Consumer

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Global Equities Are More Attractively Valued After The Recent Sell-Off We tactically downgraded global equities in late February but see the current level of stock prices as offering enough upside to warrant an overweight. Global equities are now trading at 15.6-times forward earnings, and only 12.6-times outside the US. More importantly, the forces that pushed down stock prices are starting to abate: The war in Ukraine no longer seems likely to devolve into a broader conflict; the number of new Covid cases in China has fallen by half; and global inflation has peaked. The next 18 months of falling inflation and receding recession fears could see stocks recover much of their losses. The “Last Hurrah” for equities is coming. We continue to think that over a 5-year horizon, bond yields will rise from current levels, value stocks will outperform growth stocks, and crypto prices will fall. However, countertrend rallies are likely. To express this view, we recommend taking partial profits on our short 10-year Treasury trade recommendation (up 9.3% from an initial entry yield of 1.45% on June 30, 2021). We are also halving our long global value/growth position (up 20.1% since inception on December 10, 2020) and our short Bitcoin position (up 98% based on our exponential shorting technique). Bottom Line: Global equities are heading towards a “last Hurrah” starting in the second half of this year. Tactically upgrade stocks to overweight.   Feature Dear Client, We published a Special Alert early this afternoon tactically upgrading global equities to overweight. As promised, the enclosed report elaborates on our view change. Best regards, Peter Berezin Restore Tactical Overweight On Global Equities Chart 1Global Equities Are More Attractively Valued After The Recent Sell-Off We tactically downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral on February 28th. The war in Ukraine, the Covid outbreak in China, and most importantly, the rise in bond yields have kept us on the sidelines ever since. At this point, however, the outlook for stocks has brightened, and thus we are restoring our tactical (3-month) overweight to stocks so that it is consistent with our bullish 12-month cyclical view. First, valuations have discounted much of the bad news. After the recent sell-off, global equities are trading at 15.6-times forward earnings (Chart 1). Outside the US, they trade at only 12.6-times forward earnings. Second, the forces that pushed down stock prices are starting to abate. The war in Ukraine is approaching a stalemate, with Russian troops unable to take much of the country, let alone seriously threaten regional neighbours. A European embargo on Russian oil is likely but will be watered down significantly before it is implemented. European officials have shied away from banning Russian natural gas, an action that would have much more severe economic implications. While still very high in absolute terms, December-2022 European natural gas futures are down 36% from their peak on March 7 (Chart 2). The 7-day average of new Covid cases in China has fallen by more than half since late April (Chart 3). Considering that a significant fraction of China’s elderly population is unvaccinated, the authorities will continue to play whack-a-mole with the virus for the next few months (Chart 4). Fortunately, Chinese domestic production of Pfizer’s Paxlovid anti-Covid drug is starting to ramp up, which should allow for some easing in lockdown measures later this year. Chart 2European Natural Gas Futures Have Come Off The Boil Chart 3Covid Cases Are Falling In China… The 20th Chinese National Party Congress is slated for this fall. In the lead-up to the Congress, it is likely that the government will move to diffuse social tensions over its handling of the pandemic by showering the economy with stimulus funds. Of note, the credit impulse has already turned higher, which bodes well for both Chinese growth and growth abroad (Chart 5). Chart 4… But Low Vaccination Rates Among The Elderly Remain A Risk Chart 5A Rebound In China's Credit Impulse Bodes Well For China And The Rest Of The World   Inflation Is Peaking On the inflation front, the data flow has gone from unambiguously bad to neutral (and perhaps even slightly positive). In the US, core goods inflation fell by 0.4% month-over-month in April, the first outright decline in core goods prices since February 2021. The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index has crested and is now 6.4% below its January peak (Chart 6). Global shipping rates have moved up a bit recently on the back of Chinese port shutdowns but remain well below their highs earlier this year (Chart 7). Chart 6Used Car Prices Appear To Have Peaked Chart 7Global Shipping Rates Are Well Off Their Highs It Is The Composition Of Spending That Is Distorted Despite the often-heard claim that US consumer spending is well above trend, the reality is that spending is more or less in line with its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 8). It is the composition of spending that is out of line: Goods spending is well above trend while services spending is well below. One might think that only the overall level of spending should matter for inflation, and that the composition of spending is irrelevant. However, this ignores the reality that services prices are generally stickier than goods prices. Companies that sold fitness equipment during the pandemic had no qualms about raising prices. In contrast, gyms barely cut prices, figuring that lower membership fees would do little to drive new business through the door (Chart 9). Chart 8Total US Consumer Spending Is Almost Exactly At Its Pre-Pandemic Trend, But The Composition Of Spending Remains Skewed Chart 9Asymmetries Matter: Firms Manufacturing Sports Equipment Jacked Up Prices, But Gyms Barely Cut Prices This asymmetry matters, and it suggests that goods inflation should continue to fall over the coming months as the composition of spending shifts back to services. A Lull In Wage Growth Wages are the most important determinant of services inflation. While it is too early to be certain, the latest data suggest that wage growth has peaked. The 3-month annualized growth rate in average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers slowed from 7.2% in the second half of 2021 to 3.8% in April (Chart 10). Assuming productivity growth of around 1.5%, this is consistent with inflation of only slightly more than 2%. Nominal wage growth is a function of both labor market slack and expected inflation. Slack should increase modestly during the rest of the year as labor participation recovers. Chart 11 shows that the labor force participation rate is still about 0.9 percentage points below where one would expect it to be, even adjusting for an aging population and increased early retirements. Chart 10Wage Growth Seems To Be Topping Out Chart 11Labor Participation Has Further Scope To Recover Employment has been particularly depressed among lower-wage workers (Chart 12). This should change as more low-wage workers exhaust their savings and are forced to seek employment. According to the Fed, the lowest-paid 20% of workers are the only group to have seen their bank deposits dwindle since mid-2021 (Chart 13). Chart 12More Low-Wage Employees Will Return To Work Chart 13The Savings Of Low-Wage Workers Are Dwindling Inflation expectations should come down as goods inflation recedes and oil prices come off their highs (Chart 14). Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, sees the price of Brent averaging $86/bbl in the second half of this year, down 16% from current levels.  Central Banks Will Dial Back The Hawkishness With inflation set to fall over the remainder of the year, and financial markets showing increasing signs of stress, the Fed and other central banks will adopt a softer tone. It is worth noting that the median terminal dot for the Fed funds rate actually declined from 2.5% to 2.4% in the March Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 15). Given that markets expect US interest rates to rise to 3.25% in 2023, the Fed may not want investors to further rachet up rate expectations. Chart 14US Inflation Expectations Should Recede If Oil Prices Drop Chart 15Rate Expectations Have Moved Well Above The Fed's Estimate of Neutral   The Bank of England has already veered in a more dovish direction. Its latest forecast, released on May 5, showed real GDP contracting slightly in 2023. Based on market interest rate expectations, the BoE sees headline inflation falling to 1.5% by end-2024, below its target of 2%. Even assuming that interest rates remain at 1%, the BoE believes that inflation will only be slightly above 2% at the end of 2024, implying little need for incremental policy tightening. Not surprisingly, the pound has sold off. We have been tactically short GBP/USD but are using this opportunity to turn tactically neutral. Given favorable valuations, we like the pound over the long run. Chart 16Spending In The Euro Area Is Well Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend The euro area provides a good example of the dangers of focusing too much on short-term inflation dynamics. Supply-side disruptions stemming from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have weighed on European growth this year. Yet, those very same factors have also pushed up inflation. Harmonized inflation across the euro area reached 7.5% in April, the highest since the launch of the common currency. The ECB is eager to put some distance between policy rates and the zero bound. However, there is little need for significant tightening. Unlike in the US, spending in the euro area is well below its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 16). If anything, more inflation would be welcome since that would give the ECB scope to bring real rates further into negative territory if economic conditions warrant it. To its credit, the Bank of Japan has stuck with its yield curve control system, even as bond yields have risen elsewhere in the world. Japan’s currency has weakened but given that inflation expectations are too low, and virtually all of its debt is denominated in yen, that is hardly a bad thing. Too Late? Has the surge in bond yields already done enough damage to the global economy to make a recession inevitable? We do not think so. As noted above, much of the recent harm has been caused by various dislocations, namely the war in Ukraine and the ongoing effects of the pandemic. As these dislocations dissipate, inflation will fall and global growth will recover. Despite the hoopla over how the US economy contracted in the first quarter, real private final sales to domestic purchasers (a measure of GDP growth that strips out the effects of changes in government spending, inventories, and net exports) rose by 3.7% at an annualized rate. As Table 1 shows, this measure of economic activity has the highest predictive power for GDP growth one-quarter ahead. Table 1A Good Sign: Real Final Sales To Private Domestic Purchasers Rose By 3.7% In Q1 Meanwhile, and completely overlooked at this point, S&P 500 earnings have come in 7.3% above expectations so far in Q1, with nearly 80% of S&P 500 companies surprising on the upside. Earnings are up 10.4% year-over-year in Q1. Sales are up 13.6%. Looking out to Q4 of 2022, S&P companies are expected to earn $60.93 in EPS, up 4.3% from what analysts expected at the start of the year. It is also worth noting that homebuilder stocks have basically been flat over the past 30 days, even as the S&P 500 has dropped by nearly 10% over this period. Housing is the most interest rate-sensitive sector of the economy. With the homeowner vacancy rate at record low levels, even today’s mortgage rates may not be enough to push the economy into recession (Chart 17). Economic vulnerabilities are greater outside the US. Nevertheless, there is enough pent-up demand on both the consumer and capital spending side to sustain growth. The Last Hurrah How long will the “Goldilocks” period of falling inflation and supply-side driven growth last? Our guess is about 18 months, starting this summer and lasting until the end of 2023. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the benign environment that will emerge in the second half of this year will sow the seeds of its own demise. Real wages are currently falling across the major economies (Chart 18). That has dampened consumer confidence and spending. However, as inflation comes down, real wage growth will turn positive. This will stoke demand, leading to a reacceleration in inflation, most likely in late 2023 or early 2024. Chart 17Tight Supply Makes Housing More Resilient Chart 18Real Wages Are Falling In Most Countries   In the end, central banks will discover that the neutral rate of interest is higher than they thought. That is good news for stocks in the short-to-medium run because it means that forthcoming rate hikes will not induce a recession. Down the road, however, a higher neutral rate means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that the disinflation we envision over the next 18 months will not last. All this puts us in the rather lonely “transitory transitory” camp: We think much of today’s high inflation will prove to be transitory, but the transitory nature of that inflation will itself be transitory. Be that as it may, the next 18 months of falling inflation and receding recession fears could see stocks recover much of their losses. For most investors, that is too long a period to sit on the sidelines. The “Last Hurrah” for equities is coming. Taking Partial Profits On Our Short Treasury, Long Value/Growth, And Short Bitcoin Trades We continue to think that over a 5-year horizon, bond yields will rise from current levels, value stocks will outperform growth stocks, and crypto prices will fall. However, with the “Last Hurrah” approaching, countertrend rallies are likely. To express this view, we recommend taking half profits on our short 10-year Treasury trade recommendation (up 9.3% from an initial entry yield of 1.45% on June 30, 2021). We are also halving our long global value/growth position (up 20.1% since inception on December 10, 2020), and our short Bitcoin position (up 98% based on our exponential shorting technique). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Executive SummaryIn this report, we look at recent macroeconomic developments through the lens of the business cycle, inflation, and Treasury yield regimes to select winning sectors and styles.The US economy is currently in the slowdown stage of the business cycle, with all of its hallmark attributes, such as slowing growth, elevated inflation, and rising rates.We find that, despite being a real asset, equity performance deteriorates when inflation is on the rise. However, once inflation goes past its apex, the equity rebound is swift.During periods when both inflation and rates are rising, the Energy and Materials sectors tend to outperform, while the Financials and Consumer Discretionary sectors lag.The market is currently in a “high inflation and rising rates” regime but is about to transition to the “inflation is high but falling” regime, and today’s winners may turn into tomorrow’s losers. The new winners are likely to be the Financials, Consumer Discretionary, and Technology sectors.Bottom Line: As inflationary regimes shift, investors can tilt the odds of positive returns in their favor by taking a granular approach to sector selection. So far, 2022 has not been a welcoming year for investors.  