart 13 also highlights that the IMF is forecasting a reduction in government net debt as a share of GDP in the euro area over the coming 5 years, a modest rise in the UK, and larger rise in the US. Over a 30-year time horizon, the US government debt-to-GDP ratio is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years (Chart 14). Part of the CBO’s forecast of a catastrophic rise in government debt-to-GDP is due to projections of a persistent primary deficit that will grow over time. But it is also the case that the net interest component of the CBO’s projected deficit begins to rise significantly as a share of the total deficit at the start of the next decade. This rise in net interest payments occurs significantly because the CBO assumes that interest rates will eventually exceed the prevailing rate of economic growth due to crowding out effects (Chart 15). Chart 14The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... Chart 15...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions   We doubt that this will occur, at least not in the linear fashion the CBO is projecting. It is true that central banks only control the short-end of the yield curve (absent yield curve control policies), meaning that investors could force yields on long-maturity government bond yields to rise above the prevailing level of nominal growth. But in a world of scarce absolute returns, it is unlikely that investors will price long-maturity US government bonds with an elevated term premium until the US government’s debt service burden becomes extreme. Given that a significant portion of the US government’s debt is issued with a short maturity, that debt service burden is at least partially a function of the Fed’s decisions, not those of bond investors. Chart 16US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit An increase in real short-term interest rates over the coming several years might, ironically, be the best thing for US government debt sustainability over the long term, even though it would cause the US government’s debt service burden to rise. Ultimately, debt sustainability requires a balanced primary budget, and the structural US primary balance is heavily impacted by elevated medical costs and the fact that US government revenue as a share of GDP is considerably lower than in other countries (Chart 16). Given the political costs involved, primary balance reform in the US is unlikely to occur without some form of budgetary pressure from rising interest costs, and the longer the US government’s debt service burden remains low the longer that this reform is delayed. You asked about the timing of the endgame, and a potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a share of GDP exceeds the prior high reached in the early-1990s, which could occur as soon as 5 years from now were the Fed to raise interest rates towards the pace of nominal GDP growth.2Without such an increase, the US government’s debt burden will likely remain serviceable for decades, even without primary balance reform. Mr. X: I am happy that you referenced the Fed in your answer, because I wanted to address the question of central bank independence. Will elevated government debt prevent the Fed from raising rates if needed to control inflation? With the Fed projecting a very low Federal funds rate in the future, it seems like today’s central bankers may be incapable of acting as Volker did, should they need to do so. BCA: It is true that the Fed is projecting a very low average long-term Fed funds rate, but this projection is not due to political pressure or concerns about the US government’s future debt service burden. It reflects the Fed’s belief that the neutral rate of interest has fallen, based on the economic experience of the past decade, as well as the belief that an asymmetry exists in the economic costs of errors associated with estimating the neutral rate. On the latter point, the Fed believes that the cost of overestimating the neutral rate is likely to be higher than the cost of underestimating it, given the inability to cut interest rates meaningfully below zero. During our discussion last year, we noted that rising populism will make it very difficult for fiscal authorities to take preemptive action to address the US’s primary deficit, and it is possible that public opposition to normalized interest rates could cause the Fed to maintain easier monetary policy than is otherwise warranted – especially if the public perceives a link between Fed tightening and painful fiscal reform. However, our base case view remains that the Fed would resist these pressures, and would act in a way that the central bank felt was the best course of action to pursue its mandate. We would underscore that the risk of an overshoot in inflation from too-easy monetary policy does not require the Fed’s independence to become compromised. The Fed could be wrong in its assessment of the neutral rate of interest, and also wrong in its assessment of the costs of that error. Leaving the latter issue aside for now, there are good arguments in favor of the view that the neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed currently believes. We can discuss those arguments in detail when we turn to the bond market outlook, but this does imply that inflation may be even more above the Fed’s target over the medium term than we believe will be the case next year. Ms. X: I have one last question related to inflation before we move on to your economic outlook. In terms of the usage of technology, the pandemic caused major behavioral changes to occur very quickly. Is it possible that we are on the cusp of a productivity boom, similar to what occurred during the 1990s, that will act to restrain inflation over the coming few years? BCA: It is possible that the pandemic has catalyzed some changes that will end up boosting productivity, given that many consumers, workers, and businesses were forced to embrace innovation quickly over the past 18 months. Governments have also made historic investments in both hard and soft infrastructure, including high-speed internet and renewable energy. But, for now, there is little evidence to support the idea that a major, technologically-driven productivity boom is occurring. Chart 17 highlights that measured productivity has fallen outside of the US since the pandemic began, and the US surge is likely explained by three factors: labor market composition effects, the fact that US productivity normally rises during recessions, and the fact that US fiscal response was more forceful than elsewhere (boosting spending and output relative to the number of workers). The cyclical characteristics of US measured productivity were particularly evident in Q3, when output per hour of all employees fell by roughly 5% on an annualized basis. It is also the case that the pandemic has likely lowered potential output in some areas of the economy, particularly sectors related to office worker presence in central business districts. Even if employer plans for workers to return to the office prevail and office presence increases significantly in 2022, it is very likely that some work-from-home activity will permanently stick and that this will structurally increase the US unemployment rate.3 For now, our sense is that this increase will be modest, but the key point is that the rapid adoption of new technology and ways of working during the pandemic have not occurred without cost, and it is far from clear that this will be productivity-enhancing on a net basis. The ongoing, typical pace of technological development may help ease inflationary pressures over the longer-term, but investors should not yet conclude that the pandemic has accelerated this process. The Economic Outlook Chart 18On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year Ms. X: Thank you. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced, but I take your point that the productivity issue needs to be examined on a net basis. Let’s turn now to the outlook for growth next year. Starting first with developed markets, what do you expect in terms of the pace of economic growth, and how does that expectation differ from consensus market expectations? BCA: While we are less concerned about short-term inflation than most investors, we generally agree with consensus expectations for growth next year. Chart 18 shows that both official and private forecasts for real GDP growth in the US and euro area are well above trend, and that the US and euro area output gaps are likely to turn positive next year. In Q4 2021 and Q1 2022, it is possible that the Omicron variant will negatively impact economic growth. But assuming that the pandemic does recede in importance for the year as a whole, the basis for expecting above-trend growth in advanced economies next year is straightforward: we expect that monetary policy will remain extremely accommodative in the US and euro area, and will likely remain so even if the Fed begins to raise interest rates. In addition, the collapse in spending that occurred last year, arrayed against stable-to-higher income, has caused households to accumulate a massive amount of savings that will support consumption. Chart 19Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Chart 19 highlights that this has occurred in both the US and the euro area. In the euro area, income was relatively stable, and spending has yet to fully recover – supporting the view that a catch-up in European consumption will boost euro area growth to above-trend levels. In the US, personal income rose during the pandemic, because the US government issued stimulus checks to Americans who did not lose their job. Some of these excess savings have been spent or used to pay down debt, but a sizeable portion remains to support spending. Chart 20 highlights that US household net worth has exploded higher over the past 7 quarters, by a magnitude that far exceeds any other instance since the Second World War. It is true that fiscal policy will subtract from growth in both the US and euro area next year, although it remains an open question how much drag will occur in the US. Chart 21 presents the Hutchins Center Fiscal Impact Measure from the Brookings Institution, which suggests that US fiscal drag will be significant in 2022. This measure does not include the recent infrastructure bill, or the Build Back Better plan. However, Chart 22 presents the IMF’s projections for the US and euro area cyclically-adjusted budget balance, which suggest meaningfully less drag next year for the US. Chart 20US Household Net Worth Has Surged In the case of the euro area, Chart 22 highlights that the IMF is forecasting considerable fiscal drag next year, which seemingly contradicts optimistic expectations for euro area growth. There are two reasons to believe that euro area growth will be meaningfully above-trend in 2022, despite fiscal retrenchment. First, the IMF’s projected reduction in the euro area’s cyclically-adjusted primary deficit reflects the expiry of employment support programs such as the Kurzarbeit scheme in Germany, a social insurance program that incentivizes employers to reduce employee hours rather than laying off workers. The expiry of these types of programs is politically tied to a continued recovery in domestic consumption and further gains in service-sector employment, meaning that some of the fiscal drag projected in Chart 22 is necessarily linked to a growth impulse from the private sector. Certainly, these programs will be renewed or extended if the Omicron variant significantly weakens near-term economic growth in the euro area. Second, while the positive contribution to euro area growth from goods exports will likely wane over the coming year as spending in advanced economies shifts from goods to services, European services exports will eventually improve. Chart 23 highlights that the recovery in foreign tourist visits to the euro area is in its very early innings, and a normalization of tourist travel will eventually act as a significant contributor to income and employment growth in the region. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, Europe was the third most impacted region globally from the decline in travel, after the Caribbean and Asia Pacific.4 It is clear that tourist travel will not pick up as long as Omicron-related travel bans are in effect, but Europe’s peak tourist season typically runs from June to August, which is beyond the range of time supposedly needed by vaccine manufacturers to produce Omicron-specific booster shots (should they be required). Chart 23European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind Mr. X: I would like to challenge you on your growth view. First, the economy was already slowing, and now there is a risk that the Omicron variant might slow at least some economic activity even further in the near term. You have stated that there will be some degree of fiscal drag next year, and that savings might be deployed to support spending – but might not. Should I not be concerned that growth might fall back to trend or even below it? BCA: The pandemic was economically unprecedented, and investors should thus be careful about what growth rates are used to characterize the pace of ongoing economic activity. For example, Chart 24 highlights that euro area real GDP growth is slowing on a year-over-year basis, but it accelerated fractionally on a sequential basis in Q3 and grew substantially above-trend. It should not be surprising that advanced economies are no longer reporting double-digit growth rates given the ongoing recovery from extremely depressed rates of economic activity last year. The question is whether growth will slow dramatically further, and whether at or below trend growth is likely on average next year. Prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant, investors had little reason to be concerned about significantly below trend growth in 2022. Forward-looking economic indicators were not pointing to this outcome; Chart 25 shows our global Nowcast indicator, a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production, alongside our global leading economic indicator. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global leading economic indicator (LEI) are indeed declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. It is therefore correct to say that the global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart 25 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not to a major cyclical downturn. Chart 24Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Chart 25Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth   The US economy did experience a very significant sequential slowdown in Q3, with activity having increased at only a trend rate. Chart 26 makes it clear that this occurred due to the impact of the semiconductor shortage on automotive production and the impact that the Delta wave of COVID-19 had on services spending. Real-time estimates for US growth in the fourth quarter are (for now) quite strong, and growth estimates for next year already likely incorporate the expectation of supply-side limitations. In fact, those expectations could surprise to the upside next year if these limitations ease more quickly than many investors currently expect, and if the Omicron variant turns out to be economically insignificant. If, however, the new variant does end up causing the return of lockdowns and other large-scale “NPIs” – especially in emerging market countries – the risk of further bottlenecks or an extension of existing supply-side problems will certainly rise. Ms. X: Could you provide us some scenarios that combine your growth and inflation views, as well as the odds that you would assign to them? BCA: Certainly. Chart 27 presents our odds of three scenarios for global growth and inflation next year. We assign a 60% chance to above-trend growth and above-target inflation, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, a 10% chance of a recession. We describe the second scenario as “stagflation-lite” because true stagflation, as experienced in the late-1970s, involved a very elevated unemployment rate. Using the US Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator for advanced economies (Chart 28), investors should note that true stagflation is not likely unless the unemployment rate rises. Despite the ongoing impact of component and labor shortages, there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. For now, the impact of outright component shortages appears to be limited to the auto sector. Chart 28It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises Even if goods-producing employment slows anew over the coming few months due to supply constraints, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes. This underscores the importance of services spending in advanced economies as a core driver of global economic activity over the coming year, given the ongoing weakness in several segments on China’s economy. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been closely watching China’s economy this year, and we have been getting increasingly concerned by the extent of the slowdown in activity there. Do you anticipate a pickup in Chinese growth in 2022? BCA: Yes, but a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. There are three reasons for this. First, economic output in China will continue to be restrained over the coming months by the country’s ongoing energy crisis, which caused a sharp slowdown in electricity production in August (Chart 29). Production rebounded somewhat in September and October, but remained fairly weak. China’s energy crisis has occurred due to a combination of very strong electricity demand from the country’s manufacturing sector, as well as a significant reduction in coal emphasis, including coal imports from key producers that otherwise would have helped close the supply-demand gap (Chart 30). China’s coal stocks remain extremely low, underscoring that Chinese policymakers would not be capable of pushing through traditionally energy-intensive stimulus even if they were inclined to do so. Chart 29China's Energy Crisis Will Linger Second, strong external demand is supporting Chinese manufacturing employment (Chart 31), so Chinese policymakers feel less of a sense of urgency to boost economic growth despite a significant slowdown in China’s credit impulse and the ongoing slowdown in real-estate activity. Social stability will always remain the paramount objective of Chinese policymakers, and we fully expect a policy response if economic growth slows to the point that it impacts employment. Chart 30China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply Chart 31Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment But because of the extreme rise in private-sector debt that has accumulated in China over the past decade, Chinese policymakers now perceive a tradeoff between economic growth and additional leveraging. This implies that the timing and magnitude of reflationary efforts from China’s policymakers are likely to be carefully calibrated to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth, in line with what occurred in 2018 and 2019. In fact, while many investors regard China’s policy response during that time as having been too timid, within China many commentators have lauded it as an example of finely balanced decision-making. Third, China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will likely remain in effect at least until the Beijing Olympics in February, and potentially until the 20th National Party Congress in October. The potential risk from the Omicron variant will only reinforce the resolve of Chinese policymakers on this issue, which implies that Chinese consumption and services activity could follow a stop-and-go pattern over the coming 6 months. Chinese policymakers are likely aware that a zero-tolerance policy towards COVID is ultimately unsustainable, but we expect policymakers to react aggressively towards outbreaks next year in advance of these two major events. Ms. X: It sounds like Chinese policymakers do not want to stimulate at all. Why is a reacceleration in activity even likely? BCA: We expect further easing from Chinese policymakers next year because the strong demand for Chinese goods that is currently supporting employment is likely to slowly wane over the coming several months. Chinese export volume has been very closely tied to US real goods consumption over the past year (Chart 32), which, as we noted earlier, is 9.8% above the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. A likely decline in US goods spending from current levels, even if it remains above trend, suggests that Chinese manufacturing employment will not be as strong on average next year as is currently the case. Chart 33 highlights the extent of the weakness in China’s credit impulse and its real estate sector, underscoring that China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by manufacturing. Chart 32China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked Chart 33China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand     In addition, for political reasons, policymakers in China are very likely to want stable-to-improving economic conditions in the lead up to the National Party Congress in October. Given the lags between the implementation of stimulus and its effect on the economy, this points to further easing and/or outright stimulus in Q1 or Q2, and a reacceleration in economic activity in the latter half of the year. Chart 34Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Ms. X: Let’s turn now to monetary policy. You mentioned that monetary policy will remain very easy next year, but investors have moved to price between one and two interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve in 2022. Do you agree with the market’s assessment? BCA: Our base case view is that investors are now overly hawkish and that an initial rate hike will most likely occur only in September or December 2022 – despite a seemingly hawkish pivot from the Fed. It is important to note that investors have moved up their expectations for rate hikes next year entirely in response to elevated inflation. Chart 34 highlights that the sharp increase in the US 2-year Treasury yield over the past few months has occurred alongside a decline in the real 2-year yield, underscoring that investors believe that inflation will force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects. We expect the pressure on prices to wane next year rather than intensify, meaning that rate-hike bets have likely been driven by the wrong factor. A dangerous rise in long-dated inflation expectations would change our view and validate market pricing. But, as we noted above, this has not yet occurred despite very elevated inflation this year and expectations of elevated inflation next year. This underscores that economic agents view the current pace of inflation as strongly linked to the pandemic, and thus see it as a temporary phenomenon. Table 2The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Table 2 presents the three factors that will determine when the Fed decides to lift rates, based on the Fed’s official forward guidance. The two inflation-related criteria are currently checked, but the remaining labor market criterion is not checked. The Fed has officially pledged not to lift rates until “maximum employment” is reached, although that pledge may change in December. Still, we expect that progress towards “maximum employment” will influence the timing of the first rate hike unless there are no signs of easing inflation over the next several months. Our sense is that an unemployment rate close to 3.8% and a working-age participation rate close to its pre-pandemic level will be required to check the third box shown in Table 2. Chart 35The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise Importantly, it is not clear that these factors will be in place before September next year. Chart 35 highlights that while the working-age participation rate has moved back closer to its pre-pandemic level, it still has further to go. If the rate increases at the pace that occurred in the first half of this year, it would not return to its pre-pandemic level until August/September at the earliest, which would certainly narrow the window for two rate hikes next year. The bar for the Fed’s unemployment rate criterion is also high enough that betting on two rate hikes next year appears excessive. Table 3 presents the average monthly jobs growth needed to reach an unemployment rate of 3.8% at different points over the next year. This highlights that a meaningful and sustained acceleration in jobs growth is required for the Fed to raise interest rates in July. Table 3Calculating The Time To Maximum Employment Mr. X: But these projections are based on the overall participation rate, and we have seen a surge in retirements during the pandemic. Doesn’t that mean that the unemployment rate will fall faster than the Fed currently expects, and that investors are right to move up their rate hike expectations? BCA: We have seen a huge increase in the number of retirees, and you are correct that a more rapid reduction in the unemployment rate could occur if pandemic retirements turn out to be “sticky”. However, we would point to two facts that suggest at least a portion of the surge in retirements will reverse. Chart 36Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend First, the surge in retirement during the pandemic is more than what would be implied by underlying demographic trends. Chart 36 shows that while the share of the US population that is retired has been steadily rising, it is now significantly above its 2010-2019 trend. Second, a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force,5 a phenomenon that we would expect to reverse as the pandemic abates. If the Omicron variant turns out to be threatening to the health of the older population even if they have been vaccinated, then we would not expect retiree reentry into the labor force until variant-specific booster shots are available. Chart 37Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Uncertainty over the status of retired workers is why we believe the Fed will focus on the working-age participation rate in judging whether the labor market has returned to a state of maximum employment. If the unemployment rate falls more quickly than expected because of a retiree-effect on the overall participation rate, the Fed will then turn to the working-age participation rate to judge the extent of labor market slack. It is only if non-supply driven wage growth is excessive and/or long-dated inflation expectations move sharply higher that the Fed will move in line with current market pricing. Mr. X: What about the ECB? Do you expect any monetary policy tightening in the euro area in 2022? BCA: Chart 37 highlights that investors had previously been expecting the ECB to raise interest rates once next year, lagging the Fed by roughly one rate hike. These expectations have been dialed back recently in response to the COVID situation in Europe as well as the news about Omicron. Chart 38Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based We agree that the ECB will raise rates after the Fed does, but we do not think that a euro area rate hike will occur next year – even once the pandemic situation improves. As is the case for the Fed, investors had been expecting that the ECB will be forced to respond to very elevated inflation. But Chart 38 highlights that euro area core inflation is barely above 2%, and panel 2 makes it clear that the rise in core euro area prices is not broad-based. This underscores that much of the rise in euro area prices is driven by commodities and problems with the global supply chain, neither of which will be fixed by higher euro area interest rates. As such, we agreed with ECB President Christine Lagarde’s pushback against market expectations for a rate hike next year, barring a much faster labor market recovery in advanced economies than we currently expect. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: Thank you. Our monetary policy discussion serves as an excellent segue to the bond market outlook, and a question that I have been eager to pose to you. I find it astounding that long-maturity government bond yields remained so low this year given the longer-term inflationary risk, and given recent bets that central banks would be forced to move earlier than they had previously anticipated. Even if those bets unwind as a result of Omicron, I would like an explanation of what kept bond yields so low this year. In particular, I would like you to share your thoughts about what could cause bond yields to eventually react to the potential for higher inflation? Chart 39Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative BCA: The behavior of long-maturity government bonds this year reflects the view of both the Fed and market participants that the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy (Chart 39). According to the Federal Reserve’s Statement on Longer Run Goals And Monetary Policy Strategy, the FOMC “judges that the level of the federal funds rate consistent with maximum employment and price stability over the longer run has declined relative to its historical average.” Bond investors agree with the Fed’s view, bolstered by previously low academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest such as those presented by the Laubach-Williams model. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but it is far from clear that it remains as low as the Fed and investors believe. The neutral rate of interest fell during the first half of the last economic cycle because of a persistent period of household deleveraging and balance-sheet repair, which was a multi-year consequence of the financial crisis and the insufficient fiscal response to the 2008-09 recession. Academic estimates of R-star are misleading,6 and it is clear that US household balance sheets are now in a much better state than they were in the lead-up to the GFC. Debt to disposable income for US households has fallen back to 2001 levels (Chart 40), the ratio of total liabilities to net worth has fallen meaningfully for most income categories (panel 2), and the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s (Chart 41), underscoring the capacity of US consumers to withstand higher interest rates. It is true that the US corporate sector leveraged itself over the course of the last economic cycle, but at least some of this increase in debt has served to fund capital structure changes, rather than the accumulation of a large stock of “deadweight” excess capacity. Chart 40US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be Chart 41The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low     Investors should certainly be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for “R-star” are rising, but it is not probable that this will occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. This means that the bond market outlook over the coming year is dependent on the market’s assessment of the timing and pace of Fed rate hikes. Ms. X: You noted earlier that you disagree with the bond market’s outlook for US rate hikes next year. What are the fixed-income portfolio implications of that view? BCA: It is possible that the Fed may begin raising interest rates as early as next summer, but this is only likely to occur if jobs growth meaningfully accelerates, the surge in net retirements during the pandemic is durably sticky (beyond any potential impact from the Omicron variant), or long-dated inflation expectations become unanchored. It is not likely to occur simply because actual inflation, driven significantly by supply-side factors, is elevated. Chart 42A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year For short-maturity bonds, the investment implications of this view are more focused on the real versus inflation components of yields, rather than the existence of major mispricing of 2-year Treasury yields. US government bond yields have risen both at the short- and long-end due to rising inflation expectations, and real yields have fallen. We expect a more significant rise in real than nominal yields over the coming year. As such, investors should sell 2-year inflation protection, which is currently pricing too tepid of a deceleration in the pace of advance of consumer prices. For 10-year US Treasurys, we expect that yields will rise to between 2-2.25% over the coming year, as the Fed moves towards eventual rate hikes. Chart 42 presents FOMC-implied fair value estimates for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year Treasury yield, and underscores that bond yields are set to moderately rise next year. We are uncomfortable with the Fed’s projection of a permanently lower neutral rate of interest, but we see no evidence yet that surging inflation is changing the market’s assessment of the long-run average Fed funds rate. So for now, we recommend that fixed-income investors maintain a short-duration stance, but we do not expect a very severe rise in yields at the long-end of the curve next year. Ms. X: And what positioning would you recommend within a global fixed-income portfolio? BCA: The likely sequencing of central bank rate hikes over the coming 12-18 months suggests that global fixed-income investors should maintain an underweight stance towards US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand, and an overweight stance towards Japan, Europe, and Australia. Among our overweight recommendations, our view that the ECB will lag the Fed makes a clear case to be overweight euro area versus US bonds (both core and periphery), and Chart 43 highlights that rising US bond yields have been strongly correlated with the outperformance of euro area government bonds in US$ hedged terms over the past five years. For Japan, long-maturity JGB yields are likely to remain flat over the next year as they have been since 2016, underscoring that our allocation to JGBs is a strict function of our global duration call (with a short duration stance favoring Japan). In Australia, expectations for monetary policy have turned aggressively hawkish over the past month, with markets now discounting multiple rate hikes next year. While there is a growing case for the RBA to tighten, there are still enough lingering uncertainties about the trajectory for growth and inflation for the RBA to credibly remain on the sidelines next year. As such, we recommend that investors fade the aggressive 2022 rate hike profile discounted in Australian interest rate markets by staying overweight Australian government bonds in global bond portfolios. Among our underweight recommendations, the fact that the BOE is likely to be the next major developed economy central bank to raise interest rates supports a reduced allocation to UK government bonds. Relative to global government bonds, long-dated gilts have recovered somewhat from their earlier selloff in anticipation of a rate hike in early November, but we expect renewed underperformance in 2022. Unlike in the US, long-dated UK inflation expectations are meaningfully above their average of the past 15 years (Chart 44), which is motivating the BOE’s hawkishness. In Canada, the labor market has fully recovered the jobs lost during the pandemic, and the BOC has grown very concerned about the housing market and the potential for low interest rates to further inflate an already excessive amount of household sector debt. We expect a first rate hike from the BOC in the first half of 2022. Chart 43Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Chart 44UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained Finally, a rate hike cycle has already begun in New Zealand, which also has an important link to the housing market. The New Zealand government has altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs, suggesting that the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank attempts to cool off housing demand. Chart 45Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Ms. X: Given the reality of low government bond yields globally, corporate credit has become an increasingly important part of our fixed-income portfolio. My father and I have noticed that corporate bond spreads are very low; should we be making any changes to our allocation to corporate credit? The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy provides strong support for corporate bond spreads. However, US investment-grade corporate bonds offer essentially no value, and we advise investors to seek out higher returns in speculative-grade corporates. The 12-month breakeven spread for US investment-grade bonds is currently at its 2nd historical percentile (Chart 45), and we currently expect excess returns for IG corporates versus duration-matched Treasuries to be capped at 85 bps. For US high-yield bonds, we recommend an overweight stance within a fixed-income portfolio. We estimate that spreads are currently pricing an expected default rate of 3.1%, assuming a 100 bps risk premium and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt. Based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we model that the 12-month default rate will stay between 2.3% and 2.8% next year, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first ten months of this year, well below the estimate generated by our model. The accommodative monetary backdrop provided by the Fed will start to shift at some point in 2022. For now, an elevated 2/10 Treasury slope 85-90 bps suggests that monetary conditions are still accommodative, and our prior work suggests that corporate bond returns are typically strong when the slope is above 50 bps. But when the slope breaks below 50 bps, which could happen as soon as the first half of 2022, we will likely turn more defensive on corporate bonds. A flatter curve suggests a more neutral monetary backdrop, and with valuations already tight it will make sense to take some money off the table. The shifting US monetary policy backdrop leads us to favor European high-yield over US equivalents, as the ECB will be more dovish than the Fed next year. From a fundamental perspective, default rates are projected to be a bit lower in Europe in 2022 (around 2%) compared to the US, in an environment of solid nominal corporate revenue growth and still-moderate borrowing rates. Although valuations are hardly cheap on either side of the Atlantic, we do see better relative value in Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. 12-month breakeven spreads for European Ba-rated high-yield are in the 38th percentile of its historical distribution, while US Ba-rated junk sits in the 24th percentile. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: Thank you for your bond market comments. My view that bond yields have potentially much further to rise over the coming few years suggests that we will earn very little in the way of returns from our fixed-income portfolio, but the equity market outlook is no better. In fact, the medium-to-long term equity outlook is probably the worst that I have seen in a long time. Next year’s outlook is arguably bad as well; equity valuation is extreme, and you are forecasting a rise in long-maturity bond yields next year. In addition, you acknowledge that the longer-term term risks of inflation have risen, and believe that the Fed and investors are underestimating the neutral rate of interest. All of that seems wildly bearish to me! Chart 46US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... BCA: Let’s address the longer-term outlook for stocks in a moment, and for now focus on what is likely to occur next year. Since the US equity market now accounts for 60% of global stock market capitalization, we will outline our US equity views first before turning to the rest of the world. The starting point for any cyclical view of the stock market should be one’s earnings outlook, and based on our economic view we agree with analyst expectations that US revenue growth will remain elevated next year relative to what has prevailed on average over the past decade (Chart 46). Above-trend growth and consumer price inflation point to revenue growth in the high single-digits, and this would normally serve as a conservative estimate for earnings growth given that profit margins have been trending higher since the beginning of the 2009 economic recovery. However, US profit margins have already risen to a new high both for the tech sector (broadly-defined) and ex-tech (Chart 47), and there are credible arguments in favor of an outright contraction in margins over the coming year.7 As such, we expect earnings growth to come in at or below revenue growth, which is currently expected to be about 7% next year. You referenced extreme overvaluation of the equity market, and Chart 48 highlights that the S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio is indeed now as high as it was during the stock market bubble of the late-1990s. But panel 2 of Chart 48 highlights that our proxy for the US equity risk premium (ERP) is in line with its historical average, in stark contrast to the lows that were reached in the late-1990s. Chart 47...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall Chart 48US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal Chart 49Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low These seemingly contradictory perspectives are resolved by the observation that real bond yields are extremely low today. It is reasonable to expect a structural decline in real bond yields over time given a structural decline in the potential growth rate of the economy, but Chart 49 highlights that real long-maturity yields are already substantially lower than estimates of trend growth. If we believed that real US government bond yields were set to rise by 200 basis points over the coming year, we would be categorically bearish towards stocks as it would imply a substantially lower P/E ratio. That, however, is very unlikely to occur while the Fed and investors subscribe to the secular stagnation narrative. While R-star is probably higher than the Fed and investors think, we do not think that these expectations will change before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. As such, while equity multiples may fall over the coming year in response to somewhat higher bond yields, we expect the decline to be relatively modest. Putting this all together, given our base case view that the pandemic will recede in importance next year, we expect mid-to-high single-digit returns from US equities in 2022 – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Mr. X: You showed the equity risk premium over the past 40 years, which was a period of rising financialization. Given the complacency that I see in markets, especially about the longer-term outlook, I strongly question the view that investors are demanding a normal premium as compensation for potential future volatility. Do your conclusions hold up if you use a much longer time horizon? BCA: They do. Chart 50 shows a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset. This indicates that the ERP today is in line with its long-term median. We do not use the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio in this calculation; Chart 50 is simply calculated as the 12-month trailing reported earnings yield minus the real long-maturity bond yield. The chart shows that the ERP was quite low in the late-1990s, and above average for several years following the Global Financial Crisis. The conclusion is that while the US P/E ratio is extremely high today, it is so for a very different reason than what occurred in the late-1990s. At that time, the equity risk premium was extremely low, whereas today equity multiples are high because of very low interest rates. You asked about the longer-term outlook for stocks, and Chart 51 presents a range of possible 10-year total returns for US equities, based on a 100-200bps rise in real long-maturity bond yields and revenue growth on the order of 4-5% per year. These scenarios also assume flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP. Chart 50The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History These returns projections, on the order of 2-5% per year, would beat the returns offered by bonds and thus argue that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets. But they would also fall short of the absolute return goals of many investors, and thus we agree that the longer-term outlook for stocks is poor – unless the ERP falls dramatically as real interest rates rise. That would be calling