All at once, slowing growth, surging inflation, impending monetary tightening, soaring energy prices, lockdowns in China, and a war in the heart of Europe have been thrown at them.With so much happening, it is difficult to separate signal from noise in the cross-currents of economic data. To make sense of the markets, we will look at recent developments through the lens of macroeconomic regimes, focusing on the stages of the business cycle, level and change in inflation, and the direction of Treasury yields.The Business Cycle Is In A Slowdown StageThe business cycle is a cornerstone of any investment decision as it underpins the fundamentals, and preordains the types of assets likely to outperform based on their level of risk and sensitivity to economic growth. The stage of the business cycle is a succinct way to summarize a wide range of economic data, such as capacity utilization, growth, policy, credit conditions, and valuation (Table 1). Table 1Business Cycle Is In A Slowdown Stage While we are barraged with somewhat contradictory economic data, it is still fair to say that we are currently in the middle of the slowdown stage of the business cycle. Our proprietary business cycle indicator, constructed from a mix of soft and hard data across multiple economic dimensions, is trending down, consistent with that position (Chart 1). Furthermore:Growth is slowing, albeit off high levels, and the most recent disappointing ISM PMI is just another case in point. More concerning is that the new orders-to-inventories ratio has plunged (Chart 2);Unemployment is at a 2-year low of 3.6%, and there are currently two job openings per job seeker;Capacity utilization is high;Inflation is elevated;The Fed has commenced a monetary tightening cycle. Chart 1Economic Growth Is Slowing  Chart 2ISM PMI Disappointed As such, during slowdown stage of a business cycle, returns tend to be lower than during recovery and expansion, while volatility is elevated (Chart 3).Chart 3During A Slowdown, Equity Returns Are Paltry, While Volatility Is Elevated If equities are set to deliver pedestrian returns, we need to be more discerning in our sector and style selection. In an environment of slowing growth, growth stocks, large caps, and defensives tend to outperform (Chart 4).  However, we have all observed that Growth has not fared that well due to rapidly rising interest rates and soaring inflation. In order to better understand the implication of the macroeconomic backdrop for equities, we need to drill further down into the inflation and interest-rate regimes.Chart 4During A Slowdown, Quality, Growth, And Defensives Outperform Inflation And Rates RegimesHigh Inflation: Then And NowThe recent spike in inflation came as a shock to most money managers – the last time inflation hit this level was in the 1980s, which predated their investment careers.In the wake of major oil shocks, oil prices quadrupled in 1973-74 and doubled in 1979-80. The combination of high inflation with weak economic growth, fueled by repeated supply shocks, gave rise to the phenomenon of “stagflation”, i.e., soaring inflation accompanied by stagnating economic growth and high unemployment.The high inflation we are living through now was brought about by the pandemic, which ushered in unprecedented fiscal and monetary easing, soaring demand for consumer goods, and a disrupted global supply chain. More recently, inflation has been further exacerbated by the indirect effects of the war in Ukraine, such as skyrocketing energy, food, and materials prices. Despite the challenges of the current period, economic growth is still robust, and unemployment is at historically low levels. Energy and materials prices have soared, but not to the same extent as in the 1970s. And while economic growth is slowing, and stagflation is a risk, it is hardly inevitable.To ensure a more precise study of the sector and style analysis, we will separate the 1970-1984 period and look at it as a template for the performance of equities during a stagflation regime. We will use the 1984 to 2022 period to analyze sector performance during more ordinary inflation regimes.Equities Hate ItEquities are a real asset and, theoretically, should not be affected by inflation – sales and earnings growth are reported in nominal terms, and underlying economic growth is, by far, more important than inflation.Of course, reality is often different from theory, and businesses hate inflation: Not only do they have difficulty budgeting and planning ahead, but they are also often not able to convert sales growth into earnings growth, i.e., their costs may grow faster than their revenues. According to the most recent NFIB survey, 31% of small businesses consider inflation their biggest problem compared to 1-2% in 2019.In addition, high inflation is a harbinger of a hawkish Fed and rising interest rates. Hence, on balance, high inflation is bad news for equities (Chart 5). As inflation climbs, equity returns decline, as multiples contract in anticipation of lower earnings and higher discount rates (Chart 6). Chart 5Equities Underperform In A High-Inflation Environment  Chart 6High Inflation Leads To Multiple Contraction Investing In Periods Of High-Inflation And Rising RatesHigh inflation is often accompanied by rising rates both because of strong economic growth and imminent monetary tightening which aims to arrest growth to combat inflation. As a result, high inflation comes hand in hand with elevated risk aversion and the repricing of more economically sensitive areas of the market.Indeed, when inflation is high (>3.5%) and rates are rising, median three-month equity returns are outright negative, and positive three-months returns occur less than 50% of the time (Chart 7). To beat the market, we need to tilt the return distribution in our favor.Chart 7We Are In High Inflation / Rising Rates Regime When inflation is elevated (above 3.5%) and Treasury yields are climbing, the most appropriate portfolio stance is a tilt toward all-weather defensive sectors like Consumer Staples and Health Care, which hold their own in an environment of slowing growth, as well as sectors that command significant pricing power (Chart 8). The following is a brief summary of the winners and losers. Chart 8Sector Performance In High Inflation / Rising Rates Regime High Inflation/Rising Rate WinnersEnergy: High oil prices are often one of the culprits behind runaway inflation, with the exception of the mid-1980s episode when Saudi Arabia drowned the world in oil, causing a collapse in oil prices, while inflation was on the rise. The energy sector has significant pricing power as it is upstream of the supply chain and can pass on costs to customers (Chart 9). This sector also benefits from high operating leverage. Outperformance usually peaks when inflation turns.Health Care: Health Care stocks tend to outperform when overall consumer prices advance. The non-cyclical nature of health care services reflects their resilience against economic volatility, irrespective of the direction of pricing pressures (Chart 10).  Over the past few years, health care companies have struggled, mostly because of the pressure exerted on pharma by hospitals, insurers, and the government. However, recently, the sector’s pricing power has turned because of pent-up demand for medical procedures. Chart 9The Energy Sector Wields Significant Pricing Power  Chart 10Pricing Power Of The Health Care Sector Has Picked Up Thanks To Pent-up Demand Consumer Staples: Historically, Consumer Staples have outperformed during periods of high inflation (Chart 11). Just like Health Care, this is a non-cyclical sector, because the demand for necessities is inelastic. While this sector is experiencing challenges because of the rising prices of raw materials, it is able to pass on its costs to customers, who have to allocate an increasing share of their budget to necessities. It has also helped multinationals in the S&P 500 index, as they invest in brand building, which now aids them to differentiate their offerings even when consumers are under duress.Utilities: Utilities is another quintessential defensive sector, with a stable revenue stream, significant pricing power, and profitability controlled by the regulators.    Of course, one might argue that this is a highly leveraged sector which may be hurt by rising borrowing costs.  However, it fares well, as regulators have a target return-on-investment for utilities companies, thus allowing them to raise prices to offset rising costs.  Furthermore, with high inflation, long-term debt is smaller in real terms.  Chart 11Consumer Staples Companies Have Invested In Brand-building High Inflation/Rising Rates LosersConsumer Discretionary companies underperform in an environment of high and rising inflation as inflation reduces consumers’ purchasing power and forces them to shift spending away from discretionary goods and services, and toward necessities. The high negative correlation of the sector with the Consumer Drag Indicator is a case in point (Chart 12). Further, rising interest rates often follow high inflation, and weigh on demand for durable goods that require financing.Financials: High inflation is a headwind for the sector because monetary tightening which follows on the heels of high inflation tends to flatten the yield curve, affecting banks’ Net Income Margins (NIM), or the spread between loans and deposits. Inflation also hurts S&P Financials due to the mismatch between bank assets and liabilities. A typical bank has longer maturity for its assets (loans) than for its liabilities (deposits). Consequently, as inflation rises, this reduces the future net inflow because creditors demand higher interest rates, while the returns earned by the bank on its current loan book are mostly fixed by existing contracts. Chart 12Raging Inflation Cuts Into Consumers' Discretionary Spending Inflation Will Turn Soon (Hopefully), And So Will Sector PerformanceInflation is likely to fade somewhat over the coming quarters, as supply chains normalize, and consumer demand wanes because of saturation and elevated prices. Arithmetic will also help, i.e., the base effect will kick in. Also, aggressive monetary policy is likely to slow economic growth and demand for labor further. With all of that, inflation will trend down but will reach the elusive 2% only years from now.However, when it comes to inflation, it is both the level of inflation and the direction of change that matter. While, overall, high inflation is bad for equities, it is necessary to differentiate between “inflation high and rising” and “inflation high and falling” regimes (Chart 13). As such, it is likely that we are about to shift into the “inflation is above 3.5% but falling” regime, where the median three-month return is 3.0% and returns are positive 69% of the time. We do anticipate a rebound in equities once the tighter monetary regime is priced in, and inflation shows signs of abating.Chart 13When Inflation Turns, Equities Will Rebound With the Fed assuming an active role, we believe that going forward, equity returns will be more of a function of the monetary tightening cycle than of inflation. However, falling inflation readings may slow the pace of monetary tightening, or even put the Fed on hold.According to our analysis of sector performance in the “inflation is above 3.5% and is falling” regime, Energy and Materials will be the first sectors to reverse recent gains. The Consumer Discretionary sector is likely to rebound as pressure on consumer purses eases. Financials will also be among sectors that outperform in this regime, since fading inflation will help with asset/liability management. Consumer Staples and Health Care are likely to keep their outperformance going as inflation will continue to be an issue.Last, while empirical analysis does not show that the Technology sector outperforms when inflation is falling, we believe this will be the case based on the simple assumption that falling inflation will imply a lower discount rate (Chart 14). In this regime, we also anticipate a rotation from Value to Growth, and from Large to Small (Chart 15). Chart 14New Inflation Regime Will Usher In New Winners  Chart 15Changes In Inflation Regimes Brought About Market Rotations Stagflation: Magnifying Glass On The 1970sStagflation, along with a recession, is now on investors’ minds – concern about the Fed making a policy mistake. After all, the Fed is already behind the curve, and it is hard to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. What would happen then?In this case, just as in the 1970s, we will see continued growth slowdown accompanied by raging inflation (Chart 16). Back then, equities pulled back every time inflation was on the rise (Chart 17), with Energy, Materials, and Health Care outperforming.The market rebounded at the first signs of inflation abating, reversing sector performance, and turning losers into winners, i.e., Consumer Discretionary and Real Estate started outperforming (Chart 18).Chart 16In The 1970s’ Stagflation Crushed Equities  Chart 17Energy And Materials Were Biggest Winners In the "Inflation High And Rising" Regime...  Chart 18...But They Gave Back Their Gains In "Inflation High But Falling" Regime Bottom LineWe are in a slowdown stage of the business cycle, and Quality, Defensives, and Growth are expected to outperform. However, high inflation has mixed up all the cards and sent Growth into a tailspin. High inflation is unfavorable, not only for Growth but also for equities in general, even though they are a real asset. However, investors can shift the odds of positive returns in their favor by taking a granular approach to sector selection suitable for different inflation regimes.The market is currently in a “high inflation and rising rates” regime, with Energy and Materials outperforming. However, we are about to transition into the “inflation is high but falling” regime, and today’s winners may turn into losers. Defensives is the only group which holds up across all high inflation regimes, thanks to its earnings resilience even in the face of slowing growth.  Irene TunkelChief Strategist, US Equity Strategyirene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com 

Special Report