for a return to the ebullient conditions of the late-1990s, and we struggle to envision how this could occur given the myriad economic and geopolitical risks today that did not exist at that time. Ms. X: I want to address the two important global equity calls that did not pan out quite how you expected when we spoke last year: regional equity allocation and value versus growth. What is your view about these positions in 2022? BCA: Financials did modestly outperform broadly-defined technology stocks in 2021, so elements of the value versus growth trade did pan out. But using the MSCI value and growth indexes as benchmarks, value did underperform, and the relative performance of global value versus growth this year has been strongly linked to the 30-year Treasury yield. This has not always been the case in the past, but this year very long-maturity bond yields have done a very good job at explaining the relative performance of value (Chart 52). In addition, Chart 53 highlights the strong correlation between the relative performance of the US equity market and the relative performance of growth since the onset of the pandemic, which is explained by the US’s comparatively large weighting in broadly-defined technology stocks. Chart 52Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Chart 53Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends     Given our view that long-maturity bond yields are set to rise next year, we find it difficult to bet against value in 2022. At a minimum, a window exists for value’s outperformance, and we do recommend that investors overweight value versus growth next year. Considerable debate exists within BCA about the longer-term outlook for the trend in style, but for next year the majority of BCA strategists expect value to outperform at least for a time. Ms. X: And what about the performance of US stocks versus the rest of the world? BCA: The close link between growth / value and US / global ex-US stocks over the past two years suggests that the US will underperform at some point in 2022 relative to its global peers, although we acknowledge that this case is harder to make. The US did underperform global ex-US in the first quarter of 2021, and again from April to June, but the underperformance eventually gave way to substantial US outperformance. By contrast, the outperformance of global value vs. growth was more sustained in the first half of the year, and the reversal of that performance has been more closely aligned with the trend in bond yields. Our best answer as a firm is that investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. Roughly 70% of global ex-US equity market cap is accounted for by DM economies, with the remaining 30% in emerging markets. Given our China economic view, it is difficult to make the case for EM stocks in the first half of 2022. We see more significant easing in China, potentially in Q2, is the most likely upgrade catalyst for EM. Within DM ex-US, the euro area is the most significant region by weight, and there are two arguments in favor of euro area outperformance at some point next year. First, Chart 54 highlights that euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, suggesting that the US may not fundamentally outperform other DM economies in 2022. Second, Chart 55 highlights that euro area stocks are the cheapest that they have been relative to the US since early-2009 and 2012. In both of these cases, the euro area subsequently outperformed US stocks. Chart 54Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Chart 55Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels     As an additional point about richly valued US equities, it has been argued that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity. But Chart 56 illustrates that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to other developed markets, underscoring that US stocks are expensive above and beyond what fundamental performance appears to justify. That perspective is echoed in Chart 57, which highlights that the US 12-month forward P/E ratio is 50% above that for global ex-US stocks. Chart 56The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Chart 57US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It Given the news about Omicron, and the recent spike in COVID cases and natural gas prices in the euro area, it may be too early to position in favor of DM ex-US stocks versus the US. But a shift from US to global ex-US stocks should be on investors’ watch list for 2022. Chart 58Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Mr. X: What about sector positioning, and small caps? BCA: Cyclical sectors have significantly outperformed defensives this year, and we expect further outperformance in 2022. Defensive sectors tend to underperform when bond yields are rising, and we expect that certain cyclical industries will continue to outperform next year. In particular, banks tend to outperform the broad market when interest rates are rising, pent-up demand will boost the consumer services and automobile industries within consumer discretionary, and industrials will continue to benefit from the surge in capital expenditures, as evidenced by the sharp increase in US core capital goods orders (Chart 58). Resource stocks, on the other hand, may not meaningfully outperform in 2022, at least not consistently. We will discuss our commodity views in a moment, but we expect flat oil prices next year, and our views on China imply that metals and mining stocks may at least passively underperform in the first half of the year. While we generally favor cyclical sectors next year, Chart 59 highlights that the trend in the performance of cyclicals versus defensives (shown in equally-weighted terms) has moved well past its pre-pandemic level, and is now challenging its early-2018 high. Cyclicals have further room to move higher when compared with the levels that prevailed in 2010-2011, but that period reflected resource price levels that we do not expect over the coming year. As such, the performance of cyclicals is getting somewhat late, and we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. In terms of capitalization, Chart 60 highlights that investors should favor small cap stocks versus large caps over the coming year. The chart highlights that the relative performance of global small caps had rebounded to its pre-trade war levels earlier this year, before falling anew in response to the economic consequences of the Delta wave of COVID-19 and the decline in government bond yields. Abstracting from longer-term trends, small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and this has been especially true over the past decade (middle panel). Chart 59Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Chart 60Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022   Our view that government bond yields are set to rise next year, in combination with very attractive relative valuation (bottom panel), makes an overweight small cap stance one of our highest conviction positions with an equity allocation. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You mentioned earlier that you expect oil prices to be essentially unchanged next year from the levels that prevailed prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant. I would appreciate it if you could provide the basis for that view, and also your perspective on natural gas prices given how significantly that market is affecting the European economy. Chart 61We Expect Oil To Trade At -81/Bbl Next Year, On Average BCA: Let’s deal first with crude oil prices. First, it should be noted that we will not have good information on Omicron’s impact on oil demand for a few more weeks, which makes it difficult to assess demand for next year as a whole. Prior to this news, our ensemble supply and demand estimates for crude oil projected an increase in supply from core OPEC 2.0 producers in 2022, on target to return to pre-pandemic levels around the middle of the year. Production from non-core OPEC producers will likely be flat to modestly down, consistent with the downward trend that has been in place over the past decade. On the demand side, our base case view suggests flat-to-modestly higher consumption growth in the DM world, and a pickup in non-OECD demand around the middle or back half of the year. Chart 61 highlights that the net result of these forecasts implies that brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. Geopolitical tension with Iran will most likely persist next year, which contributes to upside risk to our forecast. Clearly, Omicron contributes to downside risk. The fact that spot oil prices are likely to be flat next year does not mean that investors cannot profit from energy-related positions. Chart 61 also highlighted that the oil market is currently backwardated, with a downward sloping forward curve that is below our projected spot price for most of 2022. This means that investors can still profit from the roll yield, and we are comfortable recommending the pursuit of a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts (such as the COMT ETF). On the natural gas front, we expect that spot prices will remain elevated through the winter, especially in Europe. The US Climate Prediction Center maintains 90% odds that La Niña will continue through the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, implying a colder-than-normal winter and thus higher-than-normal natural gas demand. Russia’s restriction of supply for geopolitical advantage can continue well in 2022. Chart 62 highlights that European natural gas storage is well below that of previous years, which has contributed to the almost 400% rise in prices this year. European natural gas prices are rising in part due to competition from China because of its power shortage, and are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unlikely to begin operations early enough to provide relief in H1 2022, although it is possible. Ms. X: One question that I have about the commodity outlook pertains to China. We discussed earlier how China’s economy has slowed this year, and yet metals prices remain in an uptrend. That seems like an aberration, and we would appreciate your thoughts on what is driving the disconnect. BCA: The behavior of industrials metals prices has indeed been confusing for many investors given the slowdown in Chinese economic activity, as evidenced by Chart 63. The annual growth rate of the Bloomberg Industrial Metals Spot Index remains surprisingly elevated given slowing economic activity in China and a meaningful decline in China’s credit impulse. Chart 63Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy   What is missing from this picture is the fact that base metals inventories are very low, due in part to reduced refining activity in China. Charts 64 and 65 present two perspectives on copper inventories: the difference between global production and consumption of refined copper, and the level of warehouse and stock inventories tied to commodity exchanges. Both charts show that inventories have been drawn down heavily this year. Chart 64Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year… Chart 65…And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low     Our expectation that China is likely to slow further over the coming few months arrayed against low metals inventories suggests that the Q1 outlook for metals prices is murky. But as we noted earlier, we expect a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022, implying that base metals prices are likely to be higher in 2022 on average. Over a multi-year horizon, we are quite bullish towards base metals – copper in particular – given the critical role that these metals will play in the push to decarbonize the global economy.8 Base metals capex will have to increase at the mining and refining levels to meet renewables and EV demand, and policymakers will need to work towards diversifying metals' production and refining to reduce the concentration risks that currently exist. We strongly suspect that higher prices will have a role in incentivizing higher base metals production, meaning that longer-term investors should follow a “buy copper on dips” strategy. Mr. X: You noted at the outset that gold fell in nominal terms this year, which was surprising to me. My expectation is that gold would have performed better than it did during a year with the strongest inflation in three decades. You referenced the dollar and real interest rates as drivers of the price of gold; please elaborate on that if you can, and what you expect to see from gold in 2022. BCA: It is not particularly surprising to us that the price of gold has fallen this year in the face of surging inflation. We agree that precious metals are a good hedge against inflation over the very long term, but over the cyclical investment horizon the volatility of gold vastly exceeds that of consumer prices. On this point, a comparison to the stock market is apt. It is often the case that changes in P/E ratios are the dominant drivers of equity returns over 6-12 month periods, and in the case of gold it is almost always the case that the real price of gold determines cyclical returns – not changes in the price level. Chart 66Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Chart 66 highlights that real gold prices have been explained over the past 15 years by changes in the US dollar and especially real 10-year Treasury yields. The chart shows that gold prices are modestly lower today than this historical relationship would imply, possibly reflecting investor unease about the potential for monetary policy tightening next year (above and beyond what is currently reflected by real 10-year yields). Our view that real 10-year yields are likely to rise next year is thus ostensibly bearish for gold, but Chart 66 suggests that some of this effect may already be reflected in prices. As such, we expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down, with the caveat that we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). Chart 67Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Over the longer term, Chart 67 highlights that real gold prices are extremely elevated relative to their history. This largely reflects the fact that real interest rates are well below trend rates of economic growth. As such, we are bearish towards gold prices over the secular horizon, given our expectation that real interest rates are likely to move higher over the longer-term. Ms. X: What is your outlook for the US dollar next year? BCA: We recommend that investors stick with short US dollar positions for 2022. However, we acknowledge that the dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, which may persist as long as investors expect near-term economic weakness in the euro area. The Omicron variant impact on global travel, surging COVID cases, and European natural gas prices will likely cause negative near-term economic surprises, but we do not expect these conditions to last over the coming 12 months. Chart 68EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials Versus major currencies, the broad trend in the dollar tends to be dominated by the USD-EUR exchange rate, and the recent collapse in the euro has contributed to the broad-based rise in the dollar. Chart 68 highlights that the euro area / US real 10-year government bond yield differential has done a good job of predicting the EUR-USD exchange rate since the Global Financial Crisis, and the chart highlights that the euro has fallen 5% below what this relationship would imply. Using Chart 68 as a guide, current pricing of the euro suggests that investors expect a 40 bps decline in the real 10-year yield differential. We expect US long-maturity real yields to rise on the order of 60-70 bps over the coming year, but the recent behavior of the euro is only fair if euro area real yields are mostly unchanged next year. We would bet against such an outcome, as the economic conditions that will eventually cause the Fed to raise interest rates also imply better economic outcomes for the euro area. Chinese economic growth is likely to be better in the second half of next year, which will boost global growth, and euro area consumers also have ample savings at their disposable to support consumer spending. The fact that euro area stocks have more earnings upside relative to pre-pandemic levels also argues against the dollar from the perspective of equity portfolio flows. Chart 69US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought Three additional factors support a bearish dollar view beyond a near-term period of temporary dollar strength. The first is that the Fed is likely to lag the Bank of England and Bank of Canada in terms of moving towards normalizing monetary policy, a bearish outlook for USD-GBP and USD-CAD. The second factor is that the US dollar is normally a counter-cyclical currency, and recent dollar strength is implying a degree of equity market weakness that we do not expect next year. Third, Chart 69 highlights that the US dollar is on the verge of entering extremely overbought territory, underscoring that euro bearishness is likely overdone. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been debating adding cryptocurrencies to our portfolio. As you might guess, she sees promise in cryptos, whereas I see them as a bubble waiting to burst. What are your thoughts? BCA: We have had a similar debate at BCA. There is little doubt that the blockchain technologies underpinning cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The only question is whether cryptocurrencies themselves are worth investing in. Bitcoin has doubled in price seven times since the start of 2016. If it were to double just one more time to $120,000, it would be worth $2.1 trillion, equal to the entire stock of US dollars in circulation. The easy profits in this sector have already been made. Then there is the issue of competition. Many new cryptocurrencies have emerged on the scene since Bitcoin was invented more than a decade ago. Ethereum is the best known, but others such as Solana, Cardano, XRP, and Polkadot are arguably technologically superior. If one invests in this space, at a minimum, one should buy a basket of cryptos, similar to what one would do if one were betting on a new technology but did not know which specific company would ultimately prevail. Mr. X: What about regulation? Is it not just a matter of time before the hammer comes down on the whole sector? BCA: China has banned cryptos, but they continue to thrive, so the sector has proven itself quite resilient to government scrutiny. In fact, regulation could help cryptocurrencies gain the air of respectability, while attracting more institutional investment in the sector. The bigger issue is again, competition, but this time from central banks. Most major central banks are working to develop their own digital currencies. Also keep in mind that governments derive a lot of revenue from “seigniorage” – the ability to create money out of thin air. They would not want to lose that revenue. Mr. X: I am all in favor of depriving governments of the ability to print as much money as they want. But if I wanted to hedge this risk, I would buy gold. BCA: We are inclined to agree, with the caveat that gold itself is already expensive insurance against monetary debasement. Geopolitics Ms. X: I am not sure that I find your arguments about cryptocurrencies to be compelling, but I sense that this is a topic upon which we will have to agree to disagree – at least for now. Perhaps we can close out our discussion with your geopolitical outlook, and what risks my father and I should be most attuned to. BCA: As an overall summary of our view, we contend that the international system will remain unstable in 2022. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor, and is the first of three geopolitical themes that will persist next year and beyond. Multipolarity – or great power struggle – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China (Chart 70). China’s GDP has risen to the top in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years. China’s potential growth is slowing and financial instability will be a recurring theme in 2022 and beyond. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Since China is ultimately capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, the United States is belatedly reacting by penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. Russia and other nationalist powers are also drivers of multipolarity. Chart 71Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme The second geopolitical theme is “hypo-globalization,” in which globalization fails to live up to its potential. The trade intensity of global growth peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10. The stimulus-fueled recovery in the wake of COVID-19 is seeing a trade rebound, which is positive for corporate earnings. But the upside will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 71), which makes nations fearful of each other and hungry for self-sufficiency. The 2010s witnessed a retreat from globalization as developed economies saw private debt bubbles unwind, while emerging economies saw trade manufacturing unwind. Anti-globalization movements entered mainstream politics, in both democratic and authoritarian countries, from the East to the West. Today governments are not behaving as if they will engender a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. For example, the trade war between the US and China has morphed into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a leadership change in the United States. The further consolidation of central government power in China will exacerbate distrust. Chart 72The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets A third theme is populism, or anti-establishment political sentiment, which we discussed at length last year and is likely to escalate in 2022. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. Most of the developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, allowing voters to vent some frustration. But many of the emerging economies are either facing elections or have non-responsive political systems. Either way they may fail to address household grievances. This will be a source of social instability and economic uncertainty in the coming years. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and stands at 15% on average for the major emerging markets, up from around 13% in 2016. The same countries have stimulated their economies, feeding inflationary pressures (Chart 72). Just as the “Arab Spring” unrest destabilized the Middle East and North Africa in the years after the Great Recession, so will new movements destabilize this region or other regions in the wake of COVID-19. Regime failures lead to wars and waves of immigration, which in turn create larger policy changes that can impact markets. Ms. X: What are the investment implications of your geopolitical views? BCA: These three themes – great power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism leads to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and inflation expectations, which is also possible. For example, China’s historic confluence of internal and external political risks has already led to growth disappointments and financial instability. A conflict over the Taiwan Strait, which cannot be ruled out, could begin with deflation and end in inflation, as wars often do. In this respect two geopolitical risks are worthy of repeating: Russia and Iran. Energy producers gain leverage as global energy supplies grow tight. That is why global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 73). This will most likely be the case in 2022. Both of these states are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. If these conflicts explode, they can lead to energy price shortages or shocks, which would clearly raise the odds of the stagflation-lite scenario that we described earlier. Conclusions Mr. X: Thank you very much for another interesting and thorough discussion of the outlook. Our discussion has not swayed me from my deep-seated concern that inflation over the medium-term will be much higher than investors think, and that there are likely to be enormous consequences from this for financial markets. You also acknowledged the long-term risk from a future rise in real interest rates – I suppose I simply see this risk materializing sooner than you do. Ms. X: Even if inflation is only moderately higher over the coming decade, say around 3% on average, that would still seem to have important implications for real portfolio returns. The main purpose of our meeting has been to discuss what will occur in 2022, but last year you provided us with long-term return projections across several asset classes compared with realized historical returns. An update to that would be very much appreciated. BCA: Table 4 presents an update of our long-term return projections based on a 3% inflation scenario, incorporating an allocation to alternative assets. As you highlighted, the projected real portfolio return is just 1% per year over the coming decade, compared with a 6.3% annualized historical real return. The table highlights an important dilemma for investors, which is that government bonds will offer very poor real returns over the coming decade if inflation is higher on average than it has been. Government bonds have traditionally been the core safe-haven assets in investor portfolios, underscoring that global investors may have to accept more volatility to achieve their desired return goals. In our view, this should come in the form of a reduced strategic allocation to US stocks within an equity portfolio, and an increased allocation to alternative assets such as real estate and alternative investments. Table 4Long-Term Return Scenarios In A World With 3% Inflation Ms. X: Thank you. In conclusion, could you summarize your main economic and investment views for 2022? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Our main points are as follows: The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to recede in importance next year. The effect of the recently discovered Omicron variant remains unknown, but we expect any negative economic impact that occurs to be limited to the first half of the year. The existence of effective anti-viral treatments, that are not affected by the virus’s mutation, should help limit the impact of Omicron on the medical system. A receding pandemic will lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. Investors are overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and we expect actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. Economic growth in advanced economies will be above-trend for the year on average, and we expect the US and euro area output gaps to close in 2022. Any economic activity disrupted by Omicron in the first half of 2022 will likely shift into the second half of the year. Above-trend growth will be supported by easy monetary policy, a shift in spending from goods to services, and a sizeable amount of excess savings that will support overall consumer spending. A reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by external demand, and a shift in advanced economy consumer spending from goods to services may be the catalyst for more aggressive easing from policymakers. Stocks will outperform bonds in 2022, but equity market returns will be in single-digit territory – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Equity market volatility may rise in the lead-up to US monetary policy tightening at the end of the year, but we expect only a moderate rise in long-maturity bond yields – which will not threaten economic activity or cause a major decline in equity multiples. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance, and position for lower inflation expectations and higher real rates (especially at the short end of the curve). We recommend selling short-maturity inflation protection. Within a government bond portfolio, overweight Europe (core and periphery), Japan, and Australia. Underweight the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. Within a credit portfolio, favor speculative-grade over investment-grade corporate bonds, and European Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. Equity investors should favor small cap over large cap stocks in 2022. Small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and relative valuation levels are attractive. We generally favor cyclical sectors next year, but stretched relative performance versus defensives means that we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. A window exists for value’s outperformance versus growth in 2022 in response to higher long-maturity government bond yields, and we do recommend the former over the latter. Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. An underweight stance towards EM stocks in 1H 2022 is appropriate until clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Within DM ex-US, we expect euro area outperformance at some point next year: euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, and relative valuation argues for a euro area bounce. Aside from the potential for Omicron-related near-term economic weakness, a shift in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate is a risk that investors should monitor. Our judgement is that this will probably not occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. The oil market is currently backwardated, meaning that investors should pursue a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts. European natural gas prices are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The outlook for base metals in the first half of 2022 is murky. Metals inventories are low, but China is likely to slow further over the coming few months. Our expectation of a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022 means that, on average, base metals prices will be higher in 2022. We expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down next year, although we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). The US dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, depending on the extent of the economic impact from the Omicron variant. Beyond that, the dollar’s countercyclical nature, above-trend global growth, and overbought conditions suggest that investors should bet on a lower dollar. The international system will remain unstable in 2022. Multipolarity, “hypo-globalization”, and populism will remain important geopolitical themes next year (and beyond). The Editors December 1, 2021   Footnotes 1   “South African doctor who raised alarm about omicron variant says symptoms are ‘unusual but mild,” The Telegraph, November 27, 2021. 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates," dated April 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy," dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  June 2021, “Global Economic Impact Trends 2021”, World Travel & Tourism Council 5  What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 6  Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "COP26 Meets During Policy-Induced Crisis," dated October 28, 2021, available at ces.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Investors and consumers expect that inflation will remain quite high over the next year, but they are unconcerned that upward price pressures will last: According to surveys and market prices, inflation will exceed 4% next year before subsiding over the longer term to the comfortable levels of the last two decades. The Fed also views elevated inflation as a near-term phenomenon and accordingly expects to hike the fed funds rate at a deliberate pace: The Fed is on the same page as the hoi polloi, and is not gearing up to remove accommodation with any particular haste. While the decade following the financial crisis demonstrated that extremely easy monetary policy does not by itself promote high inflation, the landscape has changed: A decade of ZIRP and QE failed to produce any dire effects, but it remains to be seen how extreme monetary and fiscal accommodation will interact. We expect the bull market will end once the Fed falls behind the curve on inflation and is forced to tighten monetary policy aggressively to catch up: We think the bull has another year to run, but excessive stimulation will eventually bring about its demise. Feature For most of the year, every discussion with our investor-clients has eventually worked its way around to inflation. How high is it going to go? How long will it last? What will it mean for the economy? What will it mean for stocks? How will the Fed react? As the year-over-year change in the Consumer Price Index has climbed steadily higher, breaking above 6% last month for the first time in 31 years (Chart 1), the tenor of the conversations has shifted. Investors have come to recognize that the economy is subject to upward price pressures that are more than the temporary by-product of pandemic base effects. Inflation is nonetheless still largely viewed as a temporary phenomenon that will fade once reopening supply bottlenecks can be resolved. While markets are resigned to another year of high inflation, they are secure in the notion that the disinflationary currents of the last several decades will squelch them over the longer term. Chart 1Long Time, No See The tension between the competing ideas that both inflationary and disinflationary currents are real sets up a potential market showdown. If it is only a matter of time before disinflationary forces return to smother today’s post-COVID disruptions, the widely shared consensus view that the fed funds rate will meander its way to a peak of 2% will be validated. The equity bull market will continue, albeit at a slower pace, until it dies of natural causes. Markets could be in for a rude awakening, however, if the forces supporting higher prices outlast the pandemic and overcome the long-running disinflationary trend. This report considers how inflation could ruin the party. Our base-case view is that the Fed will find itself behind the curve. When it does, it will be forced to tighten monetary policy fast and furious, moving more swiftly to a higher terminal fed funds rate than markets currently expect. That will bring down the curtain on the bull market in risk assets and it may also spark the next recession, but we think the good times will last for at least one more year. What Markets Expect: Inflation Despite all the attention higher prices have drawn, investors haven’t gotten too worked up over them. Although they’ve made considerable revisions to their near-term expectations, their expectations for inflation ten years from now haven’t budged since the start of the year. As the Treasury1 (Chart 2) and CPI swaps (Chart 3) markets show, big consumer price increases are expected to be concentrated in the next year, come off the boil in year two and then slowly cool over the next few years. At the back half of the 10-year curve, year-over-year CPI increases are expected to settle into the range that prevailed during the nineties’ and early 2000s’ inflation moderation. Financial markets do not exist in a vacuum, of course, and the expectations of participants in the real economy matter as well. The University of Michigan’s consumer survey indicates that households’ expectations accord with financial markets’ (Chart 4): inflation will be uncomfortably high over the next year but an afterthought five years from now. Whether the phenomenon is called adaptive expectations or recency bias, everyone’s – investors’, consumers’, businesses’, and economists’ (Chart 5) – expectations of the future are colored by the recent past. It is not a stretch to envision consumer prices rising by more than 4% in 2022 after having watched them surge since March, but apparently economic participants will need to see them remain elevated for a longer stretch before they can picture inflation enduring for two or three years, much less five to ten years. Chart 45% Now, But Only 3% Later Chart 5Reliably Anchoring To The Recent Past What Markets Expect: Fed Policy Chart 6Faster, Yes; Farther, No If inflation isn’t expected to persist at an elevated rate for an extended period, there’s no reason to expect that the Fed will aggressively tighten monetary policy. Higher-than-expected inflation readings have led money markets to bring their first rate hike ETA (the liftoff date) forward to next July, and to price in two rate hikes in the second half of next year (Chart 6, top panel). They continue to expect that the Fed will conclude its tightening cycle once the fed funds rate is around 2% (the terminal rate). They also expect that the Fed will take its time getting to that terminal rate, hiking by no more than 75 basis points (“bps”) in a single year (Chart 6, bottom two panels), roughly in line with the 100-bps annual pace of 2017 and 2018. The Fed concurs. As per the latest Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), released after the September FOMC meeting, the 18 board members and regional presidents casting votes expect the FOMC to take its time hiking rates. With exactly half of the voters calling for no rate hikes next year, the median and mean expectations were for one-half and two-thirds of a 25-bps rate hike in 2022, respectively (Chart 7A). By the end of 2023, the median and mean SEP voter expects a cumulative 3.5 and 3.1 25-bps rate hikes, respectively (Chart 7B). By the end of 2024, median and mean expectations are for a cumulative 6.5 and 6.1 25-bps rate hikes, respectively (Chart 7C). ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​ Table 1Same Terminal Rate, Different Liftoff Date Conditions have changed since late-September upon the release of September and October inflation data, though Chair Powell didn’t give any ground in his press conference following the November 3rd meeting. Rounding the expectations at each year-end period as of the September 22nd meeting, the median SEP voter expected zero or one rate hike in 2022, three in 2023 and three in 2024, pushing the top end of the fed funds rate range to 2% as of the end of 2024. Market expectations have moved since the last SEP, with the overnight index swap curve going from zero rate hikes in the next twelve months to two, and from two rate hikes in the next 24 months to five, but financial markets and the Fed remain on the same page (Table 1). A Kinder, Gentler Fed Emboldened by the experience of the last expansion, in which worrisome inflation did not materialize despite a zero fed funds rate and 50-year lows in unemployment, the Fed has embarked on a course quite different from the one the late Paul Volcker might have charted. Nagged by persistently low post-crisis inflation, the FOMC has decided that pursuing an average inflation target that makes up for previous shortfalls will best allow it to meet its price stability mandate. Letting undershoot bygones be bygones paved the way for inflation expectations to slide, constraining its ability to stimulate the economy at the zero bound. To re-anchor expectations in its preferred 2.3-2.5% range, and give a zero fed funds rate more zip, the FOMC must convince markets that it will occasionally let inflation run hot. A more aggressive pursuit of its full employment mandate, as outlined in the August 2020 revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, should also help nudge expectations upward. Per the revisions commentary on the Fed’s website, “The previous expansion demonstrated that a strong labor market can be sustained without inducing an unwanted increase in inflation. To the contrary, when unemployment fell to levels that were previously thought to be unsustainable, the labor market proved remarkably adaptable, bringing many benefits to families and communities that all too often had been left behind. Accordingly, the new Statement … only … [pledges to address] ‘shortfalls of employment from its maximum level’ rather than the [previous] ‘deviations from its maximum level’[.] This change signals that high employment, in the absence of unwanted increases in inflation or the emergence of other risks that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals, will not by itself be a cause for policy concern.”2 The Fly In The Ointment Chart 8Wall Street And Main Street While we acknowledge that the September 22nd SEP may be somewhat out of date as a guide to the board members’ and regional presidents’ fed funds rate expectations, the easier stance outlined in the revised monetary policy strategy statement remains very much in effect. The upshot, from our perspective, is that the FOMC intends to be behind the inflation curve in the coming rate-hiking cycle. If inflation remains contained after lingering pandemic dislocations are resolved, the behind-the-curve takeaway will not be all that impactful for investors. After all, those who positioned for dollar debasement and runaway inflation when the Bernanke Fed introduced QE and ZIRP were clobbered by investors who loaded up on risk assets and blithely rode easy money tailwinds higher. There is a critical difference this time, however, beyond the increasing magnitude of the Fed’s accumulated asset purchases. Pandemic fiscal stimulus has dwarfed the comparatively meager fiscal response to the global financial crisis. And going forward, the Biden administration’s spate of ambitious spending proposals contrasts sharply with the Obama administration’s deficit reduction focus. The post-crisis era has served as a natural experiment on the effects of unprecedented monetary accommodation on economic activity and consumer price inflation. Asset prices surged, buoyed by a negative real fed funds rate and a ballooning Fed balance sheet (Chart 8, top panel), but the rate of growth in consumption (Chart 8, bottom panel) was unchanged. Although household net worth gains lead consumption growth, the vast majority of financial assets are held by households with a low marginal propensity to consume. Asset price inflation doesn’t necessarily lead to consumer price inflation because it doesn’t necessarily have an observable impact on aggregate demand. Fiscal stimulus is different, however. The stimulus packages created to counter the economic effects of COVID-19 put money directly in the hands of households with high marginal propensities to consume. They have been consuming avidly since emerging from their spring 2020 lockdowns (Chart 9) and we expect that they will continue to do so until they’ve run down at least one half of their $2.3 trillion of excess pandemic savings. Rising wages may additionally promote demand, as will the baby boomers’ shift into their peak consumption years, along with the massive investment required to meet green energy goals. Chart 9Consumers Have Momentum (And The Savings And Borrowing Capacity To Sustain It) Demand was sluggish for an entire decade following the GFC, but it appears as if it will be quite robust for a while after the pandemic. We believe that aggregate demand is on a course to exceed aggregate supply after reopening supply chain issues are resolved. At that point, the transitory inflation view will no longer be credible, and the Fed may find itself having to play catch up. When it does, it will have to hike rates more and faster than financial markets expect. Once the Fed has shifted into fast and furious mode, or markets develop a widespread conviction that it will, the bull markets in risk assets will end and the expansion might, too. In the meantime, setting investment strategy will depend on how long it takes for the inflation inflection point to arrive. We do not yet think the inflection point is in sight and therefore continue to recommend that investors with a twelve-month timeframe overweight equities and credit in multi-asset portfolios. We remain on the alert, however, and will shift our view if events move faster than we currently expect. We would rather leave some upside on the table than stay at the party too long.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Off-the-run Treasury maturities do not trade all that well, and TIPS other than 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year maturities are even less liquid. The TIPS inflation expectations curve (Chart 2) is therefore less reliable than the CPI swaps curve (Chart 3) at individual points, but it confirms the broad direction of investors’ inflation expectations. 2     Question 6, How has the review altered how the Federal Reserve will pursue its maximum employment objective? Accessed November 22, 2021. Emphasis added. Federal Reserve Board - Q&As.  

Special Report

Highlights Few emerging market peers have a track record of democracy like India does. Russia and others have long histories of political instability and one-man rule. Several large EMs have experienced stints of military rule in the post-WWII era. While India’s democratic credentials are real, these should not be exaggerated. India’s political system suffers from some structural and cyclical vulnerabilities. These imperfections deserve attention today, more than ever, given that India trades at a record premium to peers. From a strategic perspective, we remain Buyers of India. India’s democratic traditions will lend political stability as the country’s economic heft grows. However, on a time horizon, we recommend paring exposure to Indian assets. A loaded state election calendar awaits in 2022, which will be followed by crucial state elections in 2023 and general elections in 2024. While we expect the incumbent political party to retain power in 2024, history suggests that the road to general elections is paved with policy risks. Policymakers tend to shift attention from market friendly-reform to voter-friendly policies as these key state elections approach. Additionally, geopolitical risks for India are ascendant as dangerous transitions are underway to India’s west and east too. Feature Investors regard India as being exceptionally well-off on political parameters. It is viewed by many as the blue-eyed boy of emerging market democracies. And for good reason. Despite its massive population and very low per capita incomes, India has remained a functional democracy for over seventy years. Democratic political regimes are a relatively new trend. The number of democracies began exceeding the number autocracies in the world only very recently in 2002 (Chart 1). India was one of the earliest adopters of this trend compared to emerging market peers. Its democratic traditions are so well-entrenched now that they are comparable to those of some of the most developed economies of the world (Chart 2). To add to these democratic credentials, every government at the national level in India has completed its full five-year term since 1999, thereby offering stability. Investors greatly value the political stability that India offers. While political stability is only one factor that investors consider, India has traded at a 28% premium relative to democracies and a 67% premium to non-democracies like Russia and China over the last decade (Chart 3). ​​​​ ​​​​​​ In this report we highlight that while India’s democratic credentials are real, these should not be exaggerated. The political system in India is solid but far from perfect. It suffers from both structural and cyclical vulnerabilities. These imperfections deserve attention today more than ever, given that India trades at a record premium to peers (Chart 3). Also, a closer look at India’s political system is warranted given that both geopolitical and macroeconomic risks for India are ascendant. With India, the devil always lies in the details. India is the largest democracy of the world but is also one of the few large democracies that follows a first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of determining election winners and has no effective limit on the number of political parties that can contest elections. Most democracies, either combine an FPTP system with natural or legislative limit on the number of competing political parties (such as in the case of UK and US) or rely on a non-FPTP system, with specific vote thresholds to enter Parliament. The combination of an FPTP system along with a system that allows multiple small political parties to exist entails challenges and makes the system vulnerable to some structural policy problems that are often overlooked. These include: A Tendency To Go All-In: An FPTP system means that at an election, the contestant with the highest number of votes is declared the winner even if the victory margin is very low. For instance, the narrowest victory margin recorded at an Indian constituency-level election is a mere 9 votes! Such a system where the winner takes all, irrespective of the victory margin, creates perverse incentives for contesting candidates to go all-in on populism ahead of elections. Indian elections have thus seen candidates offer everything from food and free laptops, to free alcohol and hard cash, in a bid to woo voters in the run up to elections. Too Many Players Can Spoil The Election: An FPTP system alongside a multi-party system can lead to very high degrees of political competition. While competition is usually a virtue, very high levels of political competition tend to fragment the electorate. Owing to these reasons, political competition in India tends to be very high in general. For instance, the last two general elections in India saw 15 candidates contest from each constituency on average. This compares to an average number of contestants from each constituency being 5 for UK or 6 for Canada. The problem with this fragmentation is that the victorious politician may lack a strong popular mandate. Smaller Indian states bear the brunt of this problem. The smaller the state, the cost of the pre-election campaign is lower, so the number of contestants shoots up in smaller regions (Chart 4). Rent-Seeking Becomes A Necessity: Such a system which combines FPTP and no major entry barriers for contestants arguably encourages rent-seeking behavior, which election winners frequently display. Populist spending promised by candidates to lure voters ahead of elections can be very high, especially when political competition is stiff. Winners then are keen to recover this “sunk cost” and to create a war chest for the next election. This prompts the rent-seeking that often becomes a necessity for candidates who run expensive election campaigns. To conclude, few emerging market peers have a sustained track record of democracy like India does. Russia and others have long histories of both political instability and one-man rule. Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have all experienced stints of military rule and revolutions in the post-WWII era. Whilst India’s political stability credentials are solid, the existence of high degrees of political competition alongside high degrees of social complexity will spawn both structural and cyclical policy risks in India. Navigating India’s Political Peculiarities It is heuristically convenient to assume that policy risks in India are uniform across time. However, in this report, we highlight that policy risks for India hardly tend to be the same through the five-year term of a political party in charge at the national level. The five-year term of any central government in India is paved with cyclical policy risks. The good news is that there is a method to the madness. We present a simple method to identify a “pattern” to the cyclical policy risks: We break down India’s general election cycle into a five-year sequence. Year 1 is defined as the year after a general election takes place (such as 2020) and Year 5 is defined as the year in which a general election takes place (such as 2019 or 2024). (See the Appendix for a quick overview of India’s political system.) Given that India has 28 states and a state government’s term lasts five years, about six state elections are held each year. After identifying this five-year sequence, we then identify specific states that become due for state elections during this five-year period. Such a characterization of India’s election cycle shows how the five-year period from one election to the other is hardly the same. In fact, it becomes clear how policy risks tend to be definitively elevated in the years leading up to a general election. Year 3 in such a framework sees elections in some of India’s largest states (size), India’s politically most sensitive states (sensitivity), and India’s socially most complex states (complexity). 2022 will mark the beginning of Year 3 of the current five-year cycle and will see: Size: The most loaded state election schedule which will affect more than a quarter of India’s population (Chart 5). Sensitivity: Elections take place in most of India’s northern region (Chart 6), which is a key constituency for the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ Complexity: Elections take place in some of the most socially conflict-prone states such as say Manipur (Chart 7). Year 3 of India’s cycle is also worth bracing for as it typically sees the policy machinery’s attention shift away from big-ticket reform to populism. This is probably because Year 4 sees some of the poorest states in India undergo elections (Chart 8) and then Year 5 sees a general election. ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ What becomes clear now is that India is set to enter the business-end of its five-year election cycle in 2022. So, what specific policy changes should investors expect? The Road To Elections … Is Paved With Policy Risks Irrespective of the political party in power at the centre, populism as a theme tends to become more defined in the two years leading to a general election in India. For instance, history suggests that government spending in the two years leading up to a general election tends to be higher than in the previous three years (Chart 9). The last time this theme did not play out was in the run up to the elections of 2014 when in fact the incumbent i.e., the Indian National Congress (INC) lost elections to the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Distinct from the fiscal support to the economy that tends to rise in the run up to elections, it is notable that even money supply growth, inflation to an extent and even the pace of Rupee depreciation tends to be faster in India in the years leading up to a general election (Chart 10). ​​​​​​ The run up to Year 3 and Year 4 of India’s election cycle also tends to see the announcement of voter-friendly policies that may not necessarily be market-friendly. Examples of this phenomenon include: Record Increase In Revenue Spends Ahead Of 1999 General Elections: In 1998 the-then Finance Minister oversaw a whopping 20% year-on-year increase in revenue expenditure. This is almost double the average growth rate of 13% seen in this metric over the last 25 years. Farm-loan Waiver Ahead of 2009 General Elections: In 2008 i.e., the year before the general elections of 2009, the Indian National Congress (INC)-led central government announced its decision to write off farm loans of about $15 billion (in inflation-adjusted terms today). Demonetization Decision Ahead Of 2017 Uttar Pradesh State Elections: The BJP-led central government announced its decision to demonetize 86% of currency in circulation in November 2016 in a bid to prove the government’s commitment to crackdown on black money. GST Rate Cuts Ahead Of 2017 Gujarat State Elections: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) council announced a cut in the GST rate for over 150 items in November 2017. This was ahead of Gujarat state elections that were due in December 2017. Such decisions are known to work with voters. The incumbent political party that announced these policy decisions, in each of the three cases cited above, won the elections that they subsequently contested. Just last week, the Indian Government decided to repeal farm sector reform related laws which it had announced a year ago. It is not entirely coincidental that this pro-voter decision has been announced just a few months ahead of critical state elections due in 2022. Key State Elections To Watch In 2022 State elections are due in seven states in India in 2022. State elections due in 2022 will have an indelible impact on India’s policy outlook for 2022 because the BJP is the incumbent party in most of these states and BJP’s popularity has suffered because of the pandemic (Chart 11). The government’s decision last week to roll back farm sector reform is a great example of this phenomenon. Of all the state elections due in 2022, the two key elections that will have the biggest bearing on the 2024 general elections will be the elections in Uttar Pradesh in February 2022 and in Gujarat in December 2022. BJP’s popularity in these states should be closely watched to get a better sense of the 2024 general election outcome. The BJP won about 80% of the cumulative seats these two states offer at the 2019 general elections. At the last state elections held in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, the BJP stormed into power in the state, winning 77% of seats. BJP’s entry into power there was symbolic as the road to New Delhi is said to pass through this state (Chart 12). Gujarat on the other hand has been a BJP stronghold and PM Modi began his political innings as the chief minister of this state. Despite being in power in Gujarat for over two decades, the BJP managed to retain power in this state at the last elections held in 2017 (Chart 13). ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ Accurate pre-poll data for these states will be available only closer to election day. Our early on-ground checks suggest that the BJP is set to almost certainly retain power in Uttar Pradesh in 2022. However, the BJP runs the risk of losing some vote share in Gujarat owing to the anti-incumbency effect it faces and owing to the rise of parties like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the state of Gujarat. Another tool that can be used to estimate the likely result of these two key state elections is the economic growth momentum in these states. State election results from 2021 suggest that this macro variable matters a great deal. While it is not the only variable that matters, the incumbent lost elections in large states in 2021 when growth decelerated excessively (Chart 14). For instance, in 2021, Tamil Nadu saw its GDP growth decelerate significantly but West Bengal saw its GDP growth decelerate by a lesser extent. Notably, the incumbent was displaced out of power in Tamil Nadu but managed to retain power in West Bengal possibly because of several factors including a lesser slowdown in economic growth (Chart 14). If GDP growth were to affect election outcomes in 2022 as well then, the incumbent i.e., the BJP, will comfortably retain power in Uttar Pradesh but may have to deal with the risk of losing some vote share in Gujarat. This is because economic growth accelerated in Uttar Pradesh over the last five years before the pandemic. GDP growth rates remained high in Gujarat but the pace of acceleration was weaker (Chart 15). ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ However, from the perspective of the general elections of 2024, BJP’s position in these two states remains fairly strong, and this is true even if it experiences minor setbacks in the upcoming state elections. National parties like the BJP tend to enjoy greater fervor amongst voters in general elections as opposed to state elections. It hence would take an earthquake defeat in these state elections to alter this assumption – an outcome which appears unlikely at this stage. The takeaway from the above is that investors must brace for the BJP pursuing populist policies over the next two years. In fact, we are increasingly convinced that the BJP government’s budget for FY23 (due to be announced on 1 February 2022) will see a marked increase in transfer payments for farmers in specific or low-income groups in general. The announcement of a brand-new program aimed at lifting incomes of India’s lowest economic strata cannot be ruled out. But from the perspective of the 2024 elections, the BJP appears well-placed to retain power. Investors will face negative policy turbulence in the short run but should maintain a base case of policy continuity over the long run. Investment Conclusions If You Are Playing A Long Game, Then Hold: From a strategic perspective, we remain Buyers of India. India’s democratic traditions will lend political stability as the country’s economic heft grows. Its democratic credentials will also yield geopolitical advantages as America aims to create an axis of democracies to contain autocratic regimes. It is notable that the US’s most recent alliance-formation efforts - such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal - involve some of the oldest democracies of the world. As India sheds its historical stance of neutrality, in favor of closer alignment with the US against China, its democratic credentials will help India deepen its engagement with geopolitically powerful democracies. If You Are Playing A Short Game, Then Fold: The Indian market appears priced for perfection today. We recommend paring exposure to Indian assets on a tactical time horizon. Historically India’s premium relative to emerging markets has shown some correlation with the BJP’s popularity (Chart 16). However, India’s premium relative to EMs has shot through the roof over the last year and hence even if BJP wins the Uttar Pradesh elections (our base case), then it is unclear if that victory will drive another bout of price-to-earnings re-rating for India. Moreover, as outlined, the road to state elections in 2022 will be paved with policy risks as the government prioritizes populism ahead of pro-market reform. The BJP has managed to expand its influence in India over the last decade (Chart 17). But a unique problem now confronts Indian policymakers: while stock markets in India have risen almost vertically, wage inflation has collapsed (Chart 18). Additionally, India has administered a weak post-pandemic fiscal stimulus (Chart 19). We reckon that this fiscal restraint will be tested in the run up to key elections in 2022-23. ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ Unlike in developed economies, where fiscal stimulus is seen as pro-market because it suggests policymaking is improving and deflationary risks will be dispelled, fiscal stimulus can be market-negative in the context of an EM like India. Increases in populist spending can end up adding to existent inflationary pressures and hence can drive bond yields higher. Stock market earnings too may not end up getting a major boost on the back of increase in transfer payments to low-income groups. This is because the share of market cap accounted for by sectors which directly benefit from pro-poor spending, like Consumer Staples, has been drifting lower on Indian bourses from 10.8% in 2013 to 8.9% today. As we have been highlighting, distinct from policy risks that confront India on a tactical horizon, geopolitical risks confronting India are elevated too. Dangerous transitions are underway to India’s west (involving Pakistan and Afghanistan) as well as east (involving China). While China’s woes drive EM investors to India, any clashes with neighbors will create much better entry points into Indian stocks.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Appendix: An Overview Of India’s Political System India follows a parliamentary model of democracy with a federal structure where the government at the centre as well as state level is elected for a period of five years. The central government of India is formed through general elections that are held every five years. Power is held by a political party (or a coalition of parties) that can secure and maintain a simple majority in the Lower House (or Lok Sabha) through this five-year term. India also constitutes 28 states, each with its own legislative assembly. Each state government is formed through a state election held every five years. Much like at the centre, power is held by a political party that can maintain a simple majority at the legislative assembly for this five-year term.  