Executive Summary Rampant talk of a wage-price spiral is premature, ginned up by media reports about union organizing successes and union negotiators’ wins. Recent agreements negotiated by unions have not lit an inflationary fuse, as all major compensation series are contracting in real terms. The full sweep of US labor market history, buttressed by the history of the last four decades, suggests that labor has a steep hill to climb to reverse its fortunes. The president has a bully pulpit and the executive branch has a lot of enforcement levers at its disposal, but the judicial and legislative branches are powerful counterweights and the state-level climate is decidedly unfriendly to workers. Labor could regain the upper hand but we’ve been underwhelmed by its victories thus far in the pandemic. We will not believe that it’s turned the tide until we see definitive evidence. The Labor Tide Is Out Bottom Line: Investors assume that a wage-price spiral is inevitable, or has already begun, at their own peril. The playing field is still heavily tilted in employers’ favor and mainstream media has exaggerated labor’s pandemic gains. Feature Dear Client, This Special Report, updating and elaborating upon our view of the likelihood of a US wage-price spiral, will be our last written output until Monday, May 23rd. We are vacationing this week and we will be holding our quarterly webcast on May 16th in lieu of a publication. Please join us with your questions on the 16th to make it a fully interactive event. Best regards, Doug Peta The term “wage-price spiral” is being increasingly bandied about by the media, broker-dealers and independent strategists and economists. The talk has been prevalent enough that a significant proportion of investors seem to believe a spiral is inevitable if it hasn’t already begun. There is more to the history of US labor market relations than the stagflation seventies and early eighties, however, and we are tempted to see the early-thirties-to-late-seventies New Deal era as the anomaly and the Reagan era that began in 1981 as the rule. Much may hinge on just how much the administration of the “most pro-union president you’ve ever seen” will be able to accomplish when it faces the prospect of the loss of its Congressional majorities in six months. After restating our framework for thinking about the origins and outcomes of strikes and lockouts, we examine the outcomes of the pandemic-era work stoppages tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS’ database only covers strikes involving at least 1,000 workers, effectively limiting its scope to strikes involving large union locals. Though the database is not comprehensive, we strongly believe that the incidence of large strikes and their outcomes offer meaningful insight into the evolving balance of power between employees and employers. Our conclusion is that management retains the upper hand; it will take more than a pandemic and one friendly administration’s term to turn the tables. Strikes Occur When One Side Overplays Its Hand Chart 1The Strike-Slack Link Has Been Shattered Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative position, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, especially if the stronger party recognizes that its advantage is not permanent. 40 years of waxing management power, however, may have imbued both sides with a sense that employers have insurmountable structural advantages. Since the early eighties, private sector union membership has withered, taboos against hiring strikebreakers have disappeared, the Federal bench has been filled with judges disposed to see things from management’s perspective, and state legislatures have increasingly weakened union protections to attract businesses. Since the Reagan administration took office, the incidence of major work stoppages (Chart 1, top panel) has ceased to correlate with the state of labor market slack (Chart 1, bottom panel). With the JOLTS, consumer confidence and NFIB surveys indicating that the pandemic has made it as easy as it has ever been to find a job (and extremely difficult to fill one), it is notable that so few unionized employees are playing their trump card of withholding their labor to extract concessions from their employers. Related Report  US Investment StrategyLabor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them With the link between labor market tightness and strikes severed, game theory offers the best insight into the origin of strikes. We posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its own bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Labor (L) can believe it is way stronger than Management (M), L >> M; stronger than Management, L > M; roughly equal, L ≈ M; weaker than Management, L < M; or way weaker than Management, L << M. Management also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure 1 displays only the outcomes consistent with labor’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of management’s potential perceptions, but we deem the three away from the extremes to be most likely. Record job openings and quits rates (Chart 2) should convince even the most cocksure management negotiators that the landscape has tilted at least a little in labor’s favor. On the other hand, four consecutive decades of victories will make it hard for all but the most objective management negotiators to believe that the tables have completely turned. Figure 1Lots Of Room For Disagreement Chart 2It's A(Labor)Seller's Market... The Availability Of Substitutes Chart 3... And Mothballed Supply Is Coming Back On Line Ultimately, leverage derives from the availability of substitutes. If employees can easily switch jobs and obtain better terms because employers are actively competing for scarce labor inputs, they should be able to extract concessions simply by threatening to strike. If employers can replace union members with cheaper non-union workers, substitute cheaper foreign labor for domestic labor while meeting less onerous working standards, or invest in automation to reduce the need for human inputs, employees will have little recourse but to accept whatever terms management dictates. The prevailing view is that there are precious few substitutes for domestic labor. The pandemic has exposed global supply chains' inherent vulnerability, forcing businesses to consider onshoring some functions. The labor market is exceedingly tight, as early retirements and the Great Resignation will suppress labor availability into the intermediate term. Quickening increases in labor force participation among those aged 55 to 59 (Chart 3, top panel) and 60 and 64 (Chart 3, bottom panel), however, are casting doubt on the narrative. We additionally expect that younger workers will not be able to hold themselves aloof from the work force indefinitely in the absence of new fiscal transfers. The explosion in nominal wage growth lends credence to the prevailing view (Chart 4). But none of the three main series, average hourly earnings (Chart 5, top panel), the Atlanta Fed wage tracker (Chart 5, middle panel) or the Employment Cost Index (Chart 5, bottom panel) is keeping pace with inflation. A wage-price spiral, as commonly understood, results when wages and consumer prices chase each other higher in something like a game of tag. Average hourly earnings got the game going in 2020, when essential workers received hazard pay for braving infection risks, but they’ve lagged consumer prices ever since. Chart 4Nominal Wages Are Surging ...​​​​​​ Chart 5... But They're Not Keeping Up With Inflation​​​​​​ This Is Not The Sixties And Seventies The wage-price spiral gained momentum when the unemployment rate spent eleven consecutive years (1964 through 1974) below or just barely above the CBO’s estimate of its natural rate (Chart 6, bottom panel). That helped feed consistently positive real wage gains through the seventies whenever the economy was expanding (Chart 6, top panel). Upward price pressures were stoked by profligate government spending (funding the war in Vietnam concurrently with Great Society programs) and a complacent Fed. The pandemic fiscal and monetary backdrop may look uncomfortably familiar, but today’s workers are far less equipped to turn it to its advantage. Chart 6The Wage-Price Spiral Of The Seventies Was A Long Time In The Making Union membership is way down from the mid-to-late sixties (Chart 7), leaving unions with far fewer resources and much less of a corner on available labor. They also have less public support, less likelihood of benefiting from sympathy strikes or other support from unionized workers elsewhere in the chain and little to no lived experience with striking. They confront better organized and more determined opposition, as business concentration has reduced competition for their services to the point of establishing near-monopsonies in localized labor markets. The only way to confront the monopsony power of very few buyers is to organize a monopoly of suppliers, but private-sector union membership is mired at post-Depression lows despite The New York Times’ and other outlets’ relentless cheerleading. Chart 7It's Hard To Be An Influencer When You're Hemorrhaging Followers I Walked A Picket Line For Four Weeks And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt If workers are to change their fortunes (Chart 8), they need to achieve large-scale victories that win national attention, inspiring other workers to challenge management and laying out a roadmap for their own success. With that in mind, we examined the BLS’ detailed compilation of work stoppages since the beginning of 2020 to see what strikes were able to achieve. If striking reveals that labor truly has the whip hand, employers should accede en masse to employees’ demands, signaling that a broad compensation reset is afoot. Chart 8The Hazard-Pay Pop Was Short Lived After backing out graduate student attempts to escape indentured servitude as sub-minimum-wage instructors, we examined the outcomes of the 22 large-scale strikes since 2020 (Table 1). In terms of base wage and salary gains, the results were decidedly underwhelming. Two of the union walkouts produced nothing (Swedish Medical Centers, 2020, and Kaiser Permanente Oakland sympathy strike, 2021) and prospects are not favorable for the United Mine Workers’ strike against Warrior Met Coal (2021) that is entering its fourteenth month. Public workers’ walkouts generally yielded nothing more than compensation increases around the Fed’s 2% annual inflation target. Teachers and front-line healthcare workers touted agreements to reduce class sizes, increase support staffs, formalize hazard pay and stockpile personal protective equipment but they’ve fallen further behind economically. Table 1Large-Scale Pandemic-Era Strikes Private-sector workers have fared better, though one must often squint to see it. Kellogg’s cereal plant workers hit a home run, gaining cost-of-living adjustments on top of nominal salary increases, better retirement benefits and an accelerated path for new employees to transition to the more remunerative legacy employee tier, all without making a single concession. Seattle’s unionized carpenters also did well for themselves, gaining three 4.5% annual raises and a 50% increase in hourly parking reimbursements (no small matter in a full-to-bursting coastal city). Their fellows got some cash in their pockets via one-time bonuses for ratifying their deals, but whether they’ll be better off on an inflation-adjusted basis by the time they expire is an open question. In reading about the walkouts, negotiations and settlements, we were struck by how long it had been since many of these union locals had walked off the job. Minneapolis teachers last struck in 1970; the last nationwide Kellogg’s strike was in 1972; the UAW hadn’t struck John Deere since 1986; aside from a one-day 2017 walkout, Sacramento teachers hadn’t struck since 1989; and United Steelworkers hadn’t walked out from Allegheny Technologies in 30 years. Perhaps an unfamiliarity with striking among union leadership and rank-and-file made the unions timid and inclined to settle a little sooner than may have been optimal. Perhaps they were starting on the back foot and anchoring to that position, as many of the unions trumpeted that they refused management's concession demands. Workers in this round of negotiations may have been more concerned about working conditions than money and simply wanted to be heard and seen after running the COVID infection gauntlet. There’s no guarantee that will last, but it’s a good sign for corporate margins and municipal budgets in the near term. Management showed little inclination to cede its advantages: hospitals brought in temporary replacements like pricey traveling nurses at a cost far exceeding the raises unions sought, the two-tier compensation system for legacy and newer workers largely remains intact and companies preferred one-time bonuses to salary increases to pacify employees. It’s possible that workers simply lack much leverage; after securing 2% annual raises for 2020 and 2021 that woefully failed to keep pace with inflation, St. Paul teachers agreed to an eleventh-hour deal for 2022-23 that will provide another two years of 2% raises, though they also won $3,000 retention bonuses/recognition awards for their trouble. Looking Ahead When watching future negotiations between employers and unions, we will be looking out for the fate of the two-tier compensation model and the balance between salary/wage increases and one-time bonuses. Two-tier compensation has allowed employers to drive a wedge between senior employees and their successors. The model incents grandfathered employees to ratify deals that preserve their above-market compensation and benefits at the expense of less senior employees. “We can’t afford to pay all of you like UAW workers in the ‘70s and ‘80s, but we want to reward those who’ve demonstrated their loyalty to the company …” (and will disappear by attrition over the next ten years or so, bending our cost curve way down in real terms). We are also watching the mix of base salary and wage increases and bonus payments. We think of the former as akin to a public company’s dividends and the latter to their stock buybacks. Dividend payments (and wages) are sticky on the downside, as companies don’t want to signal financial weakness by cutting them and employees are loath to see their nominal pay decline. Once dividends and base salaries are raised, it’s hard to cut them. Buybacks, on the other hand, are purely discretionary and shareholders don’t count on them year after year. The same goes with bonuses – future base wages and salaries are a rigid function of previous base wages and salaries, but bonus payments are a one-off that don’t get directly factored into ongoing compensation. We thought John Deere’s agreement with the UAW preserved the status quo to management’s benefit. Per the terms of the new six-year contract, workers got splashy odd-year raises of 10%, 5% and 5%, interspersed with even-year bonuses. The compounded annual growth rate of their base pay is therefore 3.3% over the life of the contract [(1.1*1.05*1.05)^(1/6) – 1]. We’d bet the 3.3% growth will yield very close to zero real gains, and it seems like the 8.5% signing bonus workers received for ratifying the contract was a reasonable up-front price for Deere to pay to lock in six years of nearly flat real increases. The company must pay bonuses in years 2, 4 and 6 as well, but that might be a small price to pay to preserve the divide between workers hired before and after 1997. By the time the deal is up, the least senior of the expensive legacy employees will have been punching the clock for 30 years and their numbers will be thinning at a rapid rate. Ruth Milkman, a sociologist of labor and labor movements who has written or collaborated on over a dozen books in her half-century career, was recently asked when she last felt hopeful about workers’ outlook. After laughing, she said, “I remember when Obama was elected and I made a fool of myself predicting a big labor resurgence.”1 In a pattern reminiscent of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, labor hopes pinned on the Obama administration failed to be realized. The Biden administration can direct the Department of Justice, Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board and OSHA to enforce the laws on the books more vigorously, but it can’t write new ones without both houses of Congress and the Senate lacks the president's appetite to do so. “It’s a story of endless disappointments,” according to Milkman, “and it seems like that’s where we are now, too.” We will believe in labor’s renaissance only after we see it. The course of labor negotiations since the pandemic in no way suggests that a wage-price spiral is inevitable, nor that it is probable. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/magazine/unions-amazon.html. Accessed 4/27/22.