Dear Client, We will be working on our 2022 Outlook for China, which will be published on December 8. Next week we will be sending you BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Feature In meetings with our North American clients this past week, we expressed the view that China’s economic growth is on a downward trend and easing measures have been gradual and modest in scope. Most clients agreed that China’s economy faces tremendous headwinds, however, some investors were more optimistic about the outlook for Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Valuations in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets have dropped to multi-year lows and macro policies have started to ease. Cheaply valued Chinese stocks should have more upside in the wake of policy support. Policy tone recently pivoted to a more growth supporting bias, but the existing easing measures will not offset the deceleration in both credit growth and domestic demand. China’s economic activity may worsen before it stabilizes in mid-2022. Moreover, China’s financial markets do not seem to have priced in the economic weakness. Therefore, in the next one to two quarters, risks to Chinese stocks are tilted toward the downside. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Will Truly Bottom When The Economy Troughs Below are some of the main questions from our meetings and our answers. Q: Policies have started to be more pro-growth. Why do you still underweight Chinese stocks? A: There are two reasons that we maintain a cautious view on Chinese stocks for at least the next six months, in both absolute terms and relative to global equities. First, we do not think that the magnitude of existing easing measures is sufficient to offset the economy’s downward momentum. Secondly, China’s business cycle lags credit growth by about six to nine months. The timing of a turnaround in the economy and stock prices may be later than investors have priced in. In short, we need to see more reflationary measures and a rebound in credit growth to have a legitimate macro fundamental basis to overweight Chinese stocks (Chart 1). Credit growth on a year-on-year basis stopped falling in October. The underlying data in credit creation, however, points to a weakening in demand for corporate loans (Chart 2). Loans to the housing sector are well below a year ago (Chart 3). Chart 2Weakening Loan Demand Chart 3Bank Loans To The Housing Sector Have Not Turned Around Chart 4It Will Take Time For Policy Easing To Restore Confidence In The Corporate Sector Despite an acceleration in local government bond issuance in October and RMB300 billion in additional bank loans to support small and medium enterprises, growth in medium- to long-term corporate loans peaked (Chart 4). In previous cycles, a rollover in corporate demand for longer-term bank lending on average lasted more than nine months, suggesting that any policy adjustments will take a while to restore confidence in the corporate sector. Without a decisive pickup in credit growth, corporate earnings growth will be at risk of deteriorating. Moreover, policy tightening since earlier this year is still working its way through the economy and major economic indicators in China continue to decline (Chart 5). We think that China’s economy is set to decelerate even more in the next several months, suggesting that earnings uncertainty will likely rise. This, combined with reactive policymakers, already slowing earnings momentum, and a downward adjustment in 12-month forward earnings, suggests that investors have not yet reached the maximum bearishness for Chinese stock prices (Chart 6). Chart 5No Signs Of Improvement In The Economy Chart 6The Earnings Adjustement Process Is Only Beginning   Q: What is the impact of China’s property market slowdown on the economy? Will recent policy easing stop deterioration in the real estate sector? A: Policy has been recalibrated by relaxing restrictions on mortgage lending and rules for land sales.1 However, the negative financing loop among developers, households and local governments may take longer to improve. Meanwhile, the market may underestimate the downside risks in housing-related activity in the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 7Households' Home Buying Intentions Have Plummeted Our view is based on the following: Home sales will likely remain in contraction in the next two quarters. Aggressive crackdowns on property market speculation in the past 12 months have fundamentally shifted consumers’ expectations for future home prices. The impending pilot property tax reform2 (details yet to be disclosed) will only encourage the wait-and-see sentiment of potential buyers. Home sales contracted by 24% in October from a year ago. In previous cycles, contractions in home sales normally lasted for more than 12 months. Moreover, the proportion of households planning to buy a house dropped to only 7.7% in Q3 2021 from 11.6% in Q4 2020 (Chart 7). Real estate developers have slashed new projects and land purchases to preserve liquidity for debt servicing (Chart 8, first and second panels). Policymakers may succeed in prompting banks to resume lending to developers in order to alleviate the escalating risk of widespread defaults. However, so far the marginal easing has failed to reverse the downward trend in bank credit to developers along with home sales (Chart 8, third and bottom panels). Funding constraints for real estate developers will probably be sustained for another six months, despite the recent easing measures. Construction activity, housing starts, and real estate investment will likely remain in doldrum at least through 1H22 (Chart 9). Chart 8Housing Activities Are Still Falling Chart 9Less Funding = Less Investment And Completions The marked reduction in land sales will impede local governments’ revenues and weigh on infrastructure investment (Chart 10). Real estate and infrastructure financing contributed 50% of the increase in total Chart 10Local Government Revenues Largely Depend On The Housing Sector social financing in 2020. Given that local governments face funding constraints from a slump in land sale incomes, policies on leverage from local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) will have to meaningfully loosen up to allow a rise in bank lending to support infrastructure investment. As discussed in previous reports, an acceleration in local government special-purpose bond issuance can only partially offset weak credit growth. Furthermore, shadow banking activity, which comprises LGFV borrowing and is highly correlated with China’s infrastructure investment growth, remains in contraction and indicates that growth in infrastructure investment is unlikely to rebound strongly (Chart 11). The sharp weakening of real estate construction activities will drag down the demand for building materials, machinery, home appliances and automobiles. Real estate accounts for about 60% of Chinese households’ wealth, thus any substantial drop in home prices will further weaken households’ propensity to consume (Chart 12). Chart 11More Easing Needed For A Meaningful Pickup In Infrastructure Investment Chart 12Falling Demand For Commodities And Consumer Goods Chart 13AOn The Surface Housing Inventories Are Lower Than Six Years Ago... There are nontrivial risks that the real estate slowdown will evolve into a downturn similar to that of 2014-15. Although the existing housing inventory is more modest than the start of the 2014/15 property downturn, developers have accumulated more debt and unfinished projects in this cycle than in the past (Charts 13A & 13B). Policymakers will have to relax property sector policies much more forcefully to prevent the downturn from intensifying. In the interim, we will likely witness more deterioration in the sector. Chart 13B...But Developers Have Built Up Massive Leverages And Hidden Inventories In The Past Three Years   Q: If the property market accounts for such a big portion of local governments’ revenues, why hasn’t the waning housing market forced policymakers to loosen restrictions? A: We think regulators have been slow to backtrack property market reforms because this year China’s fiscal deficit has narrowed from last year due to lower government spending and improved income from corporate taxes. In previous property market downturns, such as 2011/12, 2015/16 and 2019, property policy restrictions were lightened following major declines in government revenues (Chart 14). However, in 2021 China’s fiscal balance sheet has been stronger than in previous cycles; central and local governments have collected much more taxes, particularly corporate taxes, than in 2020 (Chart 15). Meanwhile, government expenditures so far this year have been lower, resulting in a large improvement in the country’s fiscal deficit (Chart 16). Chart 14Falling Gov Revenues Forced Policymakers To Backtrack Reforms In The Past... Chart 15...But This Year Gov Tax Revenues Have Been Strong Chart 16Fiscal Deficit Improved This Year Despite Falling evenues From Land Sales As discussed above, slightly loosened restrictions on land purchases by some regional governments will not restore developers’ confidence and boost the demand for land. The sharp increase in government's corporate tax collection will also start to ebb as economic growth slows and corporate profits decline. As such, even if government expenditures remain the same next year, the fiscal deficit will grow because revenues will be under substantial downward pressure. We expect that Chinese policymakers will have to take more actions to stabilize fiscal conditions. Forecasting exactly when this will occur is difficult, but a benign government balance sheet in much of this year is delaying policymakers’ response to the flagging housing market. Meantime, both policymakers and investors may be complacent about the state of the economy until the full scale of the property sector spillover risk becomes clear.   Q: Rates are low and industrial profit growth has been strong this year. Why has capex been so sluggish? A: Investment growth in the manufacturing sector has been lackluster because their profit margins have been squeezed by rising input costs. On the other hand, investment in the mining industry has been constrained by policy restrictions. An acceleration in China’s de-carbonization efforts this year has likely constrained investment in the mining sector. Even though industrial profit growth has been concentrated among the upstream industries such as mining which profits grew by a stunning 100% this year, investment in the sector was mostly flat from a year ago (Chart 17). During the first half of the year, mid- to downstream firms were caught between rising input prices and a weak recovery in domestic consumption. Manufacturing investment grew faster than the mining sector, but manufacturing profit growth only increased by about 30% year to date (Chart 18). However, we think manufacturing investment growth may improve slightly into 2022 as the sector continues to gain pricing power. Chart 17Mining Sector's Profit Growth Way Outpaced Investment Chart 18Manufacturing Sector Profit Growth Has Been Much More Muted Than Upstream Industries   Q: The RMB has been strong against the dollar, despite China’s maturing business cycle. What is your outlook for the RMB next year? A: The RMB exchange rate has been boosted by China’s record current account surplus, wide interest rate differentials and speculation that tension between the US and China will abate. However, all three favorable conditions supporting the RMB are in danger of reversing next year. Chart 19The RMB Has Been Appreciating Despite A Strong USD Chart 20The RMB's Appreciation Deviates From Economic Fundamentals Despite broad-based dollar strength, the CNY/USD has appreciated by 4.5% year to date (Chart 19). The RMB’s appreciation deviates from China’s economic fundamentals (Chart 20).       Strong global demand for goods has boosted Chinese exports while travel restrictions curbed foreign exchange outflows by domestic households (Chart 21). China-US real interest rate differentials have been in favor of the CNY versus USD, bringing net foreign inflows to China’s onshore bond market (Chart 22). Additionally, the recent meeting between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping has prompted speculation that the US will lessen tariffs on Chinese imports. Chart 21Large Current Account Surplus Chart 22Favorable Interest Rate Differentials And Strong Fund Inflows Chart 23China's Extremely Robust Export Growth Unlikely To Sustain In 2022 Chart 24A Strong RMB Does Not Bode Well For Chinese Exporters' Profits These factors will likely turn against the CNY next year. First, export growth will moderate as the composition of US consumption rotates from goods to services (Chart 23). Secondly, it would not be in the PBoC’s best interests to let the RMB strengthen too rapidly because an appreciating currency would be a deflationary force on China’s export and manufacturing sectors (Chart 24). While we expect policymakers to maintain their preference for a gradual approach to stimulus, we assign a high probability to a reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in early 2022. In this environment, Chinese bond yields will decline, which would narrow the China-US interest rate differential. Finally, while there may be some changes to US tariffs on China, it is doubtful that there would be a broad-based removal of tariffs. Chart 25The CNY/USD Will Likely Fall And Converge To Chinese Stocks' (Under)performance The CNY’s outperformance stands out as it marks a break from its correlation with China’s relative equity performance vis-à-vis the US (Chart 25). The signal from the currency suggests that either global equity investors are overly pessimistic about economic and regulatory risks in China, or overly optimistic about the value of China’s currency. The latter option is more likely at the moment, and the CNY/USD exchange rate is at the risk of converging to the underperformance of Chinese investable stocks next year.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  China Cities Ease Land Bidding Rules as Property Stress Spreads - Bloomberg 2  China’s Pilot Property Tax Reforms Benefit Markets Despite Short-Term Pain, Analysts Say - Caixin Global Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Special Report

Highlights Last month we published a report on the US corporate margins, titled “Marginally Worse.” In the report, we concluded that margins are likely to contract next year, hobbled by a slowdown in top-line growth, falling productivity, a decline in corporate pricing power, and soaring costs of labor and materials. Q3-2021 – another stellar earnings season: Companies achieved superior earnings growth and expanded margins. However, many companies guided down for Q4-2021 and 2022 citing mounting challenges, such as higher costs of labor, shipping, and raw materials. As such, deciphering which sectors are best positioned to maintain profitability is of paramount importance. Framework for Sector Margin Scorecard: We introduce a framework to rank the S&P 500 sector based on the expected resilience of their margins. It is based on four factors that provide a uniform basis for comparison across all sectors, despite their inherent differences in cost structure, effects of input costs, and ability to manage prices. The four factors driving changes in operating margins are: Sell-side operating margins forecasts as a concise summary of bottom-up company trends Pent-up demand for the sector’s products proxied by the difference between annualized sales growth in 2020 and 2021 and long-term annualized sales growth Pricing power or ability to pass on costs to customers Degree of operating leverage or ability to spread costs when sales volume increases Sectors with most resilient margins: According to this scorecard, Financials, Healthcare, Energy, and Utilities are in the best position to preserve operating margins (Table 1). Table 1Sector Margins Scorecard Energy Sector - Upgrade to Overweight The medium-term supply/demand backdrop is highly supportive of the current crude oil prices, with a Brent price target of $81 and upside price risk due to inadequate capex. Margins are still below the pre-pandemic peak and the street expects them to increase by 7.74 percentage points over the next 12 months. High operating leverage converts growing demand from the global economic recovery into profitability. Financials – Overweight: O/W Banks, EW Insurance While sell-side analysts anticipate Financials margins will decline, we believe that margins may surprise on the upside: The sector has high operating leverage, is somewhat insulated from supply chain disruptions, sees green shoots in loan growth, and its pricing power is improving. Further, the BCA house view expects the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 2.0% - 2.25% by the end of 2022, supporting net interest margins. Healthcare - Overweight: O/W Medical Equipment and Services, EW Pharma In July we published a report on the Healthcare sector, titled “Checking The Pulse: Deep Dive Into The Health Care Sector” and upgraded it to Overweight. The Healthcare sector is one of the most resilient sectors profitability-wise as, being defensive in nature, its sales are unaffected by changes in economic demand. The street expects margins to expand by over 2% over the next 12 months. Further, there is still significant pent-up demand for the health care services, and specifically for the elective procedures – the most lucrative segment of the Healthcare Sector. Pricing power has recently picked up.    Feature Last month we published a report on US corporate profit margins, titled “Marginally Worse.” In that report, we took a close look at corporate margins by analyzing their key drivers. We have concluded that margins are likely to contract next year, driven by a slowdown in top-line growth, falling productivity, and a decline in corporate pricing power. The sales side of the margin equation will fail to offset upward cost pressures imposed by the tight labor market, soaring input prices and transportation costs, rising depreciation expense, and a potential increase in tax rates. We also developed a simple model that encapsulates all the moving parts (Chart 1). Our forecast, based on the model, reiterates that the path of least resistance for US corporate margins is lower. In this report, we will take a close look at the S&P 500 sectors to gauge their ability to grow earnings and preserve margins. We aim to rank them by their ability to maintain profitability. Q3-2021 Earnings Season: Stellar Results Operating sector margins are a focal point for investors in the current environment of soaring shipping costs, PPI readings unseen for the last forty years, and a wage-price spiral that may lead to prolonged periods of elevated inflation. While rising costs have been a concern for a while now, the Q3-2021 earnings season has surprised on the upside, with 81% of companies exceeding analyst earnings expectations. Earnings increased by 42% year-over-year and sales 17%. The two-year annualized growth rate (CAGR) for S&P 500 earnings is 14.6% and 5.7% for sales. The pandemic trough has been all but forgotten, and earnings are back to their trend (Chart 2). All sectors, except for Industrials and Consumer Discretionary, have earnings and sales that exceed pre-pandemic levels (Chart 3). Energy, Materials, and Tech enjoyed annualized eps growth over the past two years in excess of 20%. And of course, because of such robust earnings growth, most sectors have reached 2010 -2021 peak margins (Chart 4). And these are unprecedented high peaks: Most sectors’ margins are more than two standard deviations away from their five-year averages. From a statistical standpoint, Z-scores in this “zip code” indicate that the probability of even higher margins is minuscule (Chart 5). ​​​​​​​ How were companies able to achieve such stellar earnings growth and peak margins despite all the cost and supply chain disruption headwinds? The answer is strong sales growth, efficiency in managing suppliers, ability to pass on costs to customers by raising prices, and finally, high operating leverage. Here is what happened in the words of the companies: Home Depot: “Professional home improvement contractors have had huge backlogs of work to do, and impatient customers have in many cases been willing to pay up in order to get the goods needed despite supply chain problems.” Microsoft: "We do have good understanding of lead times required to meet the capacity and signals that we’re seeing. I think we do a good job managing that. It’s not to say we’re not impacted. Multiple suppliers are important to be able to manage through that, and I feel the team has done a very good job.” Union Pacific Corporation: "The Union Pacific team successfully navigated global supply chain disruptions, a major bridge outage, and additional weather events to produce strong quarterly revenue growth and financial results." Honeywell: "Our disciplined approach to productivity and pricing helped deliver a strong third quarter despite an uncertain global environment marked by supply chain constraints, increasing raw material inflation, and labor market challenges.” Coca-Cola: Our results through the first nine months of 2021," CEO Frank Harrison said, "reflect a strong balance of volume growth, price realization, and prudent expense management." However, there are also multiple cracks in the foundation, with companies such as Target and Amazon guiding lower both for Q4-2021 and 2022 citing higher costs of labor, shipping, and raw materials. As such, deciphering which sectors can maintain profitability is of paramount importance. Building A Sector Margin Scorecard So which sectors have the best ability to preserve or even expand margins over the next year? Forecasting profitability by sector is tricky, as every sector is different, and has disparate drivers of sales and costs, making cross-sectional comparisons challenging. However, we have an advantage – we are not aiming to predict a point estimate for each sector margin a year from now, but rather rank all sectors from best to worst in terms of their ability to maintain profitability. To do so, we have created a scorecard based on four factors that provide a uniform basis for comparison across all sectors, despite their inherent differences in cost structure, effects of input costs, and ability to manage prices. These factors also implicitly incorporate a potential mean reversion, i.e., high readings are unlikely to move even higher. Four factors capturing future changes in the profit margins are: Sell-side forecasts of operating margins over the next 12 months as a concise summary of bottom-up company trends Pent-up demand for the sector’s products proxied by the difference between 2019-2021 sales CAGR and long-term annualized sales growth Pricing power or ability to pass on costs to customers Degree of operating leverage or ability to spread costs when sales volume increases Factor 1: Expected Change In Operating Margins Over The Next 12 Months Top-down sector margin expectations for the next 12 months are an aggregation of the bottom-up company forecasts. Since the stock market is a market of stocks, this is an important summary of companies' trends which we incorporate into our ranking framework. In line with our view, sell-side analysts expect S&P 500 margins to contract by 1.2% over the next 12 months. Margin contraction is expected across the board with two notable exceptions: Energy and Healthcare. In the scorecard, we rank sectors based on the expected magnitude of the margin change, such that sectors with the least compression, or outright growth, are scoring better (Chart 6). Factor 2: Pent-up Demand For The Sector’s Products Most sectors have enjoyed a fantastic sales and earnings recovery this year (Chart 7), with sales exceeding pre-pandemic levels thanks to strong consumer demand. However, to gauge the level of pent-up demand for each sector, we compare 2020-2021 CAGR of sales growth with a long-term sales growth rate. We call this factor “sales growth differential.” Our thinking is that if recent sales growth is below a pre-pandemic normal, there is still demand left on the table. For example, the Consumer Discretionary sector is not yet back to the pre-pandemic “normal” pace of growth. Therefore, there is still strong demand for its products and services. This aligns well with what we were observing for months now. Fears of Covid-19 have resulted in a shift of spending from services to goods. As a result, demand for goods has overshot pre-pandemic levels, while demand for services is below its pre-pandemic trend and is enjoying a rebound (Chart 8). Chart 8There Is Still Pent-up Demand For Services In the scorecard, we assign a higher score to the sectors like Industrials and Consumer Discretionary expecting a more significant pickup in sales growth, and a lower score to the sectors with sales growth that exceeds the historical average on the concern that mean reversion may be in store: A strong bounce back in sales has already materialized, and demand has been pulled forward. Factor 3: Pricing Power Pricing Power is a proprietary BCA indicator based on the PPI and CPI indices for the 60 different industries. Industries are rolled up into sector indices and the market index.1 Sectors with higher pricing power can pass on their costs to their customers. However, at some point, they may no longer be able to raise prices as that will dampen demand for their products. As a result, after a series of price increases, companies’ pricing power wanes. Today, pricing power of companies in most sectors is already two-to-three standard deviations above the five-year average, suggesting that the probability of further gains is extremely low, i.e., one percent or less (Chart 9). The only exceptions are the Healthcare and Financial sectors whose pricing power has barely budged. What sectors do we prefer? Ones with a very high pricing power that is about to roll over or the ones whose pricing power is handicapped by outside political pressures and competitive headwinds? Since we believe that markets are driven by the second derivative, waning pricing power may have a detrimental effect on sector performance, while low and stable pricing power is already priced into expectations. To reflect this thinking, we penalize sectors whose pricing power is high relative to five years of history, expecting mean reversion. Factor 4: Degree Of Operating Leverage The degree of operating leverage (DOL), which gauges the company’s ability to spread its costs over sales, is largely determined by the cost of each marginal unit sold. This is a metric that assesses the cost structure of the sector in terms of fixed costs vs. variable costs. Sectors with higher fixed costs have higher operating leverage: It costs next to nothing to produce a marginal unit of sales, which leads to higher profitability as volume grows. We calculate DOL as the following: DOL= % Change in Operating Income/ % Change in Sales Percentage of change in operating income and sales is a five-year change to smooth out volatility and assess the longer-term relationship. Further, to obtain a comprehensive picture of the longer-term DOL, we calculate a median reading for each sector from 2010 to 2021. Median ignores extreme values and is better at capturing the “normal”. We also exclude negative and zero readings from our calculations to gauge DOL only when the companies are profitable (Chart 10). Bringing It All Together: Operating Margins Sector Scorecard We have ranked all 11 sectors along the four dimensions described above. As a result, we expect Financials, Healthcare, Energy, and Utilities to be in the best position to preserve operating margins (Table 1). Table 1Sector Margins Scorecard Energy Sector - Upgrade To An Overweight Energy profit margins are linked to underlying commodity prices. BCA Commodity and Energy strategists’ view is that the medium-term supply/demand backdrop is highly supportive of the current energy pricing dynamics and that the oil price is expected to stay high, at around its current level, for the next two years. They also note that upside price risk is increasing going forward, due to inadequate capex. Current operating margins remain well below the previous cyclical peak (Chart 11) and are expected to increase by 7.74 percentage points over the next 12 months. Although the price of oil has risen above the breakeven levels, energy companies are reluctant to invest in capex due to pressure from shareholder activists and newly found financial discipline. As a result, prices are likely to remain high until “high prices cure high prices”. In the meantime, energy producers are returning cash to shareholders – a unique bonus in the current world starved for yield. Chart 11The Street Expects the Energy Sector Margins To Expand. We concur... Oil demand is expected to stay robust on the back of the global economic recovery, especially with an increase in consumption by airlines that are resuming international travel. Case in point: ExxonMobil (XOM) “anticipates demand improvement in its downstream segment with a continued economic recovery.” Upgrade Energy from an Equal Weight to an Overweight Financials – Overweight: O/W Banks, EW Insurance 2021 was a blockbuster year for banks on the back of the booming M&A and IPO activity. However, to achieve sustainable profitability, they need to jumpstart the loan growth process. There are early signs that lending is likely to pick up next year (Chart 12). According to JPM: "The customers who typically contribute to credit card loan growth are starting to spend the savings built up from the pandemic at a faster clip, suggesting they could be getting closer to taking on debt again" Regional banks already see the green shoots. According to Key Bank:"We are pleased with the trajectory of our loan growth." Chart 12Early Signs Of Lending Picking Up  ​​​​​​​Insurance companies are faring worse than Banks. Higher costs of labor and materials result in higher replacement costs, and higher customer payouts. However, insurers succeed in incorporating these higher expenses into pricing. While sell-side analysts anticipate margins will decline, (Chart 13) we believe that they may surprise on the upside: High operating leverage, improving pricing power (Chart 14) and growing demand for loans will contribute to strong profitability. Further, BCA expects the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 2.0% - 2.25% by the end of 2022, supporting wider net interest margins. Chart 13While The Street Has Doubts About The Financial Sector Margins, We Are Constructive... Chart 14Pricing Power Is Improving Healthcare - Overweight: O/W Medical Equipment and Services, EW Pharma In July we published a report on the Healthcare sector, titled “Checking The Pulse: Deep Dive Into The Health Care Sector.” In this report, we upgraded the Healthcare sector to an overweight. Today, we reiterate the call. First, in a slowdown stage of the business cycle, Healthcare tends to outperform. Second, the Healthcare sector is one of the most resilient sectors profitability-wise as, being defensive by nature, its sales are unaffected by changes in economic demand. The street expects margins to expand by over 2% over the next 12 months (Chart 15). Further, there is still significant pent-up demand for health care services, and specifically for elective procedures – the most lucrative segment of the Healthcare market. Pricing power has recently picked up (Chart 16). Companies concur that life is getting better: According to JNJ:” many of the hospitals and other providers have to pay more for their input, and that's going to be reflected in the economics as we go forward. And of course, all that is reflected in how we price going forward”. Chart 15The Healthcare Margins Are Posed To Widen Chart 16After A Prolonged Decline, Healthcare Pricing Power Is Finally On The Rise Consumer Staples - Underweight Our sector margins scorecard has identified Consumer Staples as a sector most susceptible to a margin squeeze. Sell-side expects margins to contract by 2% (Chart 17). This is a sector that has low operating leverage which indicates that the marginal cost of producing each additional unit is high, and is particularly vulnerable to rising input costs. At the same time pricing power of the sector is likely to wane: companies were able to raise prices throughout 2021, and now pricing power is over four standard deviations above the five-year average (Chart 18). Raising prices in the environment when fiscal stimulus is in the rearview mirror, against a backdrop of negative real wage growth, will be challenging. Walmart surely knows its customers: It decided to “absorb higher costs and keep prices low for customers all across the business.” Operating Margins of Consumer Staples are likely to contract in 2022. Chart 17Consumer Staples Margins Are Expected To Plunge Chart 18Pricing Power Is Not Sustainable Investment Implications Our analysis indicates that companies in most sectors have reached their peak margins in Q3-2021. Looking ahead, there will be distinct profitability tracks, with some sectors expanding margins while others will experience margin compression. Sectors that have higher operating leverage, pent-up demand left over from the pandemic slowdown, and whose pricing power may still increase will fare best. Our scorecard screened all the 11 sectors based on these conditions, and Financials, Energy, Healthcare, and Utilities have the best shot at maintaining and even expanding their margins. We have been overweight Financials and Healthcare in our portfolios for a while now, and the expectation of resilient profitability only reinforces our conviction. We are upgrading Energy from neutral to an overweight on the back of the expected margin expansion and high oil price target. We are still underweight Utilities which we consider as a bond proxy, unlikely to outperform in a rising rates environment. Bottom Line In this report, we introduce a framework to rank the S&P 500 sectors based on the expected resilience of their margins. Factors we consider are operating leverage, pricing power, pent-up demand, and sell-side margin expectations. As a result of the analysis, we believe that Financials, Energy, Healthcare, and Utilities are posed for strong profitability in 2022.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Chart 19 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28 Chart 29 Chart 30 Footnotes 1     Pricing power is calculated by finding the difference between how much the industry has been able to increase prices and the change in the cost of the raw materials due to inflation.  For example, for airlines, pricing power would be measured as the difference in the airfare CPI and jet fuel inflation. The exact calculation is industry specific.  Industries are rolled up into sector indices and the market index.   Recommended Allocation

Dear Client, There will be no report next week as we will be working on our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will be published the following week. In the meantime, please keep an eye out for BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows.  While inflation will fall in the first half of next year as goods prices stabilize, an overheated labor market will cause inflation to re-accelerate into 2023. The Fed will be slow to respond to high inflation, implying that monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. This should help propel stocks to new highs. Chinese stimulus will offset much of the drag from a weaker domestic property market. The dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t bet against the greenback in the near term. Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon. A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging market stocks. The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. From Ice To Fire In past reports, we have contended that inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, would follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows.  We are currently near the top of those two steps. The pandemic ushered in a major re-allocation of spending from services to goods (Chart 1). US inflation should dip over the next 6-to-9 months as the demand for goods decelerates and supply-chain disruptions abate. Chart 1The Pandemic Caused A Major Shift In Spending From Services To Goods CHart 2Those With Low Paid Jobs Are Enjoying Stronger Wage Gains The respite from inflation will not last long, however. The labor market is heating up. So far, most of the wage growth has been at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 2). Wage growth will broaden over the course of 2022, setting the scene for a price-wage spiral in 2023. We doubt that either fiscal or monetary policy will tighten fast enough to prevent such a spiral from emerging. As a result, US inflation will surprise meaningfully on the upside. Our view has no shortage of detractors. In this week’s report, we address the main counterarguments in a Q&A format:   Q: What makes you think that service spending will rebound fast enough to offset the drag from weaker goods consumption? Chart 3Inventory Restocking Could Be A Source Of Growth Next Year A: There is still a lot of pent-up demand for goods. Try calling any auto dealership. You will hear the same thing: “We have nothing in stock now, but if you put in an order today, you might get a vehicle in 3-to-6 months.” Thus, durable goods sales are unlikely to weaken quickly. And with inventories near record low levels, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 3). Inventory restocking will support GDP growth. As for services, real spending in the US grew by 7.9% in the third quarter, an impressive feat considering that this coincided with the Delta-variant wave. Service growth will stay strong in the fourth quarter. The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped to a record high of 66.7 in October, up from 61.9 in September. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is tracking real PCE growth of 9.2% in Q4. Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator has hooked up (Chart 4). Q: Aren’t you worried that spending on services might stall next year? A: Not really. Chart 5 shows the percentage change in real spending for various types of services from January 2020 to September 2021, the last month of available data. The greatest decline in spending occurred in those sectors that were most directly affected by the pandemic. Notably, spending on movie theaters, amusement parks, and live entertainment in September was still down 46% on a seasonally-adjusted basis compared to last January. Hotel spending was down 22%. Spending on public transport was down 26%. Only spending on restaurants was back to normal. The number of Covid cases has once again started to trend higher in the US, so that path to normalization will take time (Chart 6). Nevertheless, with vaccination rates still edging up and new antiviral drugs set to hit the market, it is reasonable to assume that many of the hardest-hit service categories will recover next year.   Q: What about medical services? Some have speculated that the shift to telemedicine will require much lower spending down the road. A: It is true that spending on outpatient services in September was $43 billon below pre-pandemic levels. However, over two-fifths of that shortfall was in dental services, which are not amenable to telemedicine. Spending on dental services was down 16% from its January 2020 levels, compared to 6% for physician services. A more plausible theory is that many people are still worried about venturing to the doctor’s or dentist’s office. In addition, a lot of elective procedures were canceled or postponed due to the pandemic. Clearing that backlog will lift medical spending next year. Chart 7The Flow Of Savings Has Fallen Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels But The Stock Of Accumulated Savings Remains High In any case, the cost of a telemedicine appointment is typically no different from an in-person one. And, to the extent that telemedicine does become more widespread, this could encourage more people to seek medical assistance. Lastly, even if spending on certain services does not fully recover after the pandemic, this will probably simply result in a permanent increase in spending on goods. The only way that overall consumer spending will falter is if the savings rate rises, which seems unlikely to us. Q: Why do you say that? The savings rate has been very high throughout the pandemic. A: The savings rate did spike during the pandemic, but that was mainly because fewer services were available, and because households were getting transfer payments from the government. Now that these payments have ended, the savings rate has dropped to 7.5%, roughly where it was prior to the pandemic. There is good reason to think the savings rate will keep falling next year. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, most of which reside in bank deposits (Chart 7). As they run down those savings, consumption will rise in relation to income. The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 8). Banks are eager to make consumer loans (Chart 9). Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 10). As we discussed three weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Chart 8APost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 8BPost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare   Chart 9Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumer Loans Chart 10A Record Rise In Household Net Worth   Q: Household wealth could fall as the Fed starts tapering and eventually raising rates. Wouldn’t that cool the economy? A: The taper is a fait accompli, and markets are already pricing in rate hikes starting in the second half of next year. If the Fed were to signal its intention to raise rates more quickly than what has been priced in, then home prices and stocks could certainly weaken. We do not think the Fed will pivot in a more hawkish direction before the end of next year, however. The Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate is only 2.5%, a big step down from its estimate of 4.25% in 2012. The market’s view is broadly in line with the Fed’s (Chart 11).  Despite the upward move in realized inflation, long-term inflation expectations remain in check – expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey has increased from 2.3% in late 2019 to 2.9%, bringing it back to where it was between 2010 and 2015. The 5-year/ 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 12). Chart 11The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Yet A Concern For The Fed   Q: What about fiscal policy? Isn’t it set to tighten sharply next year? A: The US budget deficit will decline next year. However, this will happen against the backdrop of strong private demand growth. Moreover, budget deficits are likely to remain elevated in the post-pandemic period. This week, President Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law, containing $550 billion in new spending. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $1.5-to-$2 trillion social spending bill using the reconciliation process. All in all, the IMF foresees the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit averaging 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 13). Chart 14While Overall Consumption Has Recovered, Business Spending and Direct Government Expenditures Remain Below Trend   It should also be noted that government spending on goods and services has been quite weak over the past two years (Chart 14). The budget deficit surged because transfer payments exploded. Unlike direct government spending, which is set to accelerate over the next few years, households saved a large share of transfer payments. Thus, the fiscal multiplier will increase next year, even as the budget deficit shrinks.   Q: We have focused a lot on demand, but what about supply? There are over 4 million fewer Americans employed today than before the pandemic and yet the job openings rate is near a record high. Chart 15Despite A Notable Decline, There Are Still A Lot Of People Avoiding Work Because Of Worries About Contracting Or Transmitting Covid A: Some people who left the workforce will regain employment. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, there are still 2.5 million people not working because they are afraid of catching or transmitting the virus (Chart 15). That said, some workers may remain sidelined for a while longer. The very same survey also revealed that about 8 million of the 100 million workers currently subject to vaccine mandates say that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” In addition, about 3.6 million workers have retired since the start of the pandemic, about 1.2 million more than one would have expected based on pre-existing demographic trends. Most of these retirees will not work again. Lifestyle choices may keep others from seeking employment. Female labor participation has declined much more during the pandemic and than it did during the Great Recession (Chart 16). While many mothers will re-enter the labor force now that schools have reopened, some may simply choose to stay at home. The bottom line is that the pandemic has reduced labor supply at a time when labor demand remains very strong. This is likely to exacerbate the labor shortage.   