Executive Summary Everything the banks see indicates that their household customers are in fantastic shape, with overstuffed checking accounts and unusually low outstanding credit card balances. Despite low confidence measures, they are spending with vigor, showering revenue on pandemic-squeezed businesses. Inflation in the price of necessities like food and gasoline most harms households at the low end of the wealth and income distributions, but the banks report that they are bearing up remarkably well so far. Credit quality remains exceptionally good and delinquencies and other leading indicators are still flashing the all-clear sign. Growing deposits demonstrate that the world is still awash in liquidity and credit stresses are not at hand, but highlight the challenges the Fed faces in trying to cool the economy. The banks expressed little to no appetite for deploying their idle cash into securities. It appears that another constituency will have to step up to replace the Fed’s QE purchases of Treasuries and agencies. A Blessing And A Curse Bottom Line: The biggest banks’ observations support a rosy near-term outlook – the consumer is firing on all cylinders, businesses are well positioned and there is no credit distress on the horizon. The Fed will have its hands full slowing an economy that has so much momentum, however, and there is little chance that volatility will not be elevated over the rest of the year. What The Banks See The SIFI banks (BAC, C, JPM and WFC) and USB kicked off fourth quarter earnings across three days bracketing Easter weekend. Their results were ho-hum – it remains our view that the banks lack a fundamental catalyst to drive relative outperformance – and mainly illustrated that higher interest rates, despite boosting net interest income, are far from the industry cure-all they’re cracked up to be. The SIFIs have languished over the last three months after consistently outperforming the overall market since late 2020, often by wide margins, and now find themselves modestly leading since the first effective COVID vaccines were developed in November 2020 (Chart 1). Chart 1An Incomplete Comeback We do not compile the Big Bank Beige Book every quarter to assess the banks’ relative investment merits, however. The S&P 500 Diversified Banks have a uniquely privileged vantage point into activity across the economy and we are simply trying to look over their shoulders. The banks’ earnings releases and analyst calls offer insight into the broad macro backdrop via borrower performance, lender willingness, financial system liquidity and the actions, intentions and financial capabilities of households and businesses. The following is what we heard and how it informs our take on financial markets and the economy. Households Are Still Flush … Related Report  US Investment StrategyThe Big Bank Beige Book, January 2022 Bank of America consumers spent at the highest-ever [first quarter] level, … [a] double-digit percentage increase over 2021, … despite the stimulus bonus [boosting the year-ago numbers]. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) [C]ombined credit and debit [card] spend was up 21% year-on-year, with growth stronger in credit as we see a continued pickup in travel and dining. And as the quarter progressed, we saw robust reacceleration of T[ravel] and E[ntertainment] spend, up 64%. (Barnum, JPM CFO) Consumer credit card spend remained strong, up 33% from a year ago. All spending categories were up (Chart 2) with the highest growth in travel, entertainment, fuel and dining. … Discretionary [debit card] spending remained strong with entertainment up 39% and travel up 29% from a year ago. (Scharf, WFC CEO) Chart 2Making Up For Lost Time In the first quarter …, credit and debit card travel volumes exceeded pre-pandemic levels. March airline volume was flat compared to March 2019, the first … [monthly] recovery to pre-pandemic levels. Although corporate T&E-related volumes … are still below pre-pandemic levels, they continue their upward trajectory … [and were] 75% of their pre-pandemic level in March. (Dolan, USB CFO) We’re still seeing quite a bit of excess liquidity sitting there in the back pocket of our consumers and very healthy balance sheets (Chart 3). I think [credit card payment rates] have peaked … and I think that’s good, because it should be the return this year to more healthy behavior. The spend is obviously … quite remarkable, … up in the mid-20s%. [It’s] also great to see the experience side, and … services coming back in again. We’ve been seeing it in travel, we’ve been seeing it in apparel. People like getting dressed up to go to dinner again in their [favorite] restaurant. (Fraser, C CEO) Chart 3Up, Up And Away … Even The Ones In Higher Inflation’s Crosshairs [Today’s] very strong underlying growth will go on. It’s not stoppable. The consumer has money. They pay down credit card debt. Confidence isn’t high, but the fact that they have money, they’re spending their money. They have $2 trillion still in their savings and checking accounts. Businesses are in good shape. Home prices are up. Credit is extraordinarily good. … That’s going to continue in the second quarter, third quarter. After that, it’s hard to predict. (Dimon, JPM CEO) Q: Are you seeing any signs of pullbacks and shifts in the type of [consumer] spend[ing] that could point to some softening there? A1: What we are continuing to see [across the board] … is good, strong, both [in terms of] year-over-year growth and comparisons back to 2019. … I would expect that there’s probably going to be a shift to some extent from … durable goods … to more service-oriented sorts of activities, but in terms of the overall level of spend, I feel like that will continue at least for some period of time. (Dolan, USB) A2: Consumer credit card spend is up 35% versus pre-pandemic. … [W]e’re not seeing any negative trends thus far and it continues to be very strong. (Cecere, USB CEO) March was the eighth straight month in which inflation outpaced income, with lower-income consumers being most impacted by rising energy and food prices. That said, higher deposit balances and rising wages have thus far allowed consumers to weather these headwinds. (Scharf, WFC) Our data show continued growth in average deposit balance[s] across all customer levels … , suggest[ing] … strong spending [can] continue. On an aggregated basis, average deposit balances were up 47% from pre-pandemic levels … and the momentum continued through the first quarter, particularly in the low-balance accounts. [C]ustomers who had $1,000 to $2,000 of balances [pre-pandemic], with an average $1,400 balance … now have $7,400. [T]hose with $2,000 to $5,000 [and a pre-pandemic average of $3,250] today have an average … of $12,500. … Consumers are sitting on lots of cash. (Moynihan, BAC) Q: Are you starting to see any drawdown [of consumer deposits] because of inflation? A: It’s actually the opposite; they grew faster from February to March. That [jump is] probably because of tax refunds, but … beginning around May of last year, they pretty consistently grew 1-2% per month, [with the most growth in] lower-end balances. [The only exception was] November, [when] we saw a slight downdraft in lower-end balances and [then it] picked back up in December. … It grew [every] month this quarter and March had the strongest growth. We haven’t seen the data for April yet, but [deposits are still growing very strongly] all the way up into the people who carried balances of $10,000 – 20,000 pre-pandemic. We’re not seeing that deteriorate at all yet. (Moynihan, BAC) Some Business Loan Demand Is Returning (Chart 4) Chart 4No Thanks For The Loan; We Issued Bonds Instead C[ommercial]&I[ndustrial] loans were up 3% sequentially, ex-PPP [Paycheck Protection Plan loans], reflecting higher revolver utilization and originations across middle market and in corporate client banking. (Barnum, JPM) We do see pretty nice loan growth in the commercial bank. There’s a bunch of different factors there, it could be [some pent-up capex,] some inventory effects and so on. (Barnum, JPM) The economy is returning more towards normal and our line utilization is, … too. That’s part of what’s driving our loan growth. Revolver utilization in commercial banking now is 31.7%; pre-pandemic, our normal was around 35%. (Borthwick, BAC CFO) I think that most businesses have been kind of holding back … on capex [over the last couple of years] and so I think there’s a bit of an increase in that spend related to it. And then as companies see more and more inflationary pressure, they’re going to look to automation as a way of offsetting some of the [cost] pressure they see [when they try to hire]. At least in the near term, our expectation is that capex will continue to be reasonably strong. And our utilization rates support that. We’ve been running [around] 19%, plus or minus, for a number of quarters and we saw an increase, certainly not to normal levels, but up to 22-23% in the last few months. (Dolan and Cecere, USB) Revolver utilization rates have increased, but are still well below historical levels. Loan demand has been driven by larger clients who are increasing borrowing due to the impact of inflation on material and transportation costs as well as to support inventory growth. We’re also seeing new demand from some clients who are catching up from underinvestment in projects and capex over the past couple of years. (Santomassimo, WFC CFO) No Credit Warning Signals Yet Q: Are you seeing any stresses in the levered parts of the debt markets, … levered loan, high yield, CLO, private credit? A: Obviously, in this environment, everyone’s looking very closely everywhere for any risks and trying to see around the corner. But as of right now, we’re really not seeing anything of concern in the … spot metrics. (Barnum, JPM) Q: Are there any [household] income buckets where you’re seeing early-stage delinquencies picking up? A: In short, no. It’s an interesting question as you look across our customer base, particularly in card, that heavily debated question of real income growth and gas prices and what’s that doing to consumer balance sheets. And so we’re watching that, especially in the kind of LMI [lower-to-middle-income] segment of our customer base. But right now, we’re not actually seeing anything that gives us reason to worry. (Barnum, JPM) Consumers remain in good shape. … The average card balances of our credit card customers [with whom we have] deposit relationships are 8% lower than they were pre-pandemic. … These [card and deposit] customers have built significant additional savings and their average deposit balances are up 39%. … The small low-FICO-score subset of our customer base was even stronger [in terms of higher] cash balances and lower debt levels. We believe this is not a [BAC-specific] phenomenon, as … debt service levels are hovering near historic lows (Chart 5) and household deposit and cash levels are $3 trillion higher than when we entered the crisis. (Moynihan, BAC) Chart 5Debt Service Is Easy For Households We continue to see strong credit performance across our [U.S.] portfolio as clients’ balance sheets remain healthy. (Mason, C CFO) Credit is still exceptionally good, and certainly will be into the next quarter based on everything that we see and possibly beyond (Chart 6), even though at one point [charge-offs] will go up. (Scharf, WFC) Chart 6Consumer Credit Leading Indicators Are Healthy Credit quality remains strong. Over the next few quarters, we expect the net charge-off ratio will remain lower than historical levels, but continue to normalize over time. (Dolan, USB) The Banks Aren’t Eager To Buy Securities Deposits continued to grow in the first quarter and despite a pickup in loan growth, the largest banks continue to hold a great deal of cash (Chart 7). The sharp rise in interest rates affords them an opportunity to put that cash to work, potentially driving a big increase in net interest income (NII). Every bank that raised its NII guidance, however, stated that the increased guidance was independent of any growth in the aggregate size of its loan and securities portfolios. The banks’ priority is to lend to household and business customers (Chart 8) and if demand for loans continues to rise, their commentary implied that securities holdings may well shrink. Chart 7Demand For Loans Is Still Lagging ... Chart 8... Banks' Willingness To Make Them Q: Any appetite to deploy the excess liquidity? A: No, don’t expect that. (Dimon, JPM) Guys, we were just talking about interest rates going up maybe more than 3%. Convexity is going up. [Mark-to-market loss on available-for-sale securities] is going up. There are all these various reasons not to [move cash into securities]. We’re not going to do it just to give you a little bit more NII next quarter. (Dimon, JPM) When it comes to deploying liquidity, it’s going to be loans first. … And then based on what we see there, we will decide if we’re going to grow the securities portfolio. (Santomassimo, WFC) At the end of the day, the reason why we have securities investments is because we have $2 trillion of deposits and $1 trillion of loans, and we got to do something with the money. (Moynihan, BAC) We’re not interest rate traders, we’re interest rate managers through a cycle. (Borthwick, BAC) What Ails The Banks’ Stocks? We did not join the chorus of investors and strategists at the beginning of the year who were singing the praises of bank stocks in a rising rate environment. We loved the SIFIs back in 2020 when they built up enormous loan-loss reserves in the first two quarters of the pandemic because we believed they would not be needed given monetary and fiscal efforts to shield the economy from COVID disruptions. Those reserves were eventually released back into earnings, pumping the banks' per-share book values above expectations, but once the truing up of actual versus expected credit losses was complete, the stocks had no apparent outperformance catalyst. Rising rates didn’t do much to entice us because we believe investors dramatically overestimate banks’ earnings sensitivity to interest rates and the slope of the yield curve. Higher rates help boost net interest income, but they are not an unmitigated positive, as first-quarter results and management commentary indicated. Every bank suffered hits to its accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) from the decrease in the value of the securities it holds in the available-for-sale bucket. AOCI is not an income statement item, but it does reduce equity and thereby undermines the banks’ regulatory capital positions and makes regulatory constraints more binding. Rising rates also entice depositors to shift some money away from banks and raise the cost of retaining deposits and every call featured analyst questions about the sensitivity of bank deposit pricing to changes in interest rates (deposit betas). Rising rates might also lead to pressure on non-interest income, which is nearly equal to the SIFIs' net interest income. As WFC CEO Charlie Scharf put it, “The mortgage origination market experienced one of its largest quarterly declines that I can remember, and it will take time for the industry to reduce excess capacity.” Volumes will fall as that capacity is reduced and so will gain-on-sale margins as the banks shed their remaining inventory. The bottom line is that somewhat higher rates are a net positive but much higher rates will be a drag on bank earnings, just as they will on the overall economy, and investors right now seem to be skipping to the end of the rate hike story and ignoring the benign chapters along the way. Finally, it appears that the extraordinary volume of bond issuance over the last two years displaced some of the need for C&I loans. Given that any CFO or corporate treasurer who didn’t term out company debt in 2020-21 ought to have his or her head examined, the shortfall in credit line utilization and sharply below trend C&I loans outstanding may extend well into the intermediate term. Investment Implications The banks’ calls reinforced our take that the economy has a lot of momentum in the form of flush consumers and amply funded businesses. Credit performance is tremendously strong and net charge-off rates will remain subdued for the foreseeable future. Low delinquency rates will not suddenly spike when business and consumer deposit balances are extremely high and still growing. The Fed’s response to uncomfortably high inflation was a shadow looming over all the calls, just as it was over equities at the end of last week, but it will take a steady diet of rate hikes to rein in a galloping economy. While there is no shortage of concerns, our view remains that they will not be realized in 2022 and that it is therefore too soon to take evasive action in individual portfolios or at the broad asset allocation level. We still recommend that investors with a six-to-twelve-month timeframe remain at least equal weight equities in a multi-asset portfolio, though we are more confident about the next six months than we are about the next twelve and believe it is appropriate to manage portfolios more tactically. We wholeheartedly agree with JPM CEO Jamie Dimon’s assessment and think investors would do well to try to manage in accordance with it. I cannot foresee any scenario at all where you’re not going to have a lot of volatility in markets going forward. We’ve … spoken about the enormous strength of the economy, QT, inflation, war, commodity prices – there’s almost no chance that you won’t have volatile markets … and I think people should be prepared for that. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com  

Listen to a short summary of this report.         Executive Summary Small Caps Are Looking Attractive Relative To Their Large Cap Peers Adverse supply shocks have pushed down global growth this year, while pushing up inflation. With the war raging in Ukraine and China trying to contain a major Covid outbreak, these supply shocks are likely to persist for the next few months. Things should improve in the second half of the year. Inflation will come down rapidly, probably even more than what markets are discounting. Global growth will reaccelerate as pandemic headwinds abate. The return of Goldilocks will allow the Fed and other central banks to temper their hawkish rhetoric, helping to support equity prices while restraining bond yields. Unfortunately, this benign environment will sow the seeds of its own demise. Falling inflation during the remainder of the year will lift real incomes, leading to increased consumer spending. Inflation will pick up towards the end of 2023, forcing central banks to turn hawkish again. Trade Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long iShares Core S&P Small Cap ETF (IJR) / SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) 100 Apr 21/2022 -5% Trade Recommendation: Go long US small caps vs. large caps via the iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF (IJR) and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY). Bottom Line: Global equities are heading towards a “last hurrah” starting in the second half of this year. Stay overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon. Push or Pull? Economists like to distinguish between “demand-pull” and “cost-push” inflation. The former occurs in response to positive demand shocks while the latter reflects negative supply shocks. In order to tell one from the other, it is useful to look at real wages. When real wages are rising briskly, households tend to spend more, leading to demand-pull inflation. In contrast, when wages fail to keep up with rising prices, it is a good bet that we have cost-push inflation on our hands. Chart 1 shows that real wages have been falling across the major economies over the past year. The decline in real wages has coincided with a steep drop in consumer confidence (Chart 2). This points to cost-push forces as the main culprits behind today’s high inflation rates. Chart 1Real Wages Are Declining Chart 2Consumer Confidence Has Soured A close look at the breakdown of recent inflation figures supports this conclusion. The US headline CPI rose by 8.5% year-over-year in March. The bulk of the inflation occurred in supply-constrained categories such as food, energy, and vehicles (Chart 3). Chart 3The Acceleration In Inflation Has Been Driven By Pandemic And War-Impacted Categories The Toilet Paper Economy When the pandemic began, shoppers rushed out to buy essential household supplies including, most famously, toilet paper. Chart 4In A Break From The Past, Goods Prices Soared During The Pandemic The toilet paper used in offices is somewhat different than the sort used at home. So, to some extent, work-from-home (and do other stuff-at-home) arrangements did boost the demand for consumer-grade toilet paper. However, a much more important factor was household psychology. People scrambled to buy toilet paper because others were doing the same. As often occurs in prisoner-dilemma games, society moved from one Nash equilibrium – where everyone was content with the amount of toilet paper they had – to another equilibrium where they wanted to hold much more paper than they previously did. What has gone largely unnoticed is that the toilet paper fiasco was replicated across much of the global supply chain. Worried that they would not have enough intermediate goods on hand to maintain operations, firms began to hoard inputs. Retailers, anxious at the prospect of barren shelves, put in bigger purchase orders than they normally would have. All this happened at a time when demand was shifting from services to goods, and the pandemic was disrupting normal goods production. No wonder the prices of goods – especially durable goods — jumped (Chart 4).   Peak Inflation? The war in Ukraine could continue to generate supply disruptions over the coming months. The Covid outbreak in China could also play havoc with the global supply chain. While the number of Chinese Covid cases has dipped in recent days, Chart 5 highlights that 27 out of 31 mainland Chinese provinces are still reporting new cases, up from 14 provinces in the beginning of February. The number of ships stuck outside of Shanghai has soared (Chart 6). Chart 527 Out Of 31 Chinese Provinces Are Reporting New Cases, Up From 14 Provinces In The Beginning Of February Chart 6The Clogged-Up Port Of Shanghai Chart 7Inflation Will Decelerate This Year Thanks To Base Effects Nevertheless, the peak in inflation has probably been reached in the US. For one thing, base effects will push down year-over-year inflation (Chart 7). Monthly core CPI growth rates were 0.86% in April, 0.75% in May, and 0.80% in June of 2021. These exceptionally high prints will fall out of the 12-month average during the next few months. More importantly, goods inflation will abate as spending shifts back toward services. Chart 8 shows that spending on goods remains well above the pre-pandemic trend in the US, while spending on services remains well below. Excluding autos, US retail inventories are about 5% above their pre-pandemic trend (Chart 9). Core goods prices fell in March for the first time since February 2021. Fewer pandemic-related disruptions, and hopefully a stabilization in the situation in Ukraine, could set the stage for sharply lower inflation and a revival in global growth in the second half of this year. How long will this Goldilocks environment last? Our guess is that it will endure until the second half of next year, but probably not much beyond then. As inflation comes down over the coming months, real income growth will rise. What began as cost-push inflation will morph into demand-pull inflation by the end of 2023. The Fed will need to resume hiking at that point, potentially bringing rates to over 4% in 2024. Chart 8Spending On Services Remains Well Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend, While Spending On Goods Is Above It Chart 9Shelves Are Well Stocked In The US Investment Implications Wayne Gretzky famously said that he always tries to skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. Macro investors should follow the same strategy: Ask what the global economy will look like in six months and invest accordingly. The past few months have been tough for the global economy and financial markets. Last week, bullish sentiment fell to the lowest level in 30 years in the American Association of Individual Investors poll (Chart 10). Global growth optimism dropped in April to a record low in the BofA Merrill Lynch Fund Manager Survey.    Chart 10AAII Survey: Equity Bulls Are In Short Supply Chart 11The Equity Risk Premium Remains Elevated Yet, a Goldilocks environment of falling inflation and supply-side led growth awaits in the second half of the year. Even if this environment does not last beyond the end of 2023, it could provide a “last hurrah” for global equities. Despite the spike in bond yields, the earnings yield on stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 5.4 percentage points in the US, and by 7.8 points outside the US (Chart 11). TINA’s siren song may have faded but it is far from silent. Global equities have about 10%-to-15% upside from current levels over a 12-month horizon. We recommend that investors increase allocations to non-US stock markets, value stocks, and small caps over the coming months (see trade recommendation below). Consistent with our view that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed in the US and elsewhere, we expect the 10-year Treasury yield to eventually rise to around 4% in 2024. However, with US inflation likely to trend lower in the second half of this year, we do not expect much upside for yields over a 12-month horizon. If anything, the fact that bond sentiment in the latest BofA Merrill Lynch survey was the most bearish in 20 years suggests that the near-term risk to yields is to the downside.  Trade Idea: Go Long US Small Caps Versus Large Caps Small caps have struggled of late. Over the past 12 months, the S&P 600 small cap index has declined 3%, even as the S&P has managed to claw out a 5% gain. At this point, small caps are starting to look relatively cheap (Chart 12). The S&P 600 is trading at 14-times forward earnings compared to 19-times for the S&P 500. Notably, analysts expect small cap earnings to rise more over the next 12 months, as well as over the long term, than for large caps. Chart 12Small Caps Are Looking Attractive Relative To Their Large Cap Peers Chart 13Small Caps Tend To Outperform When Growth Is Picking Up And The Dollar Is Depreciating Small caps tend to perform best in settings where growth is accelerating and the US dollar is weakening (Chart 13). Economic growth should benefit from a supply-side boost later this year as pandemic headwinds fade and more low-skilled workers rejoin the labor market. With inflation set to decline, the need for the Fed to generate hawkish surprises will temporarily subside, putting downward pressure on the dollar. Investors should consider going long the S&P 600 via the iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF (IJR) versus the S&P 500 via the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on  LinkedIn Twitter   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary China’s Daily New COVID Cases And City Lockdowns, 2020 To Present The ongoing wave of local Omicron infections and city lockdowns pose the largest macro risk in China post Q1 2020. The current lockdowns in major cities - including Shanghai - may shave one percentage point from China’s 2022 GDP growth. Restrictions on activity and travel in Shanghai and surrounding areas in the Yangtze River Delta have led to severe supply-chain disruptions, created by both port and highway transportation congestion and manufacturing plant shutdowns. Unlike in 2H20, chances are lower for a quick and strong post-lockdown recovery in China’s economy and stock prices because the nation’s policy easing will be less aggressive and is less effective than two years ago. The scale of China’s monetary easing will be smaller than in H1 2020 given the Fed is rising interest rates. The country’s fiscal balance sheet is also in worse shape than in 2020, particularly at the local level.  Bottom Line: The wave of lockdowns in China’s major cities will pose substantial risks to China’s economy this year. The post-lockdown recovery will likely be more muted than in 2H20 because there is limited room for the country to stimulate its economy and policy easing measures will likely be less effective than two years ago.   Chart 1China's Daily New COVID Cases And City Lockdowns, 2020 To Present The ongoing lockdowns linked to the spike in Omicron and China’s zero tolerance towards COVID are exacting a heavy toll on China’s economy. While the situation is fluid and official data is lagging, China’s economy faces the largest macro risk since early 2020. In the past four months, China has imposed more lockdowns, with full and partial mobility restrictions, than in the past two years combined (Chart 1). In particular, this round of citywide shutdowns occurred in some of China’s largest and most prosperous cities, such as Shanghai and Shenzhen, and several manufacturing hubs including Jilin province and cities in the Yangtze River Delta region. Furthermore, the post-lockdown recovery this year will likely be more muted than two years ago. Beijing has less room to ease policy and stimulate the economy than in early 2020. In addition, policy easing measures will be less effective in boosting domestic demand, given that private sector sentiment was already downbeat prior to the lockdowns and the country’s zero-COVID policy may lead to more stringent confinement measures in the rest of the year. Serious Economic Implications China’s aggregate economy is suffering significant damage from the current round of city- and province-wide lockdowns in some of China’s most populous and prosperous regions. Chart 2The Economic Impact From Hubei Lockdown In Q1 2020 Economic data following the shutdown of Hubei province in early 2020 can serve as a roadmap to illustrate what to expect from lockdowns in Shanghai, which accounts for 4% of China’s GDP and is the same size as Hubei. During a 60-day lockdown in Q1 2020, Hubei’s retail sales growth nose-dived by 43 percentage points (ppt) and fixed-asset investment growth tumbled by 83ppt in Q1 2020 compared with the previous three months (Chart 2). The aggregate economy in Hubei shrank by 40% in Q1 2020 from a year ago and the decline likely reduced Chinese GDP growth by 1.5% in that quarter alone (Chart 3). The lockdown also dragged Hubei’s government revenues, tourism income and corporate profits into a deep contraction for 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 3The Economic Impact From Hubei Lockdown In Q1 2020 Chart 4The Economic Impact From Hubei Lockdown In Q1 2020 A recent study estimating the economic impact of lockdowns by analyzing the flow of intercity trucking found that freight traffic would plummet by 54% under a full lockdown for a month, versus a 20% drop under a partial lockdown. In addition, the ripple effect of a lockdown would be felt by surrounding cities. According to the article, if the four most important economic centers of the country - Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen - are shut down for one month at the same time, then their real income in that month would decrease by a whopping 61%. Meanwhile, the national real income in the same period would shrink by 8.6%, which translates into a 1ppt decline in China’s annual GDP growth. The scenario that China’s four major cities would be locked down was inconceivable before the onset of Omicron. However, as of April 15, it is estimated that local cities that have experienced full or partial lockdowns account for about 40% of China’s GDP, affecting more than 250 million residents. As such, the aggregate economic losses from the current round of lockdowns could reach 1ppt of China’s 2022 GDP growth. Bottom Line: The economic impact from the current lockdowns has the potential to reduce China’s GDP growth by 1ppt in 2022. Supply Chain Disruptions Shanghai’s lockdown has had economic repercussions on the Yangtze River Delta region, an important manufacturing hub and key supplier in the automobile and electronic equipment industries. Cross-regional travel restrictions have led to supply-chain disruptions through transportation blockades and manufacturing plant shutdowns. These obstacles include: Table 1Top Ten Ports In China Increased port congestion. The Ports of Shanghai and its nearby Ningbo handle nearly 30% of China’s total ocean shipping volume and are key barometers of China’s foreign trade and logistics chain (Table 1). Data from VesselsValue shows an almost fivefold increase in the number of ships waiting to load or discharge at Shanghai in the second half of March (Chart 5). Port congestion worsened in April after the Shanghai lockdown began on March 28. Chart 5Ships Waiting To Load Or Discharge At Shanghai Port Chart 6Chinese Suppliers' Delivery Times Have Lengthened Road transport blockades. Road traffic in the Yangtze River Delta has been restricted, causing significant delays in suppliers’ delivery times (Chart 6). By April 7, nationwide vehicle logistics freight flow fell by 32% from a year ago and plunged more than 80% in the Shanghai area. Highway traffic mobility tracked by Gaode dipped to the same level as in early 2020. Production suspensions. A significant number of businesses from automakers Tesla and Volkswagen to notebook manufacturer Quanta Computer Inc. reportedly suspended operations at their Shanghai plants to comply with government restrictions for virus control. ​​​​​​​The city, together with Jilin and Guangdong provinces, account for more than 30% of China’s auto production. Even if employees at auto and chip makers in Shanghai can return to production plants and work through a “closed-loop” system whereby they live on-site and test regularly, a more serious challenge would be how manufacturers can secure trucks to get materials and products delivered on time.1 Supply-chain disruptions are starting to impact China’s trade. The country’s import growth in nominal value in March dropped sharply to a 0.1% contraction (on a year-on-year basis) (Chart 7). Even though China’s exports in March expanded by 14.7% from a year ago, exports are below that of its Asian manufacturing neighbors, such as South Korea and Vietnam (Chart 8). Chart 7Chinese Import Growth Fell Into Contraction In March Chart 8China's Export Growth Has Dropped Below That Of Vietnam And South Korea Bottom Line: The Shanghai lockdown is having spillover effects on the Yangzte River Delta region through supply-chain disruptions. Strong Post-Lockdown Rebound? Chart 9China Will Need A Stimulus That Is Comparable To 2020 China’s economic growth and stock prices will unlikely repeat the quick and strong recovery registered following the early 2020 lockdown. Beijing has stepped up policy supports, but the challenges from both domestic conditions and the external environment are greater than in 2020. Thus, the country’s stimulus (measured by credit growth including local government bond issuance) will need to at least be similar to that of two years ago to shore up the economy (Chart 9). We are skeptical about both the magnitude and effectiveness of the stimulus in 2022, despite policymakers’ mounting efforts to support the economy. Therefore, we maintain a cautious view on Chinese risk assets (in both onshore and offshore markets).  Our view is based on the following: There may be more frequent shutdowns of business activity as China continues upholding its zero-COVID approach.  Even as we go to press, a few cities that recently recovered from COVID outbreaks have failed to resume their business and social activities. A flareup of COVID cases in the low double digits has dragged cities back to either mass COVID testing or partial city lockdowns. China’s COVID-containment measures escalated when the country’s business activity was already weak which was vastly different from prior to Q1 2020 when the economy was improving (Chart 10). Sentiment among the corporate and household sectors has been beaten down following two years of struggling with COVID, and the sectors’ propensities to invest or spend have been further dampened from last year’s harsh regulatory crackdowns (Chart 11).  Chart 10Business Cycle Was On A Downtrend When Omicron Hit... Chart 11...Sentiment Among Private Sector Has Been Downbeat Input costs are much higher now than two years ago, while demand is weaker (Chart 12). Global energy and commodity prices will remain elevated this year, while external demand for Chinese manufactured goods will dwindle (Chart 13). China’s exports as a share of the global total peaked in July last year; a strong RMB and frequent supply-chain disruptions will likely reduce competitiveness of Chinese exports. Chart 12Elevated Input Costs, Subdued Domestic Demand Chart 13Demand For Chinese Export Goods Will Likely Dwindle This Year Granted the Fed’s tightening, unless China is willing to tolerate meaningful currency depreciation, the PBoC has limited room to cut interest rates. The US Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates by 270bps over the coming 12 months, which will further tighten US dollar liquidity conditions and may exacerbate capital flows out of emerging economies. China’s 10-year government bond yield in nominal terms dropped below that of the US for the first time in a decade, prompting global investors to offload Chinese bonds at a record pace (Chart 14). The PBoC refrained from a policy rate cut last week. The move underwhelmed investors and was a sign that the central bank may be cautious in adopting a monetary policy stance that further diverges from the Fed.  Chart 14A Record Bond Market Outflow In Q1 This Year Chart 15Growth In Gov Revenue From Land Sales In Deep Contraction The room for further fiscal expansion is also more limited than two years ago as local governments are more constrained by funding. An expansionary fiscal policy in the past two years has pushed local governments’ debt ratios2 up by more than 20 percentage points to above the international standard of 100%, while the property market slump has led to a deep contraction in local government revenues from land sales (Chart 15). ​​​​​​​ Bottom Line: Business activity will likely rebound when restrictions are eventually lifted, and the existing and/or forthcoming stimulus will work their way into the economy. However, the above mentioned hurdles suggest that China has limited room to further loosen its monetary and fiscal policies compared with two years ago, and the effectiveness of policy easing on the economy will be more muted. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     Recently the consumer and auto division head of Huawei Technologies warned that “If Shanghai cannot resume production by May, all of the tech and industrial players that have supply chains in the area will come to a complete halt, especially the automotive industry.” "China’s Auto Industry May Grind to a Halt Amid Shanghai Lockdown", Caixin Global 2     Measured by local governments’ total debt including general and special-purpose bonds, divided by their overall fiscal balance. ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary We have been constructive-to-bullish on financial markets and the economy since policymakers marshaled the full force of their resources to protect the economy from the pandemic in the spring of 2020. The policymakers-versus-the-virus framework, and the view that policymakers would triumph, stood us in good stead across 2020 and 2021. Now, however, the Fed is shifting from countering COVID’s adverse economic effects to reinforcing them. The near-term silver lining is that monetary policy works with a lag, just like fiscal transfers that are saved for future use. Although the Fed is in the process of dialing back monetary stimulus, it will be a while before the fed funds rate reaches a level that restrains economic activity. In the meantime, the lagged effects of extraordinarily stimulative monetary and fiscal policy are likely to keep the economy growing above trend. Runaway inflation is the clear and present danger to our base-case view, and the war in Ukraine and a COVID outbreak in China could exacerbate inflationary pressures. We expect that equities and high-yield corporate bonds will outperform Treasuries and cash over the rest of the year, but inflation could spoil the party. It's Not A Spiral Yet Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the economy and financial markets over a six-to-twelve-month timeframe, though we have more conviction in our view at the near end of the range. We fully expect that the Fed will kill this expansion, but not before the middle of 2023 unless geopolitics and/or China’s COVID response accelerate the timetable. Feature Policymakers versus the virus, and our conviction that the Fed and Congress had the means and the will to do whatever it took to protect the economy from the ravages of COVID, proved to be the right macro template for making investment decisions in 2020 and 2021. Now a new battle has been joined – the Fed versus inflation – and we anticipate that it will end in a recession and an equity bear market. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, crimping global supplies of grains, base metals, crude oil, natural gas and coal, and China began experiencing its worst COVID outbreak, imperiling the nascent improvement in global supply chains, we were confident that the party wouldn’t break up before the second half of 2023 at the earliest. Although we remain constructive over a cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe, we recognize that Eurasian developments may foreshorten the current expansion. The Global Unknowns The indirect effects of the war in Europe are readily apparent but it is difficult to predict if Russian actions will lead to more sanctions and/or extend hostilities to a wider theater, deepening the European slowdown, exerting additional upward pressure on commodity prices and casting a larger shadow over global activity. China’s confrontation with COVID is riddled with unknowns: How effective is its Sinopharm vaccine against the currently dominant strain of the virus, and how effective will it be against subsequent mutations? When will China abandon its zero-tolerance policy? How stringent will lockdowns be? Could they be localized, allowing most industrial activity to continue, or will they be more sweeping? Is there any chance that the country will license the proven mRNA vaccine technology or the Pfizer pills that neutralize the severity of the disease in those who have become infected? The Eurasian factors are important, albeit hard to forecast, and we will have to monitor them in real time to get the soonest possible jump on their impacts. Several threats closer to home keep surfacing in our ongoing conversations with investors, however, and the rest of this week’s report examines them in the context of our constructive base-case view. The Wage-Price Spiral Employment data have consistently pointed to an increasingly tight labor market. Job openings are at record levels and consumer and small business surveys indicate that it is unusually easy for job seekers to find a job, and unusually difficult for employers to attract workers. All else equal, the dearth of labor supply strengthens workers’ bargaining power and supports further wage growth acceleration. With the US labor market already so tight that it squeaks, many observers are convinced that a wage-price spiral is a foregone conclusion. They can cite various wage series as evidence that a spiral might already have begun. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker and comprehensive measure of the Employment Cost Index are growing by 6% and 4.4% year-on-year, respectively. As large as the nominal gains are, however, they’re lagging the increase in consumer prices. Despite the voracious demand for workers, wage growth adjusted for inflation has decelerated since the early days of the pandemic, when front-line workers received the equivalent of combat pay in bonuses and temporary hourly increases, and has mostly contracted since last spring (Chart 1). Chart 1They're Not Exactly Chasing Each Other Higher Now Amidst the disruptions of the pandemic, many workers left the labor force. Census Department surveys attributed many of the departures to a lack of childcare or fear of infection, while print media and the Internet were awash with stories of people who’d re-examined their lives and determined that their existing work was unfulfilling. Supported by generous fiscal transfers, the subjects of the stories regularly professed indifference about returning to work. The Great Resignation narrative gained currency as an explanation of declining labor force participation and suggested that the shortage of workers might endure until today’s high school and college students grew old enough to step in themselves. Recent evidence undermines the idea that the Great Resignation marked a structural change in labor force participation. It looks much more like the decline was cyclical, tied to the ups and downs of infection rates and fiscal appropriations. The prime-age (25-to-54-year-old) participation rate has recovered to within a percentage point of its pre-pandemic high and appears to have plenty of momentum (Chart 2). Workers in the 55-to-64 age group, fueling the Great Retirement unit of the Great Resignation battalion, have come back to the workforce in droves, with the 55-to-59 cohort setting a 10-year participation high (Chart 3, middle panel) and its 60-to-64 peer group nearing one (Chart 3, bottom panel). Workers over 65 may remain on the sidelines, but the early retirement thesis is faltering as well. Chart 2The Great Resignation Is Unwinding ... Chart 3... And So Is The Early Retirement Wave     Finally, a resumption of more normal immigration patterns may also boost labor supply. The Department of Homeland Security states that it granted 228,000 lawful permanent residencies in the first quarter of 2022, a 72% increase from one year ago.1 Widespread pandemic business closures led some immigrants to return home, while keeping others who may have emigrated from crossing the border. We have no illusions that immigration is on the cusp of a step-function increase, but any uptick will help at the margin, especially in low and unskilled jobs where supply is especially strained. The bottom line for investors is that the labor market is tight, but real declines in wages and further supply relief may keep a wage-price spiral from taking root. It is too soon to conclude that wages and prices will chase each other higher in a repeat of the bad old days of the seventies. Inflation And The US Consumer Chart 4An Unprecedented Divergence Consumer confidence has been flagging, especially in the University of Michigan survey, which is approaching all-time lows two standard deviations below its mean (Chart 4, top panel). Though the Conference Board’s measure has come off of its pandemic highs, it is considerably more optimistic and remains above its mean (Chart 4, bottom panel). The Michigan survey places much more emphasis on inflation, which may explain why the two series are sending such sharply divergent messages. The implication is that high and/or rising inflation dents households’ confidence as it erodes their purchasing power, posing a dual threat to consumption and overall economic growth. In our view, the lagged effects of emergency pandemic stimulus measures have fortified households with enough dry powder (via fiscal transfers) and provided a powerful enough financial conditions tailwind (via low interest rates and asset appreciation) to ensure that their spending will underpin potent 2022 growth. We estimate that US households in the aggregate have $2.2 trillion in excess pandemic savings2 (Table 1). They have begun to deploy those savings, fueling consumption above our estimate of no-pandemic baseline consumption by $30 billion in both January and February, and they have ample capacity to spend more. The excess savings derive nearly equally from increased income and foregone consumption and are predominantly held by households in the bottom seven deciles of the income distribution because they received nearly all of the fiscal transfers that drove income increases across 2020 and the first half of 2021. Table 1Tracking Excess Savings Those households have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the wealthiest households, but the wealthy have benefitted mightily from the surge in the value of equities and other financial instruments. Most of the stellar eight-quarter increase in real household net worth (Chart 5) has thus been reserved to households in the top deciles but the home-price-appreciation boom has helped the two-thirds of households across the income distribution who own their homes (Chart 6). The bottom line is that American consumers are flush and the entire cross-section of households has shared in the bounty. The gains are unprecedented, just like the fiscal and monetary stimulus packages that gave rise to them, and they provide a buffer of dry powder that can withstand some purchasing power erosion from the 5.2% annualized increase in consumer prices since February 2020. Chart 5Household Wealth Has Never Grown So Much, So Fast ... Chart 6... And Ordinary Joes Benefitted, Too Quantitative Tightening Clients ask about the potential adverse effects of quantitative tightening (QT) in nearly every meeting, regularly citing the way the stocks swooned at the end of 2018, about a year into the FOMC’s previous balance sheet reduction foray. QT was at the scene of the crime in December 2018 and may well have been an accessory to the near murder of the equity bull market, but we would argue that a too-high fed funds rate was the true culprit. Although most investors recollect that the Fed ceased QT when equities hit an air pocket, the balance sheet continued shrinking until the summer of 2019, when the Fed resumed cutting rates. After the stock swoon, the Fed only stopped hiking the fed funds rate (at 2.5%). Related Report  US Investment StrategyHawks, Houses And Harried Workers As we discussed last week, we don’t think changes in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet lead to much more than marginal changes in the level of long-term interest rates. They fall a little when a large, price-insensitive buyer enters the marketplace, and they rise a little when it exits. Ultimately, we think asset purchases (QE) have the most impact as a signaling device: they communicate to investors and economic actors that zero interest rate policy will remain in place as long as QE continues and for some period after it ends. QE is therefore a leading indicator, while QT is no more than a coincident indicator, playing a nearly undetectable supporting role. QT may contribute to volatility in the rates market, but investors shouldn’t let it take their focus from the Fed’s more powerful fed funds rate lever. The Vulnerable Housing Market We discussed our constructive take on the housing market and residential investment last week, noting that homes are still affordable and mortgage rates are still low from a historical perspective, while the single-family home market remains undersupplied. Talk of a housing bubble has died down, but we still hear occasional references to housing’s role in the financial crisis and concerns about the economy’s vulnerability to a rate-induced decline in home prices. In our view, those concerns can easily be put to rest. Investors should remember that the subprime bust was principally a story about prodigally extended credit; houses just happened to be the collateral against which the loans were made. Chart 7Flight To Quality Those loans, the worst of which exceeded underlying property values and were extended to buyers who were not even remotely creditworthy, were tantamount to a house of cards by 2007. From 2004 through 2007 (Chart 7), more than a fifth of all new home mortgage originations went to near-prime (credit score between 620 and 659) and subprime (less than 620) borrowers, while not much more than half were issued to super-prime (greater than 720). Since the pandemic, near-prime and subprime borrowers have been limited to an average 5% share of loans, while super-primes have accounted for 84% of them and the upper tier of super-primes, with credit scores of 760 and above, have accounted for 70%. The change in lending standards can also be seen from using the Fed’s household balance sheet data to calculate an aggregate loan-to-value ratio (LTV) for the entire stock of owner-occupied single-family homes. The aggregate LTV currently stands at 31%, in the middle of the tight range it observed in the seventies and eighties, before policymakers began actively encouraging banks to make mortgage loans available to an expanded pool of borrowers (Chart 8). LTV exploded higher from 2006 through 2009 as lending peaked in 2006-7 and home values subsequently fell faster than mortgage balances in the 2008-9 bust. The record LTV of the subprime crisis, ginned up by loans that matched or exceeded underlying home values, amplified the distress from a downturn in home prices; today’s ‘70s-style LTV will help to absorb them. Chart 8High Prices Weren't The Problem, High LTVs Were Portfolio Construction Takeaways Our Global Fixed Income and US Bond Strategy services have adjusted their recommended tactical positioning on Treasuries and spread product and we are adjusting our ETF portfolio to align with their view with a slight exception. Our in-house bond strategists recommend a modest tactical overweight in Treasuries and we are curing our Treasury underweight while maintaining benchmark duration. We are reducing our allocation to hybrid debt securities by halving our position in variable-rate preferreds (VRP) on the rationale that we have less need for credit exposure and duration protection over the immediate term. We are trimming our high yield overweight (JNK) to a mere 100 basis points and allocating our sales proceeds that aren’t going to Treasuries into mortgage-backed securities (MBB) to reduce that underweight by 140 basis points. We are parting company with our fixed income team by maintaining a small high yield overweight on the grounds that above-trend economic growth will hold down delinquencies and defaults until a recession is nearly at hand. The position is vulnerable to spread widening, but we expect the positive carry over duration-matched Treasuries will allow high yield to generate positive excess returns for the rest of the year. All of the changes are detailed in Table 2 and will be reflected on BCA’s website soon after today’s New York open. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigr…, accessed April 12, 2022. Data obtained from Table 1A. 2     Table 1 calculates household excess savings by subtracting our estimate of baseline no-pandemic savings from actual savings as compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in its monthly Personal Income report. Our baseline estimate assumes that personal income would have grown at an annualized 4% pace (2% real trend growth plus 2% inflation) and that the savings rate would have remained constant at its 8.3% February 2020 level.

Executive Summary The unemployment rate in the US stands at 3.6%, 0.4 percentage points below the FOMC’s estimate of full employment. Historically, the Fed’s efforts to nudge up the unemployment rate have failed: The US has never averted a recession when the 3-month average of the unemployment rate has increased by more than a third of a percentage point. Despite this somber fact, there are reasons to think it will take longer for a recession to arrive than widely believed. Unlike in the lead-up to many past recessions, the US private sector is currently running a financial surplus. If anything, there are indications that both households and businesses are set to expand – rather than retrench – spending over the coming quarters. Investors should pay close attention to the housing market. As the most interest-rate sensitive sector of the economy, it will dictate the degree to which the Fed can raise rates. The US housing market has cooled, but remains in reasonably good shape, supported by rising incomes and low home inventories. Stocks will likely rise modestly over the next 12 months as inflation temporarily dips and the pandemic recedes from view. However, equities will falter towards the end of 2023. Stocks Tend To Fare Well When There Is No Recession On The Horizon Bottom Line: The US may not be able to avoid a recession, but an economic downturn is unlikely until 2024. Stay modestly overweight stocks over a 12-month horizon.  Jobs Aplenty The US unemployment rate fell from 3.8% in February to 3.6% in March, bringing it close to its pre-pandemic low of 3.5%. Adding job openings to employment and comparing the resulting sum with the size of the labor force, the excess of labor demand over labor supply is now the highest since July 1969 (Chart 1). Chart 1Labor Demand Is Outstripping Labor Supply By The Largest Margin Since 1969 Granted, the labor force participation rate is still one full percentage point below where it was prior to the pandemic. If the participation rate were to rise, the gap between labor demand and supply would shrink. Some of the decline in the participation rate is permanent in nature, reflecting ongoing population aging, which has been compounded by an increase in early retirements during the pandemic (Chart 2). Some workers who dropped out will probably re-enter the workforce. Chart 3 shows that employment among low-wage workers has been slower to recover than for other groups. With expanded unemployment benefits no longer available, the motivation to find gainful employment will escalate. Chart 2Not All Of The Decline In Labor Participation During The Pandemic Was Due To Increased Early Retirements Chart 3Low-Wage Workers Have Not Returned In Full Force Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the entry of low-wage workers into the labor force will do much to reduce the gap between labor demand and supply. Low-wage workers tend to spend all of their incomes (Chart 4). Thus, while an increase in the number of low-wage workers will allow the supply of goods and services to rise, this will be counterbalanced by an increase in the demand for goods and services. Chart 4Richer Households Tend To Save More Than Poorer Ones To cool the labor market, the Fed will need to curb spending, and that can only be achieved by raising interest rates. Trying to achieve a soft landing in this manner is always easier said than done. The US has never averted a recession when the 3-month average of the unemployment rate has increased by more than a third of a percentage point. Rising unemployment tends to produce a negative feedback loop: A weaker labor market depresses spending. This, in turn, leads to less hiring and more firing, resulting in even higher unemployment. Where is the Choke Point? How high will interest rates need to rise to trigger such a feedback loop? Markets currently expect the Fed to raise rates to 3% by mid-2023 but then cut rates by at least 25 basis points over the subsequent months (Chart 5). So, the market thinks the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with a stable unemployment rate – is around 2.5%. The Fed broadly shares the market’s view. The median dot for the terminal Fed funds rate stood at 2.4% in the March Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 6). When the Fed first started publishing its dot plot in 2012, it thought the terminal rate was 4.25%. Chart 5The Markets See The Fed Funds Rate Reaching 3% Next Year Chart 6The Fed's Estimate Of The Terminal Rate Has Fallen Over The Years Low Imbalances Imply a Higher Neutral Rate We have discussed the concept of the neutral rate extensively in the past, so we will not regurgitate the issues here (interested readers should consult the Feature Section of our latest Strategy Outlook). Instead, it would be worthwhile to dwell on the relationship between the neutral rate and economic imbalances. Simply put, when an economy is suffering from major imbalances, it does not take much monetary tightening to push it over the edge. The private-sector financial balance measures the difference between what households and firms earn and spend. A recession is more likely to occur when the private-sector financial balance is negative — that is, when spending exceeds income — since households and firms are more prone to cut spending when they are living beyond their means. In the lead-up to the Great Recession, the private-sector financial balance hit a deficit of 3.9% of GDP in the US. Leading up to the 2001 recession, it reached a deficit of 5.4% of GDP. Today, the US private-sector financial balance, while down from its peak during the pandemic, still stands at a comfortable surplus of 3% of GDP. Rather than looking to retrench, households and businesses are poised to increase spending over the coming quarters (Chart 7). Private-sector financial balances are also positive in Japan, China, and most of Europe (Chart 8). Chart 7Consumers And Businesses Are Set To Spend More Chart 8Private-Sector Financial Balances Are Positive In Most Major Economies Watch Housing Chart 9Rising Interest Rates In The Early 1980s Had Much More Of A Negative Effect On Housing Than Business Investment At the 2007 Jackson Hole conference, Ed Leamer presented what turned out to be a very prescient paper. Titled “Housing is the Business Cycle,” Leamer concluded that “Of the components of GDP, residential investment offers by far the best early warning sign of an oncoming recession.” Housing is a long-lived asset, and one that is usually financed with debt. To a much greater extent than nonresidential investment, the housing sector is very sensitive to changes in interest rates. When the Fed hiked rates in the early 1980s, residential investment collapsed but business investment barely contracted (Chart 9). The jump in mortgage yields has started to weigh on housing (Chart 10). Mortgage applications for home purchases have fallen by 25% from their highs. Pending home sales have dropped. Homebuilder confidence has dipped. Homebuilder stocks are down 29% year-to-date. Housing is likely to slow further in the months ahead, even if mortgage yields stabilize. Chart 11 shows that changes in mortgage yields lead home sales and housing starts by about six months. Chart 10The Jump In Mortgage Rates Has Weighed On The Housing Market Chart 11Swings In Mortgage Rates Explain Short-Term Fluctuations In Housing Activity The key question for investors is whether the housing market will enter a deep freeze or merely cool down. We think the latter is more likely. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate has increased nearly two percentage points since last August, but at around 5%, it is still below the average of 6% that prevailed during the 2000-2006 housing boom (Chart 12). Moreover, unlike during the housing boom, when homebuilders flooded the market with houses, the supply of new homes remains contained. The nationwide homeowner vacancy rate stands at record lows. Building permits are near cycle highs (Chart 13). Granted, real home prices are close to record highs. However, relative to incomes, US home prices have not broken out of their historic range (Chart 14). Chart 13The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Near Record Lows Chart 14Homes In The US Are Relatively Cheap Home affordability is much more stretched outside of the United States. The Bank of Canada, for example, has less scope to raise rates than the Fed. Chart 15Some Signs Of Easing In Supply-Side Pressures Investment Conclusions As investors, we need to be forward looking. The widespread availability of Paxlovid later this year — which, in contrast to the vaccines, is effective against all Covid strains — will help boost global growth while relieving supply-chain bottlenecks. Shipping costs, used car prices, and ISM supplier delivery times have already come down from their highs (Chart 15). Central banks have either started to raise rates or are gearing up to do so. However, monetary policy is unlikely to turn restrictive in any major economy over the next 12 months. Stocks usually go up outside of recessionary environments (Chart 16). Global equities are trading at 17-times forward earnings. The corresponding earnings yield is about 630 basis points higher than the real global bond yield – a very wide gap by historic standards (Chart 17). Chart 16Stocks Tend To Fare Well When There Is No Recession On The Horizon Chart 17AThe Equity Risk Premium Remains Elevated (I) Chart 17BThe Equity Risk Premium Remains Elevated (II) Investors should remain modestly overweight equities over a 12-month horizon and look to increase exposure to non-US stock markets, small caps, and value stocks over the coming months. Government bond yields are unlikely to rise much over the next 12 months but will increase further over the long haul. The dollar should peak during this summer, and then weaken over the subsequent 12 months. A complete discussion of our market views is contained in our recently published Second Quarter Strategy Outlook.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Fed officials maintained the drumbeat of hawkish commentary last week, reiterating their commitment to use the full might of their tools to bring inflation to heel. Stock and bond markets reacted adversely when dovish Governor Brainard joined the chorus, but no one should have been surprised. The FOMC is unanimous in its resolve to combat inflation before long-run expectations become unmoored. Markets may also have been discomfited by the coming shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet. Though balance sheet runoff should exert some modest upward pressure on bond yields, we do not expect markets to dwell on it for long. Housing activity is squarely in the crosshairs of tighter monetary policy. Mortgage rates are extremely low relative to history, however, and homes remain quite affordable. We expect the housing market will weather the backup in rates. A plucky band of first-time organizers spurred workers in a New York City Amazon warehouse to vote to form a union. Labor advocates rejoiced, but it is premature to mark the event as a turning point for organized labor. What Goes Up Must Come Down Bottom Line: Last week’s Fed “news” was not particularly newsworthy. The FOMC will prioritize its inflation mandate over its full employment mandate until further notice, but the economy is well suited to withstand higher rates and even the housing market won’t buckle in the face of them. Feature Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, Fed speakers roiled rates markets again last week, pushing the 10-year Treasury yield over 2.6% for the first time in three years. Although Fed Governor Brainard was simply lining up behind every other governor and district president who’s been in range of a microphone over the last several weeks, her tough talk on inflation in a Tuesday morning speech jolted the 10-year yield 10 basis points (bps) higher, from 2.45% to 2.55%, and it tacked on another 10 bps overnight, hitting 2.65% as New York-based fixed income traders switched on their terminals Wednesday morning. Stocks tumbled after Brainard’s remarks, as well, with the S&P 500 shedding 1% in back-to-back sessions. Both markets got a respite after the March FOMC meeting minutes contained no further revelations but the 10-year yield marched to 2.70% on Friday. The market action demonstrated that investors remain on edge, despite the S&P 500’s 10% bounce. From our perspective, there was nothing too notable in Brainard’s comments. She may be seen as one of the more reliably dovish members of the FOMC, but Chair Powell has been at pains to stress that the entire committee is “determin[ed],” as the minutes put it, “to take the measures necessary to restore price stability.” With inflation readings persisting well above the FOMC’s target level, one participant after another has hammered home the message in speeches and interviews that the committee is unanimously resolved to wield its tools to bring it to heel. Related Report  US Investment StrategyIt All Depends On Whom You Ask Hiking the fed funds rate is the committee’s foremost weapon in the fight against inflation, and it has guided investors to discount a more rapid pace of 2022 increases and a modestly higher end point for this tightening cycle. We think the fixed income market is underestimating the terminal, or peak, rate but expect that it will require hard evidence before it reassesses its conviction that the economy cannot withstand a fed funds rate above 2.5%. It will take time to gather that evidence, as it won’t be available until the funds rate is at least 2%, so we expect that the 10-year yield will soon peak in tandem with inflation, but investors are especially uncertain and volatile financial markets reflect it. The FOMC can also adjust the size of its balance sheet to regulate the stimulus it’s providing to the economy. This tool pales in importance relative to the funds rate and despite Ben Bernanke’s smug remark at BCA’s 2015 conference that “quantitative easing works in practice but not in theory,” definitive evidence of its effects remains elusive. We therefore do not expect that curtailing reinvestment of principal repayments from the Fed’s stockpile of securities holdings will have a meaningful direct effect on the economy. Last week’s guidance that the runoff will be faster than it was in 2018-19 makes sense, given that the Fed’s securities holdings are twice as large (Chart 1), and that flush households and businesses are in markedly better shape than they were in the aftermath of the crisis. Chart 1The Funds Rate Matters More Than The Size Of The Balance Sheet There is no settled consensus on what the Fed’s balance sheet reduction will mean for the economy and markets. The US Investment Strategy view is that asset purchases are mainly a signaling device; they let economic participants and investors know that zero interest rate policy will remain in place until some period after they end. Balance sheet runoff doesn’t provide any similar information about the future; it simply indicates that the FOMC will be pursuing a supplemental stimulus reduction measure alongside its far more influential increases in short rates. Removing a price-insensitive buyer from the marketplace should put modest upward pressure on interest rates because they should have to rise, all else equal, to induce other buyers to step in to replace it. We expect, therefore, that the runoff will tighten financial conditions at the margin and exert a modest drag on economic activity. Some of that marginal tightening must have already occurred, as the Fed has taken pains to telegraph the balance sheet runoff, but it will likely contribute to volatility as markets try to settle on the proper outcome to discount. What About Housing? Interest rates affect the entire economy, but housing is the most rate-sensitive industry. Houses are the ultimate big-ticket items – they are the most expensive purchase most households will make and nearly all of them are financed via mortgages. Demand for single-family housing, away from the post-GFC phenomenon of investment buyers paying cash, is acutely sensitive to interest rates. The tide of available buyers ebbs and flows as monthly mortgage payments rise and fall. The housing market therefore finds itself in the crosshairs of the Fed’s tough talk about inflation and the homebuilder stocks have been demolished so far this year, losing a third of their value to lag every other subindustry group in the S&P 500 except closely related home furnishings (Chart 2). The stock rout contrasts with the upbeat housing market outlook we offered two months ago. Though we acknowledge that housing’s prospects have dimmed somewhat since mid-to-late February, we remain more optimistic than the consensus and are confident that a pronounced slowdown is not in store. Chart 2A Brutal Selloff ... The subsequent 75-bps surge in Freddie Mac’s national 30-year fixed-rate mortgage proxy (Chart 3, middle panel) has made homes less affordable for the median buyer (Chart 3, top panel). The drop in affordability has been modest, however, as it has been cushioned by a narrowing of the gap between median income and median home prices (Chart 3, bottom panel). Despite the last two months’ dip, homes remain quite affordable relative to history. Chart 3... Despite Solid Affordability​​​​​ Since its predecessor index began in 1971, affordability had only ever surpassed the 140 level that has marked the bottom of the post-crisis range for a brief period in the early seventies (Chart 4, top panel). While mortgage rates are clearly moving in the wrong direction, they remain extremely low. One must squint to register their current advance in the context of the series’ entire history (Chart 4, third panel). Despite rising rates, median income gains have kept the mortgage servicing burden steady – and historically light – for several months (Chart 4, second panel). Though we expect that mortgage rates will stop vaulting upward and possibly even retrace some of their advance as inflation peaks, their recent move has been unfriendly to the housing market. Viewed from the perspective of the National Association of Realtors’ affordability index, however, their level remains quite favorable, and we do not worry that great swaths of would-be buyers are going to be shut out of the market. The respondents to the NAHB’s homebuilder sentiment survey agree. While the forward sales component swooned by ten points from January to February (Chart 5, bottom panel), current sales largely kept pace (Chart 5, second panel) and potential buyer traffic rose (Chart 5, third panel). The overall index slipped a bit since January but – stop us if you’ve heard this before – remains very strong relative to history (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4The American Dream Is Not Out Of Reach​​​​​​ Chart 5Homebuilders See Clear Skies Ahead ...​​​​​ Though demand has surely waned, as rising rates sideline some marginal buyers, we expect it will remain robust, especially as the sizzling rental market offers little relief. Supplies of new and existing homes remain constrained. Restrictive zoning laws, sporadically soaring input costs, supply chain issues and difficulty finding skilled workers have hampered new home construction. Inventories of existing homes remain historically depleted (Chart 6, middle panel) and the share of homes that are vacant remains at all-time lows (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6... As Their Product Is In Short Supply​​​​​​ Chart 7Real Mortgage Rates Are Not A Problem​​​​​​ The bottom line is that the housing picture has worsened somewhat but we still believe conditions are better than the gloomy consensus perception. Construction and sales activity will surprise to the upside over the rest of the year and residential investment will augment economic activity, not detract from it. Although the ITB homebuilder ETF has been a drag on performance since we added it to our cyclical ETF portfolio last month, we will continue to hold it as a pure play on the resilience of domestic demand. It is hard to see demand evaporating in the fashion implied by the homebuilders’ skid when real mortgage rates are at such extreme lows, no matter how they are adjusted for inflation (Chart 7). David Wins A Round Against Goliath Workers at a fulfillment center in Staten Island voted two weeks ago to become the first domestic Amazon employees to form a union. The vote, along with a concurrent re-vote at a Bessemer, Alabama warehouse that union organizers lost, was closely watched by labor relations experts. Amazon is the second-largest private employer in the US, with more than a million employees, and its size and reputedly trying working conditions make it an especially appealing target for unions. Labor advocates were quick to characterize the vote as a watershed moment, but it is far too early to call an inflection point. The outcome of the Amazon vote was front-page news because it was so improbable. Despite a cyclically favorable labor market, wage earners trying to unionize confront a gaping structural resource disparity with multinational companies. The fledgling Amazon Labor Union’s (ALU) victory in Staten Island was startling but it still faces an arduous climb to bring Amazon to the negotiating table and work out a contract agreement. Amazon will be able to introduce delays at every step of the process, eroding ALU’s meager resources while pursuing a strategy of running out the clock on the current labor-friendly administration. One of the key takeaways from our January-February 2020 Special Reports on US labor relations history was that employees are only to achieve gains when the government – courts, legislatures and the executive branch – does not favor employers. The series of reports were meant to alert investors to the possibility that Democratic wins in the 2020 election could send the pendulum swinging back in employees’ favor after 40 years of tilting toward employers, carrying important implications for corporate profit margins and inflation. Chart 8The Tortoise And The Hare The election did mark a change in the White House’s attitude toward labor, installing the self-declared “most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.1” Since President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board has forcefully asserted itself in its role as the official referee of union elections to the point that Amazon has accused it of taking the unions’ side instead of serving as a neutral arbiter. The president himself would seem to have been taking sides last week when he took the rare step of calling out Amazon by name during remarks to a group of unionized workers. “The choice to join a union belongs to workers alone,” he said. “By the way, Amazon, here we come. Watch.” The White House press secretary quickly walked back the comments, placing them in the context of the president’s established support for unionization and collective bargaining. “What he was not doing is sending a message that he or the U.S. government would be directly involved in any of these efforts or take any direct action.2” Regardless of whether President Biden was attempting to send a message or had ventured off-topic as is his wont, it is unclear how much his administration can do to tilt the scales in workers’ favor. New Deal-era laws endowed workers with the right to organize and employers are not allowed to obstruct their efforts to do so. There are multiple gray areas in union election campaigns, however, and employers regularly deploy a wide range of actions that are not explicitly prohibited to keep unions out of their workplace. Most importantly, this administration may only be in charge until January 2025. It can use the NLRB, OSHA, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice to try to advance workers’ cause for four years but labor has been on the back foot for four decades. It is likely to lose its legislative majorities in November’s midterms, the federal bench is populated by a majority of judges disposed to see things from employers’ point of view and many state legislatures are markedly anti-union. Without another term, the jury is out on the administration’s ability to effect durable change. The takeaway for investors is that a wage-price spiral has not yet taken hold and our bet is that it won’t. The tight labor market has endowed workers with more leverage than they’ve had in many cycles, but structurally the labor relations landscape bears more characteristics of the Reagan Era (1980-2020) than the New Deal Era (1933-1980). Real average hourly earnings have risen since the pandemic arrived in the US (Chart 8, top panel), but we find it telling that all of the real wage growth occurred in the first year of the pandemic. Across Year 2, nominal wages have failed to keep up with consumer price inflation (Chart 8, bottom panel), despite White House support in the midst of a labor market so tight that it squeaks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Remarks by President Biden in Honor of Labor Unions | The White House Accessed April 7, 2022. 2     Biden Appears to Show Support for Amazon Workers Who Voted to Unionize - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed April 7, 2022.

Special Report

Highlights The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Feature The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.1 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,2 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1 For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com