Q: Any chance that higher productivity will offset some of the damage to the supply side of the economy from decreased labor participation? A: US labor productivity did increase sharply during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, that appears to have been largely driven by composition effects in which low-skilled, poorly-paid service workers lost their jobs. As these low-skilled workers have returned to the labor force, productivity growth has dropped. The absolute level of productivity declined by 5.0% at an annualized rate in the third quarter, leading to an 8.3% increase in labor costs. It is telling that productivity growth has been extremely weak outside the US (Chart 17). This gives weight to the view that the pandemic-induced changes in business practices have not contributed to higher productivity, at least so far. It is also noteworthy that a recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. Increased investment spending should eventually boost productivity. Core capital goods orders, which lead corporate capex, are up 18% since the start of the pandemic (Chart 18). However, the near-term impact of increased investment spending will be to boost aggregate demand, stoking inflation in the process. Chart 18US Capex Should Pick Up   Q: We have spoken a lot about the US, but the world’s second biggest economy, China, is facing a massive deflationary shock from the implosion of its real estate market. Could that deflationary impulse potentially cancel out the inflationary impulse from an overheated US economy? A: You are quite correct that inflation has risen the most in the US. While inflation has picked up in Europe, this mainly reflects base effects (Chart 19). Inflation in China has fallen since the start of the pandemic despite booming exports. There are striking demographic parallels between China today and Japan in the early 1990s. The bursting of Japan’s property bubble corresponded with a peak in the country’s working-age population (Chart 20). China’s working-age population has also peaked and is set to decline by more than 40% over the remainder of the century. Chart 19The US Stands Out As The Inflation Leader Chart 20Demographic Parallels Between China And Japan That said, there are important differences between the two nations. In 1990, Japan was a rich economy; output-per-hour was nearly 70% of US levels. China is still a middle-income economy; output-per-hour is only 20% of US levels (Chart 21). China has the ability to outgrow some of its problems in a way that Japan did not. In addition, Chinese policymakers have learned from some of Japan’s mistakes. They have been trying to curb the economy’s dependence on property development; real estate development investment has fallen from 12% of GDP in 2014 to less than 10% of GDP (Chart 22). China is still building too many new homes, but unlike Japan in the 1990s, the government is likely to pursue stimulus measures to compensate for a shrinking property sector. This should keep the economy from entering a deflationary slump. Chart 22Real Estate Investment Has Peaked In China   Q: Let’s bring this back to markets. What is the main investment takeaway from your view? A: The main takeaway is that investors should remain bullish on stocks and other risk assets for the next 12 months but be prepared to turn more cautious in 2023. The neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than generally assumed. This means that monetary policy is currently more accommodative than widely believed, which is good for stocks. Unfortunately, it also means that a policy error is likely: The Fed will keep rates too low for too long, causing the economy to overheat. Chart 23Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise This overheating will not be evident over the next six months. As we noted at the outset of this report, the US economy is currently at the top of the proverbial two steps in our projected “two steps up, one step down” trajectory for inflation. The cresting in durable goods inflation will provide a temporary respite from inflationary worries, even as the underlying long-term driver of higher inflation – an increasingly tight labor market – gains traction. Strong consumer demand and persistent labor shortages will incentivize companies to invest in new capacity and automate production. This will benefit industrial stocks and select tech names. Rising bond yields will also boost bank shares (Chart 23). A country’s current account balance is simply the difference between what it saves and what it invests. With savings on the downswing and investment on the upswing, the US will find it increasingly difficult to finance its burgeoning trade deficit. The US dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t necessarily bet against the greenback in the near term (Chart 24). Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon (Chart 25). Chart 25Long Dollar Is A Crowded Trade   Chart 26A Depreciating Dollar Next Year Should Help Non-US Equities A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging markets (Chart 26). The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Remain neutral on the US dollar. A breakout of the dollar would cause a shift in strategy. Russia’s conflict with the West is heating up now that Germany has delayed the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. As long as the focus remains on the pipeline, the crisis will dissipate sometime in the middle of next year. But there is an equal chance of a massive escalation of strategic tensions. Our GeoRisk Indicators will keep rising in Europe, negatively affecting investor risk appetite. Stick with DM Europe over EM Europe stocks. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia offer cyclical opportunities. Turkish and Brazilian equities will not be able to bounce back sustainably in the midst of chaotic election cycles and deep structural problems. Rallies are to be faded.  Feature We were struck this week by JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s claim that his business will “not swayed by geopolitical winds.”1  If he had said “political winds” we might have agreed. It is often the case that business executives need to turn up their collars against the ever-changing, noisy, and acrimonious political environment. However, we take issue with his specific formulation. Geopolitical winds cannot shrugged off so easily – or they are not truly geopolitical. Geopolitics is not primarily about individual world leaders or topical issues. It is primarily about things that are very hard and slow to change: geography, demography, economic structure, military and technological capabilities, and national interests. This is the importance of having a geopolitically informed approach to macroeconomics and financial markets: investment is about preserving and growing wealth over the long run despite the whirlwind of changes affecting politicians, parties, and local political tactics.  In this month’s GeoRisk Update we update our market-based, quantitative geopolitical risk indicators with a special focus on how financial markets are responding to the interplay of near-term and cyclical political risks with structural and tectonic pressures underlying a select group of economies and political systems. Is King Dollar Breaking Out? Chart 1King Dollar Breaking Out? Our first observation is that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out and rallying (Chart 1). This potential rally is observable in trade-weighted terms and especially relative to the euro, which has slumped sharply since November 5th. Our view on the dollar remains neutral but we are watching this rally closely. This year was supposed to be a year in which global growth recovered from the pandemic on the back of vaccination campaigns, leading the counter-cyclical dollar to drop off. The DXY bounce early in the year peaked on April 2nd but then began anew after hitting a major resistance level at 90. The United States is still the preponderant power within the international system. The USD remains the world’s leading currency by transactions and reserves. The pandemic, social unrest, and contested election of 2020 served as a “stress test” that the American system survived, whether judging by the innovation of vaccines, the restoration of order, or the preservation of the constitutional transfer of power. Meanwhile Europe faces several new hurdles that have weighed on the euro. These include the negative ramifications of the slowdown in Asia, energy supply shortages, a new wave of COVID-19 cases, and the partial reimposition of social restrictions. Moreover the Federal Reserve is likely to hike interest rates faster and higher than the European Central Bank over the coming years. Potential growth is higher in the US than Europe and the US growth is supercharged by fiscal stimulus whereas Europe’s stimulus is more limited. Of course, the US’s orgy of monetary and fiscal stimulus and ballooning trade deficits raise risks for the dollar. Global growth is expected to rotate to other parts of the world over the coming 12 months as vaccination spreads. There is still a chance that the dollar’s bounce is a counter-trend bounce and that the dollar will relapse next year. Hence our neutral view. Yet from a geopolitical perspective, the US population and economy are larger, more dynamic, more innovative, safer, and more secure than those of the European Union. The US still exhibits an ability to avoid the reckoning that is overdue from a macroeconomic perspective.  Russia-West Conflict Resumes In our third quarter outlook we argued that European geopolitical risk had hit a bottom, after coming off the sovereign debt crisis of 2010-15, and that geopolitical risk would begin to rise over the long term for this region. Our reasoning was that the markets had fully priced the Europeans’ decision to band together in the face of risks to the EU’s and EMU’s integrity. What markets would need to price going forward would be greater risks to Europe’s stability from a chaotic external environment that Europe lacked the willingness or ability to control: conflict with Russia, immigration, terrorism, and the slowdown in Asia. In particular we argued that Russia’s secular conflict with the West would resume. US-Russia relations would not improve despite presidential summits. The Nord Stream II pipeline would become a lightning rod for conflict, as its operation was more likely to be halted than the consensus held. (German regulators paused the approval process this week, raising the potential for certification to be delayed past the expected March-May months of 2022.) Most importantly we argued that the Russian strategy of political and military aggression in its near-abroad would continue since Russia would continue to feel threatened by domestic instability at home and Western attempts to improve economic integration and security coordination with former Soviet Union countries.  Chart 2Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further For this reason we recommended that investors eschew Russian equities despite a major rally in commodity prices. Any rally would be undercut by the slowing economy in Asia or geopolitical conflicts that frightened investors away from Russian companies, or both. Today the market is in the process of pricing the impact on Russian equities from commodity prices coming off the boil. But politics may also have something to do with the selloff in Russian equities (Chart 2). The selloff can continue given still-negative hard economic data from Asia and the escalation of tensions around Russia’s strategically sensitive borders: Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, and the Black Sea. The equity risk premium will remain elevated for eastern European markets as a result of the latest materialization of country risk and geopolitical risk – the long running trend of outperformance by developed Europe has been confirmed on a technical resistance level (Chart 3). Our mistake was closing our recommendation to buy European natural gas prices too early this year. Chart 3Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown In early 2021, our market-based geopolitical risk indicator for Russia slumped, implying that global investors expected a positive diplomatic “reset” between the US and Russia. We advised clients to ignore this signal and argued that Russian geopolitical risk would take back off again. We said the same thing when the indicator slumped again in the second half of the year and now it is clear the indicator will move sharply higher (Chart 4). The point is that geopolitics keeps interfering with investors’ desire to resuscitate Russian equities based on macro and fundamental factors: cheap valuations, commodity price rises, some local improvements in competitiveness, and the search for yield.   Chart 4Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russia may or may not stage a new military incursion into Ukraine – the odds are 50/50, given that Russia has invaded already and has the raw capability in place on Ukraine’s borders. The intention of an incursion would be to push Russian control across the entire southern border of Ukraine to Odessa, bringing a larger swathe of the Black Sea coast under Moscow’s control in pursuit of Russia’s historic quest for warm water ports. The limitations on Russia are obvious. It would undertake new military and fiscal burdens of occupation, push the US and EU closer together, provoke a stronger NATO defense alliance, and invite further economic sanctions. Yet similar tradeoffs did not prevent Russia from taking surprise military action in Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014. After the past 13 years the US and EU are still uncoordinated and indecisive. The US is still internally divided. With energy prices high, domestic political support low, and Russia’s long-term strategic situation bleak, Moscow may believe that the time is right to expand its buffer territory further into Ukraine. We cannot rule out such an outcome, now or over the next few years. If Russia attacks, global risk assets will suffer a meaningful pullback. It will not be a bear market unless the conflict spills out beyond Ukraine to affect major economies. We have not taken a second Ukraine invasion as our base case because Russia is focused primarily on getting the Nord Stream pipeline certified. A broader war would prevent that from happening. Military threats after Nord Stream is certified will be more worrisome.  A less belligerent but still aggressive move would be for Russia to militarize the Belarussian border amid the conflict with the EU over Belarus’s funneling of Middle Eastern migrants into the EU via Poland and Lithuania. A closer integration of Russia’s and Belarus’s economies and militaries would fit with Russia’s grand strategy, improve Russia’s military posture in eastern Europe, and escalate fears of eventual war in Poland and the Baltic states. The West would wring its hands and announce more sanctions but may not have a higher caliber response as such a move would not involve hostilities or the violation of mutual defense treaties. This outcome would be negative but also digested fairly quickly by financial markets. Our European GeoRisk Indicators (see Appendix) are likely to respond to the new Russia crisis, in keeping with our view that European geopolitical risk will rise in the 2020s: German risk has dropped off since the election but will now revive at least until Nord Stream II is certified. If Russia re-invades Ukraine it will rise, as it did in 2014.  French risk was already heating up due to the presidential election beginning April 10 (first round) but now may heat up more. Not that Russia poses a direct threat to France but more that broader regional insecurities would hurt sentiment. The election itself is not a major risk to investors, though terrorist attacks could tick up. President Macron has an incentive to be hawkish on a range of issues over the next half year. The UK is in the midst of the Russia conflict. Its defense cooperation with Ukraine and naval activity in the Black Sea, such as port calls in Georgia, have prompted Russia’s military threats – including a threat to bomb a Royal Navy vessel earlier this year. Not to mention ongoing complications around Brexit. The Russian situation is by far the most significant factor. Spain is at a further remove from Russia but its risks are rising due to domestic political polarization and the rising likelihood of a breakdown in the ruling government. Bottom Line: We still favor these countries’ equities to those of eastern Europe but our risk indicators will rise, suggesting that geopolitical incidents could cause a setback for some or all of these markets in absolute terms. A pickup in Asian growth would be beneficial for developed European assets so we are cyclically constructive. We remain neutral on the USD-EUR though a buying opportunity may present itself if and when the Nord Stream II pipeline is certified.  Korea: Nobody’s Heard From Kim In A While Chart 5Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Geopolitical risk has risen in South Korea due to COVID-19 and its aftershocks, including supply kinks, shortages, and policy tightening by the giant to the West (Chart 5). South Korea’s geopolitical risk indicator is still very high but not because of North Korea. Our Dear Leader Kim Jong Un has not been overly provocative, although he has restarted the cycle of provocations during the Biden administration. Yet South Korean geopolitical risk has skyrocketed. The problem is that investors have lost a lot of appetite for South Korea in a global environment in which demographics are languishing, globalization is retreating, a regional cold war is developing, and debt levels are high. Domestic politics have become more redistributive without accompanying reforms to improve competitiveness or reform corporate conglomerates. The revival of the South Korean conservatives ahead of elections in 2022 suggests political risk will remain elevated. Of course, North Korea could still move the dial. A massive provocation, say something on the scale of the surprise naval attack on the Chonan in the wake of the global financial crisis in spring of 2010, could push up the risk indicator higher and increase volatility for the Korean won and equities. Kim could take such an action to insist that President Biden pay heed to him, like President Trump did, or at least not ignore him, in a context in which Biden is doing just that due to far more pressing concerns. Biden would be forced to reestablish a credible threat.  Still, North Korea is not the major factor today. Not compared to the economic and financial instability in the region. At the same time, if global growth surprises pick up and the dollar does not break out, Korea will be a beneficiary. We have taken a constructive cyclical view, although our specific long Korea trade has not worked out this year. Korean equities depreciated by 11.2% in USD terms year-to-date, compared to 0.3% for the rest of EM. Structurally, Korea cannot overcome the negative demographic and economic factors mentioned above. Geopolitically it remains a “shrimp between two whales” and will fail to reconcile its economic interests with its defense alliance with the United States.   Australia: Wait On The Dollar Chart 6Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian geopolitical risk has not fallen back much from this year’s highs, according to our quant indicator (Chart 6). Global shortages and a miniature trade war were the culprits of this year’s spike. The advantage for Australia is that commodity prices and metals look to remain in high demand as the world economy fully mends. Various nations are implementing large public investment programs, especially re-gearing their energy sectors to focus more on renewables. The reassertion of the US security alliance is positive for Australia but geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis regardless.   Cyclically we would look positively toward Australian stocks. Yet they have risen by 4.3% in common currency terms this year so far, compared to the developed market-ex-US average of 11.0%. Moreover the Aussie’s latest moves confirm that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out which would be negative for this bourse. Structurally Australia will go through a painful economic transition but it will be motivated to do so by the new regional cold war and threats to national security. The US alliance is a geopolitical positive.   Turkey And Brazil The greenback’s rally could be sustainable not only because of the divergence of US from Asian and global growth but also because of the humiliating domestic political environment of most prominent emerging markets. Chart 7Emerging Market Bull Trap We booked gains our “short” trade of the currencies of EM “strongmen,” such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, earlier this year. But we noted that we still hold a negative view on these economies and currencies. This is especially true today as contentious elections approach in both countries in 2022 and 2023 respectively (Chart 7). Turkey is trapped into an inflation spiral of its own design, which enervates the economy, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. It is also trapped in a geopolitical stance in which it has repeatedly raised the stakes in simultaneous clashes with Russia, the US, Europe, Israel, the Arab states, Libya, and Iran. Russia’s maneuvers in the Black Sea are fundamentally threatening to Turkey, so while Erdogan has maintained a balance with Russia for several years, Russian aggression could upset that balance. Turkey has backed off from some recent confrontations with the West lately but there is not yet a trend of improvement. The COVID-19 crisis gave Erdogan a badly needed bump in polls, unlike other EM peers. But this simply reinforces the market’s overrating of his odds of being re-elected. In reality the odds of a contested election or an election upset are fairly high. New lows in the lira show that the market is reacting to the whole negative complex of issues around Turkey. But the full weight of the government’s mismanaging of economic policy to stay in power and stay geopolitically relevant has not yet been felt. The election is still 19 months away. A narrow outcome, for or against Erdogan and his party, would make things worse, not better. Brazil’s domestic political and geopolitical risks are more manageable than Turkey’s. But it faces a tumultuous election in which institutional flaws and failures will be on full display. Investors will try to front-run the election believing that former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will restore the good old days. But we discourage that approach. We see at least two massive hurdles for the market: first, Brazil has to pass its constitutional stress test; second, the next administration needs to be forced into difficult decisions to preserve growth and debt management. These will come at the expense of either growth or the currency, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. We still prefer Mexican stocks. Geopolitically, Turkey will struggle with Russia’s insecurity and aggression, Europe’s use of economic coercion, and Middle Eastern instability. Brazil does not have these external problems, although social stability will always be fragile. Investment Takeaways The dollar is acting as if it may break out in a major rally. Our view has been neutral but our generally reflationary perspective on the global economy is being challenged. Russia’s conflict with the West will escalate, not de-escalate, in the wake of Germany’s decision to delay the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. Russia has greater leverage now than usual because of energy shortages. A re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. But the pipeline is Russia’s immediate focus. Investors have seen conflict in Ukraine so they will be desensitized quickly unless the conflict spreads into new geographies or spills out to affect major economies. The same goes for trouble on Belarus’s borders. Stick with long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Opportunities may emerge to become more bullish on the euro and European equities if and when the Nord Stream II situation looks to be resolved and Asian risks to global growth are allayed. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia are cyclical beneficiaries. Whereas “strongman” regimes will remain volatile and the source of bull traps, especially Turkey.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  “JP Morgan chief becomes first Wall Street boss to visit during pandemic,” Financial Times, November 15, 2021, ft.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar