Developed Countries

Executive Summary Allies Still Have Faith In USD The Biden administration’s use of sanctions has prompted market speculation about the longevity of the dollar. Yet the DXY has hit 100 and could break out, in the context of rising interest rates and safe-haven demand. The US’s increasingly frequent recourse to economic sanctions is a sign of growing foreign policy challenges. US rivals will continue to diversify away from dollar-denominated reserves. However, from a big picture point of view, there is no clear case that the dollar suffers from US sanctions. When global growth reaccelerates, the dollar can weaken. But until then it will remain resilient. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Inception Date Return Long DXY 96.19 23-FEB-22 5.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long DXY and defensives over cyclicals. Feature The US’s aggressive use of sanctions against Russia, in response to its invasion of Ukraine, has prompted market speculation about the future of the global financial and monetary system. Related Report  US Political StrategyBiden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms               It is helpful to begin with facts – what we really know – before launching into grandiose predictions for the future. For example, while some analysts are predicting the demise of the US dollar’s position as the leading reserve currency, so far global investors have bid up the dollar in the face of rising policy uncertainty (Chart 1). In this report we conduct a short overview of US sanctions policy and draw a few simple investment conclusions. Chart 1US Political Risk And The Dollar US Extra-Territorialism Not Yet Hurting The USD The DXY is now trading at 101.2, above the psychological threshold of 100, suggesting that it could break out above its 2016 102.2 peak. The drivers are an expected sharp rise in real interest rates, in both absolute and relative terms, as the Federal Reserve starts on a rate hike cycle that is expected to add 225 basis points to the Fed funds rate this year alone to combat core inflation of 6.5%. This monetary backdrop must be combined with extreme global political and economic instability to explain the dollar’s potential breakout. The global situation is growing less stable, as EU-Russia energy trade breaks down while China imposes lockdowns to stop the spread of Covid-19. Over the past twenty years, the US has struggled to maintain its global leadership. Washington became distracted by wars in the Middle East and South Asia, a national property market crash and financial crisis, and a spike in political polarization and populism. The US public grew war-weary, while the US faced growing challenges from large and powerful nations that it could not confront militarily. Therefore US policymakers turned to economic tools to try to achieve their objectives: namely sanctions but also tariffs and export controls. Many economists and political scientists have warned that the US’s expanding use of economic sanctions – and broader trend of international, extra-territorial, law enforcement – would drive other countries to sell the US dollar and buy other assets, so as to reduce their vulnerability to US tools. This reasoning is sound, as we can see with Russia, which has reduced its dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves from 41% to 16% since 2016, while increasing its gold holdings from 15% to 22% over the same period. Other major countries vulnerable to US sanctions could follow in Russia’s footsteps. However, so far, the dollar is not suffering excessively from such moves. On the contrary it is rising. The US started using sanctions aggressively with North Korea in 2005, Iran in 2010, and Russia since 2012. The dollar has fluctuated based on other factors, namely rising when the global commodity and industrial cycle was falling (Chart 2). Chart 2TWUSD And DXY Since 2000 Sanctions are a limited prism through which to examine the dollar. But if there is any observable effect of the US’s turn toward sanctions against major players like Russia in 2012 and China in 2018, it is that it has boosted the dollar rather than hurt it. Obviously that trend could change someday. But for now, as the Ukraine war dramatically heightens the US struggle with its rivals, investors should observe that the dollar is on the verge of a breakout. If the dollar continues to rise, it suggests that the US’s structural turn toward more aggressive economic and financial sanctions is not negative for the dollar. It may be neutral or positive. Cyclically the trade-weighted dollar is nowhere near its 2020 peak and could still fall short of that peak, especially if global tensions subside. But the collapse in the euro has caused the DXY to break above its 2020 peak already. Bottom Line: Stay tactically long DXY while watching whether it can break sustainably above 100 to determine whether our cyclically neutral view should be upgraded. US Sanctions On North Korea In this century, the US began to turn more aggressive in its use of sanctions when it confronted the “Axis of Evil” following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and began to pursue a nuclear and ballistic missile program more intently. The US responded by levying serious sanctions on that state beginning in 2005. Gradually tougher US sanctions never caused a change in the North Korean regime or foreign policy. On the contrary North Korea achieved nuclear weaponization and is today outlining an expansive nuclear doctrine.  US sanctions on North Korea were never going to drive global macro trends. However, they could have had an impact on South Korean trends. Initially none of the US sanctions reversed the dollar’s decline against the Korean won. After the global financial crisis in 2008, when the dollar began an uptrend against the won, we observe periods of significant new sanctions in which the won rises and the dollar falls (Chart 3, top panel). The same can be said for the outperformance of US equities relative to South Korean equities – if sanctions had any impact, they simply reinforced the flight to US assets in a globally disinflationary context. The trend was mirrored within the US equity market by the rise of tech versus industrials (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3US Sanctions On North Korea Since Covid-19, the outperformance of US tech is now being overturned by high inflation, which has triggered a vicious selloff in tech. In 2022, global growth is slowing, stagflation is taking shape, and the odds of a recession are rising. Stagflation is negative for both industrials and tech, but more so tech. However, South Korea is still suffering from a deteriorating global macro and geopolitical backdrop, as globalization falters, US-China competition rises, and the US fails to contain North Korean ambitions. Sanctions are a symptom rather than a cause.  Bottom Line: US sanctions on North Korea pose no threat to the US dollar. Tactically US industrials can continue to outperform tech but both sectors will suffer in a stagflationary context. US Sanctions On Venezuela The US has slapped sanctions on Venezuela since the early 2000s but these sanctions kicked into high gear in 2015 after President Nicolas Maduro took power and eliminated the last vestiges of democratic and constitutional order. The US recognized the opposition as the legitimate government so sanctions relief will not be easy or convenient. Sanctions have not changed the regime’s behavior, but the regime has all but collapsed and major changes could happen sooner than people expect. Moreover any short-term sanction relief prompted by high oil prices will not be sustainable: the Republican Party will oppose it, hence private US corporations will doubt its durability, and Venezuela’s failing oil industry cannot be revived quickly anyway (Chart 4, top panel).    The US has strong relations with Venezuela’s neighbor Colombia. Yet Colombia faces the greatest economic and security risks from Venezuelan instability. The US dollar vastly outstripped the Colombian peso over the past decade, consistent with the US energy sector’s underperformance (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4US Sanctions On Venezuela With Covid-19, this trend reversed because of the global energy squeeze and inflationary environment. The implication was positive for the Colombian peso as well as global (and US) energy sector relative performance. But the peso only marginally improved against the dollar, while US energy outperformance is now stretched.  Bottom Line: Energy sector still enjoys macro tailwinds but it is no longer clear that US energy stocks will outperform the broad market for much longer. Favor energy by staying long US energy small caps versus large caps. Also stay long oil and gas transportation and storage sub-sector relative to the broad market. The Biden administration is unlikely to give sanction relief to Venezuela. If it does, it will be ineffective at reducing oil prices in the short term. Either way, there will be little impact on the US dollar. US Sanctions On Iran US policy toward Iran is critical to global stability and energy prices in 2022 and the coming years. US sanctions did not change Iran’s behavior alone, but in league with the P5+1 (the UK, France, China, Russia, plus Germany) sanctions forced Iran to accept limit on its nuclear program in 2015. However, the Trump administration withdrew from that agreement and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran in 2018, leading to a sharp depreciation in the market exchange rate of the Iranian toman (Chart 5, top panel). The Saudi Arabian riyal, by contrast, is pegged to the dollar and remains steady except when oil prices collapse (Chart 5, middle panel). The Saudis still rely on the Americans for national security so they are unlikely to abandon the dollar, though they may marginally diversify their foreign exchange reserves. The Biden administration wants to rejoin the 2015 deal but first is trying to extract concessions from Iran. Iran feels limited pressure: while its currency is still weak and inflation high, Iran has not succumbed to social unrest. Iranian oil production and exports are rising amid global high prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). Ultimately Iran wants to continue to advance its nuclear program in line with the North Korean strategy. Hence Biden can rejoin the deal unilaterally if he wants to avoid Middle Eastern instability ahead of the midterm elections. But it would be a short-term, stop-gap agreement and the reduction in oil prices would be fleeting. By contrast, if Biden fails to lift Iran’s sanctions, then the risk of oil disruptions from the Middle East goes way up. Tactically investors should expect upside risks to the oil price, but that would kill more demand and weigh on global growth. Over the past decade the outperformance of US equities relative to Saudi and Emirati equities falls in line with the outperformance of US tech relative to energy sectors. As mentioned, this trend has largely run its course, although it can go further in the short run. But there is a broader trend related to growth versus value styles. The UAE’s stock market is heavily weighted toward financials, while the US is heavily weighted toward tech. The US tech sector has collapsed relative to financials (Chart 6).  Chart 5US Sanctions On Iran Chart 6US Sanctions On Iran Bottom Line: US energy and financials sectors can fare reasonably well in a stagflationary context but their outperformance relative to tech is largely priced from a cyclical point of view. US maximum pressure sanctions on Iran never hurt the US dollar. US Sanctions On Russia The US’s extraordinary sanctions against Russia in 2022 – including freezing its dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves – have sparked market fears that countries will divest from US dollars to protect themselves from any future US sanctions. To be clear, the US has confiscated foreign enemies’ property and foreign exchange reserves in the past. True, Russia is qualitatively different from other countries, such as Iran, because it is one of the world’s great powers. Yet the US closed off all economic and financial linkages with Russia from 1949-1991 because of the Cold War, the very period when the US dollar rose to prominence as the global reserve currency. In 2022, sanctions on Russia have primarily hurt the Russian ruble, not the US dollar (Chart 7). The Russians divested from the dollar after invading Ukraine in 2014 to reduce the impact of sanctions. But they were not able to divest fast enough to prevent the 2022 sanctions from pummeling their financial system and economy. Chart 7US Sanctions On Russia Going forward Russia will be much more insulated from the US dollar but at a terrible cost to long-term productivity. The lesson for other US rivals may be to diversify away from the dollar – but that will be a secondary lesson. The primary lesson will be to take economic stability into account when making strategic security decisions. Economic stability requires ongoing engagement in the global financial system and US dollar system. US sanctions on Russia have benefited US equities and dollar relative to Russian assets as one would expect. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exacerbated the trend. The takeaway for US investors is that the energy sector’s outperformance sector’s outperformance can continue in the short run but is becoming stretched from a cyclical perspective. Bottom Line: Investors should expect oil and the energy sector to remain strong in the short run, while tech will suffer in an inflationary and stagflationary environment. But energy may not outperform tech for much longer. US Sanctions On China US policy toward China is the critical question today. China holds $1 trillion in dollar-denominated exchange reserves and must recycle around $200 billion in current account surpluses every year into global assets. The US has imposed sweeping sanctions on Iran since 2010, Russia since 2012, and China since 2018. China began diversifying away from dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession. The US-initiated trade war in 2018 solidified the change in China’s foreign reserve strategy. The US sanctions against Russia will further solidify it. There are some signs that US punitive measures affected the USD-CNY exchange rate but global economic cycles are far more powerful. The yuan appreciated from 2005 until the global financial crisis, during the height of US-China economic and diplomatic engagement. It depreciated through the manufacturing slowdown of 2015 and the US-China trade war. It appreciated again with the pandemic stimulus and global trade rebound. The yuan was affected by US sanctions and tariffs on the margin amid these larger macro swings (Chart 8, top panel). Still, the overarching trend since 2014 points to a rising dollar and falling yuan. Globalization is in retreat and US-China strategic competition is heating up. As with South Korea, these trends are negative for Chinese assets. US sanctions are a symptom rather than a cause of the underlying macro and geopolitical dynamics. The same point can be made with regard to US equity performance relative to Chinese – and hence US tech outperformance relative to US industrial stocks (Chart 8, bottom panel). However, as with Korea, the cyclical takeaway is to favor industrials over technology in a stagflationary environment. Chart 8US Sanctions On China Bottom Line: Tactically favor US industrials over tech until the world’s stagflationary trajectory is corrected. US-China relations are one area where US sanction policy can hurt the dollar, as China will seek to diversify over time. But so far the evidence is scant. US Sanctions And Foreign Holdings Of Treasuries Having examined US sanctions on a country-by-country basis, we should now turn toward holdings of US dollars and Treasury securities. Are US economic sanctions jeopardizing the willingness of states to hold US assets? First, Americans hold 74% of outstanding treasuries. Foreigners hold the remaining 26% (Chart 9, top panel). This is a large degree of foreign ownership that reflects the US’s openness as an economy, as well as the size of the treasury market, which makes it attractive to foreign savers who need a place to store their wealth. Of this 26%, defense allies hold about 36%. Theoretically up to 17% of treasuries stand at risk of rapid liquidation by non-allied states afraid of US sanctions. But a conservative estimate would be 6%. Notably the share of foreign-held treasuries held by non-allies has fallen from 40% in 2009 to 23% today. Non-allies are reducing their share fairly rapidly (Chart 9, middle panel). What this really means is that China and Hong Kong are reducing their share – from 26% in 2008 to 16% today. Brazil and India have maintained a steady 6% of foreign-held treasuries. Notably the offshore financial centers see a growing share, suggesting that trust in the dollar remains strong even among states and entities that wish to hide their identity. Some of the divestment that has occurred from non-allied states may be overstated due to rerouting through these third parties. Looking at the data in absolute terms, only China – and arguably Brazil – can be said with any certainty to be pursuing a dedicated policy of divesting from US dollar reserves (Chart 10). This makes sense, as China, like Russia, is engaged in geopolitical competition with the US and therefore must take precautions against future US punitive measures. But these measures are not so far generating a worldwide flight from the dollar, either at the micro level or the macro level. Chart 9Foreign Purchases Of US Treasuries Chart 10Foreigners With Large Treasury Holdings In fact, the biggest competitor to the US dollar is the euro. This is clear from looking at the share of global currency reserves – the two are inversely proportional (Chart 11). And yet it is the European Union, not the US, that could suffer a long-term loss of security, productivity, and stability as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The euro is losing status as a reserve currency and the war could exacerbate that trend. Chart 11Global Reserve Currency Basket Europe does not provide protection from US sanctions. The EU, like the US, utilizes economic sanctions and the two entities share many similar foreign policy objectives. Europe is also allied with the US through NATO. When the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the EU did not withdraw, yet EU entities enforced the sanctions, as their economic linkages with the US were much more valuable than those with Iran. In the case of Russia, the two have imposed sanctions in league, as they will likely do toward other small or great powers that attempt to reshape the global order through military force. The next competitors to the dollar and euro are grouped together in Chart 11 above because they are the US’s “maritime allies,” such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These countries will pursue a similar foreign policy to the United States and they do not offer protection from US sanctions during times of conflict or war.  The true competitor is the Chinese renminbi. The renminbi will grow as a share of global reserves. But it faces serious obstacles from China’s economic policy, currency controls, closed capital account, and geopolitical competition with the United States. Washington’s sanctions have already targeted China yet the US dollar has remained resilient.  Bottom Line: The US’s erratic foreign policy in recent decades has potentially weighed on the US’s commanding position as a global reserve currency, with its share of reserves falling from 71% in 2000 to 59% today. But US allies have mostly picked up the slack. And the dollar’s top competitor, the euro, is likely to suffer more than the dollar from the Ukraine war. Still it is true that US sanctions are alienating China, which will continue to diversify away from the dollar.  Investment Takeaways Tactically stay long the US dollar (DXY). The combination of monetary policy tightening and foreign policy challenges is driving a dollar rally that could result in a breakout.  US sanctions policy is not a convincing reason to sell the dollar in today’s context. Over the medium term dollar diversification poses a risk, although the dollar will still remain the single largest reserve currency over a long-term, strategic horizon. For further discussion see the Special Report by our Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, “Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat?” Given US domestic policy uncertainty in an election year, and foreign policy challenges, stay long defensive sectors, namely health care, over cyclical sectors.   Tactically our renewable energy trade has dropped sharply. But cyclically it remains attractive, as our recent Special Report with our US Equity Strategy team demonstrates. If Congress fails to succeed in promoting its new climate and energy bill, then this trade could suffer bad news in the near term. Tactically US industrials can continue to outperform the tech sector, given the stagflationary context that is developing. Energy’s outperformance, especially relative to tech, is becoming stretched, at least from a cyclical point of view. But geopolitical trends suggest oil risks are still to the upside tactically. For now, maintain exposure to high energy prices by staying long energy small caps versus large caps and O&G transportation and storage.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

In our recent publications (see here and here), we have advocated a balanced allocation between cyclicals and defensives, to make portfolios resilient to heightened volatility and investor risk aversion. In order to balance out our own portfolio positioning, we have downgraded the Transportation industry group (ex airlines). Our rotation away from cyclicals and toward defensives continues: Today, we are upgrading Utilities from underweight to neutral. The Utilities sector is a quintessential defensive sector, with a stable revenue stream, significant pricing power, and profitability controlled by the regulators. This is a sector that is unexciting but offers protection in uncertain times. The recent rally in Utilities was supported by investors seeking safe haven in defensive parts of the market to wait out a rout in cyclical and growth equities, a repricing triggered by the Fed’s tightening. Recent market turbulence indicates that the process has not yet run its course, and investors are still absorbing the news of an increasingly hawkish Fed policy. Further, over the past five months, S&P 500 earnings growth expectations have increased from 8% to just under 10%. This ramping up of expectations, albeit modest, signifies that the analysts have not yet priced in a host of recent bad news, such as tighter monetary policy, intransigent inflation, slowing growth, and a reticent consumer, into their forecasts, setting up a stage for the earnings disappointment. In such a case, investor flows will continue to gravitate towards defensives, such as Utilities. Chart 1 highlights the tight inverse relationship between EPS revisions and the Utilities sector. Finally, the reason we are not pulling the trigger and outright buying Utilities is due to the impressive run they have already had, sending technicals into the overbought territory. A near term retracement is likely at this point that should be used as an entry. Bottom Line: We upgrade Utilities from underweight to neutral. Chart 1  

Executive Summary Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our current strategic recommendations are centered around four key themes: global inflation will slow over the rest of 2022, Europe remains too weak to handle significantly higher interest rates, corporate default risk in the US and Europe is relatively low, and the fundamental backdrop for emerging markets is poor. If we are going to be proven wrong on any of those themes, it will most likely be because global inflation remains high for longer due to resilient commodity prices and lingering supply chain disruptions. A sluggish economy will handcuff the ECB’s ability to raise rates as fast as markets are discounting over the next year. The state of corporate balance sheet health in the developed world is not problematic, on average, even with some sectors taking on more leverage in response to the 2020 COVID downturn. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. Bottom Line: We remain comfortable with our main fixed income investment recommendations: maintaining neutral global portfolio duration, overweighting core European bonds versus US Treasuries, favoring high-yield corporates over investment grade (both in the US and Europe), and underweighting EM hard currency debt. Feature One of the foundations of a sound medium-term investment process is to allocate capital towards highest conviction views, while constantly assessing - and reassessing - if those views are unfolding as expected. Trades that are not going according to plan may need to be reconstructed, if not exited entirely, to avoid losses. We feel the same way about the investment recommendations highlighted in the pages of our reports, which represent our portfolio, as it were. With this in mind, in this report we identify the four most critical themes underpinning our current main investment recommendations and evaluate the potential risks that our views will not turn out as expected. Theme #1: Global Inflation Will Decline In The Latter Half Of 2022 Our biggest theme for the rest of this year is that global inflation will cool off after the massive acceleration over the past year. Many of our current fixed income investment recommendations across the developed markets – maintaining neutral overall global duration exposure, underweighting global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, betting against additional yield curve flattening (especially in the US) – are predicated on reduced inflationary pressure on interest rates. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyA Crude Awakening For Bond Investors The expectation of lower inflation is based on some easing of the forces that first caused the current inflationary overshoot – booming commodity prices and rapidly accelerating goods prices due to supply-chain disruptions. Already, the commodity price factor is starting to fade, on an annual rate-of-change basis that matters for overall inflation, thanks to more favorable comparisons to the commodity surge in 2021 (Chart 1). The year-over-year growth rate of the CRB index has decelerated from a peak of 54.4% in June 2021 to 19.3% today, even with many commodity prices seeing big increases in response to the Russia/Ukraine war. This is because the increases in commodity prices were even larger one year ago when much of the global economy reopened from COVID-related economic restrictions. Favorable base effect comparisons are not the only reason why commodity inflation has slowed. Commodities are priced in US dollars, and the steady appreciation of the greenback, with the trade-weighted dollar up 5% on an year-over-year basis, has also helped to slow commodity price momentum (Chart 2). Slower global growth, coming off the overheated pace of 2021, has also acted as a drag on overall commodity price inflation (middle panel). Beyond the commodity space, some easing of global supply chain tensions has resulted in indicators of shipping costs seeing meaningful declines even with supplier delivery times still elevated (bottom panel). Chart 1Our Main Strategic Theme: Decelerating Global Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 2Disinflationary Momentum From Commodities Already Underway​​​​​ A more fundamental factor that should help moderate global inflation momentum this year beyond the commodity/supply chain effects relates to a lack of broad-based global "excess demand", even as the world economy continues to recover from the massive pandemic shock in 2020. The IMF’s latest projections on output gaps – estimates of the amount of spare economic capacity – show that few major developed or emerging market economies are expected to have positive output gaps over 2022 and 2023 (Chart 3). The US is the most notable exception, with an output gap projected to average +1.6% this year and next. Most other developed market countries are projected to have an output gap close to zero. This suggests that the US is facing the most inflationary pressure from an overheating economy, which is why we continue to see the Fed as being the most hawkish major developed market central bank over the next couple of years. Chart 3Few Countries Expected To Have Inflationary Output Gaps In 2022/23 Yet even with so much of the macro backdrop supporting our call for slower global inflation in the coming months, there are several potential risks to that view. Chart 4A Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Resilient Oil Prices Another war-related upleg in global oil prices Our commodity strategists continue to see oil prices settling down to the low $90s by year-end. Yet oil has seen tremendous volatility since the Ukraine war began as prices had to factor in the potential loss of Russian oil supplies in an already tight crude market. The benchmark Brent oil price briefly hit $140 in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. A similar move sustained over the latter half of 2022 would trigger a reacceleration of oil momentum, putting upward pressure on overall global inflation rates. A renewed bout of energy-induced inflation would push global interest rate expectations, and bond yields, even higher from current levels – a challenge to both our neutral duration stance and underweight bias on global inflation-linked bonds (Chart 4). More supply-chain disruption from China Chinese authorities are clamping down hard on the current COVID wave sweeping across China. The current lockdowns in major cities like Shanghai could shave as much as one percentage point off Chinese real GDP growth for 2022, according to our China strategists. Those same lockdowns in a major transportation and shipping hub like Shanghai are already causing supply chain disruption within China. Supplier delivery times saw big increases in the March PMI data (Chart 5), while the number of cargo ships stuck outside Shanghai has soared. The longer this lasts, the greater the risk that supply chains beyond China would be disrupted, erasing the improvements in global supplier delivery times seen over the past few months. That could keep goods price inflation elevated for longer. Stubbornly resilient services inflation A big part of our lower inflation view is related to a rebalancing of consumer demand in the developed world away from goods towards services as economies move away from COVID restrictions. This implies an easing of the excess demand pressures that have triggered supply shortages for cars and other big-ticket consumer goods. The result would be a sharp slowing of goods price inflation, with the result that overall inflation rates in the major economies would gravitate towards the slower rate of services inflation. The latter, however, is accelerating in the US, UK and Europe (Chart 6) – largely because of soaring housing costs – which raises the risk that overall inflation will fall to a higher floor in 2022 as goods inflation slows. Chart 5Another Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: China Lockdowns​​​​​ Chart 6One More Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Sticky Service Prices In the end, we see the balance of risks still tilted towards much slower global inflation this year. However, if we are going to be proven wrong on any of our major investment themes in 2022, it will most likely be because global inflation remains resilient for longer. Theme #2: Europe’s Economy Is Too Fragile To Handle Higher Interest Rates Beyond the global inflation call, our next highest conviction view right now is that markets are overestimating the ECB’s ability to tighten euro area monetary policy. Markets are now pricing in 85bps of ECB rate hikes by the end of 2022, according to the euro area overnight index swap (OIS) curve, which would take policy rates back to levels last seen before the 2008 financial crisis. The war has put the ECB in a difficult spot vis-à-vis its next policy move. High euro area inflation, with annual headline HICP inflation climbing to 7.4% in March and core HICP inflation reaching 2.9%, the highest level of the ECB era dating back to 1996, would justify a move to begin hiking policy interest rates as soon as possible.   However, European growth momentum has slowed significantly so far in 2022. Initially this was due to the spread of the Omicron COVID variant that resulted in a wave of economic restrictions. That was followed by the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that has hit European economic confidence and raised fears that Europe would lose access to Russian energy supplies. Our diffusion indices of individual country leading economic indicators and inflation rates within the euro area highlight the pickle the ECB finds itself in (Chart 7). All countries have headline and core inflation rates above the ECB’s 2% target, yet only 60% of euro area countries have an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than year ago levels. In the three previous tightening cycles of the “ECB era” since the inception of the euro in 1998, the diffusion indices for both growth and inflation reached 100% - in other words, every euro area economy was seeing faster growth and above-target inflation. Chart 7The ECB Will Have Difficulty Hiking As Much As Expected Chart 8Warning Signs On European Growth Other economic data are also sending worrying messages. The euro area manufacturing PMI fell to the lowest level since January 2021 in March, while the European Commission consumer confidence index and the ZEW expectations index have plunged to levels last seen during the depths of the 2020 COVID recession (Chart 8). Euro area export growth has also decelerated sharply, with exports to China contracting on a year-over-year basis. Simply put, these are not the kind of growth data consistent with a central bank that needs to begin tightening policy aggressively. The inflation data also does not paint a clean picture for the ECB. ECB President Christine Lagarde has repeatedly noted that the central bank is on the lookout for any “second round effects” from the current commodity-fueled surge in European inflation on more lasting inflationary measures like wages. On that front, European wage growth remains stunningly subdued. European annual wage growth was only 1.6% in Q4/2021, despite the unemployment rate for the whole euro area falling below the OECD’s full employment NAIRU estimate of 7.7% (Chart 9). Unit labor costs only grew at an 1.5% annual rate at the end of 2021, suggesting little underlying pressure on European inflation from wages. Chart 9No Inflationary Pressures From Wages In Europe​​​​​ Chart 10European Bond Yields Discount Too Much ECB Hawkishness Without a bigger inflation boost from labor costs, the ECB will feel less pressured to begin tightening monetary policy as rapidly and aggressively as markets are discounting – especially if global goods/commodity inflation slows as we expect. We remain comfortable with our overweight recommendation on core European government bonds (Germany and France), both within a global bond portfolio but especially versus the US. The Fed is far more likely to deliver the aggressive rate hikes discounted in money markets compared to the ECB (Chart 10). Theme #3: Corporate Default Risk In The US And Europe Is Relatively Low Another of our main investment themes relates to corporate credit risk. Specifically, we see high-yield debt in the US and Europe as being relatively more attractive than investment grade credit, even in a typically credit-unfriendly environment of tightening global monetary policy and slowing global growth momentum. Our Corporate Health Monitors are highlighting that corporate finances are in relatively good shape on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 11). This is primarily related to strong readings on interest coverage, free cash flow generation and profit margins, all of which are helping to service higher levels of corporate leverage. Defaults are expected to rise over the next year in response to slowing growth momentum, but the increase is projected to be moderate. Moody’s is forecasting the US and European high-yield default rates to be virtually identical, climbing to 3.1% and 2.6%, respectively, by February 2023. Those relatively low default rates, however, are for the aggregate of all high-yield borrowers. Default risks may be higher for some companies and industries that were more severely impacted by the pandemic. Chart 11US/Europe Default Risk Remains Relatively Modest​​​​​ Chart 12The IMF Sees Fewer Financially Vulnerable Firms​​​​​​ Chart 13Default-Adjusted HY Spreads Still Offer Some Value An analysis of global private sector debt included in the latest IMF World Economic Report highlighted that companies that suffered the most significant declines in revenues in 2020 also took on greater amounts of debt than companies whose businesses were least impacted by the 2020 growth shock (Chart 12). Industries that were “worst-hit” by COVID also saw significant worsening of debt servicing capability, described by the IMF analysts as the percentage of firms among the “worst-hit” that had interest coverage ratios less than one (middle panel). Importantly, the IMF report noted that the “worst-hit” industries have seen significant improvements in interest coverage since 2020, reducing the number of financially vulnerable firms (those with high debt-to-assets ratios and interest coverage less than one). The IMF analysis uses corporate data from a whopping 71 countries, but the conclusions are like those from our Corporate Health Monitors for the US and Europe – corporate credit quality has improved, on the margin, since the dark days of the 2020 COVID recession for an increasing number of borrowers. Default-adjusted spreads for high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, which subtract expected default losses from high-yield index spread levels, show that high-yield bonds currently offer decent compensation for expected credit losses (Chart 13). This is especially true for European high-yield, where the default-adjusted spread is just below the average level since 2000. This fits with our current recommendation to maintain neutral allocations to both US and European high-yield. We have a bias to favor the latter, however, due to better valuation metrics and a more dovish outlook on ECB monetary policy compared to the Fed. Theme #4: The Fundamental Backdrop For Emerging Markets Is Poor Chart 14The Backdrop Remains Challenging For EM We have been negative on emerging market (EM) credit dating back to the latter months of 2021. Specifically, we are now underweight EM USD-denominated debt, both sovereigns and corporates. This is a high-conviction view and one that remains fundamentally supported. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China policy stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. While we expect the latter to occur in the coming months, there are meaningful risks to that view, as described earlier. Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine appears to be worsening with Russia pushing the offensive and showing no desire for reengaging talks with Ukraine. Chinese policymakers are starting to respond to slowing Chinese growth, made worse by the COVID lockdowns, with some easing measures on monetary policy. Credit growth has also started to pick up, but the credit impulse remains too weak to warrant a more positive view on Chinese growth and import demand from EM countries (Chart 14). Finally, the US dollar remains well supported by a hawkish Fed and widening US/non-US interest rate differentials. This may be the most critical variable to watch before turning more positive on EM credit, given the strong historical correlation between the US dollar and EM hard currency spreads (bottom panel). For now, the trend of the US dollar remains EM-negative. Concluding Thoughts Chart 15Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our four main investment themes, and associated recommendations, are summarized in Chart 15. The credit-related themes – underweighting high-yield bonds in the US and Europe versus investment grade equivalents, and underweighting EM USD-denominated debt – are already performing as expected. The interest rate related themes – slower global inflation and fading European rate hike expectations – should unfold in favor of our recommendations over the balance of 2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary A housing slowdown has begun and it will proceed in three stages. First, rising mortgage rates will lead to slowing demand. Second, weak demand will push inventories higher and cause home prices to decelerate. Finally, construction activity will trend down signaling a peak in the fed funds rate. We are at least one year away from housing signaling a peak in interest rates. Agency MBS returns will improve going forward, but the sector is still not sufficiently attractive to increase exposure. Housing Starts Are A Useful Fed Indicator Bottom Line: Maintain an underweight allocation to agency MBS within US bond portfolios and favor low coupons (1.5%-2.5%) over high coupons (3%-4.5%). Feature Chart 1The Highest Mortgage Rate Since 2011 The biggest question for investors continues to be how the economy and financial markets will react to the Federal Reserve’s hawkish pivot, a pivot that has led to sharply higher bond yields and a much flatter yield curve. However, it’s not just this re-shaping of the Treasury curve that has changed the economic landscape. The Fed’s hawkish pivot has also sent the mortgage rate back above 5% for the first time since 2011 (Chart 1). This week’s report considers what an elevated mortgage rate means for the future path of Fed rate hikes. It also updates our view on Agency MBS.   Housing Is Critical For Fed Policy Housing is probably the most important channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. This is simply the result of the fact that monetary policy directly influences mortgage rates and mortgage rates are a major determinant of housing demand. Not only that, but empirical research has shown residential investment to be an excellent leading indicator of recession.1 Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyGlobal Bond Yields Take A Breather From these facts we can draw two conclusions. First, monetary policy works in large part through its influence on housing activity. Second, trends in housing activity can send important signals about the stance of monetary policy. For example, we observe that periods of Fed tightening tend to occur when the 12-month moving average of housing starts is above the 24-month moving average. Meanwhile, periods of Fed rate cuts tend to occur when the 12-month moving average of housing starts is below the 24-month moving average (Chart 2). This is a fairly reliable relationship going back to the early 1970s, the sole exception being the late-1980s when the Fed delivered a series of rate hikes as housing activity trended down. Chart 2Housing Starts Are A Useful Fed Indicator Chart 2 shows us that housing starts are currently trending higher, consistent with a period of Fed tightening. However, it also tells us that we should start to anticipate the end of the tightening cycle when the 12-month moving average of housing starts falls below the 24-month moving average. While the elevated mortgage rate will certainly slow housing activity going forward, we expect that we are still at least one year away from receiving that signal from the housing starts data. A Housing Slowdown In Three Steps We see the coming housing slowdown proceeding in three steps. First, higher mortgage rates will crimp demand. This is already starting to occur. New and existing home sales have both dipped in recent months, and mortgage purchase applications are down off their highs (Chart 3). Chart 3Phase 1: Weaker Demand Demand weakness will continue until the housing slowdown reaches its second phase. The second phase will be characterized by rising home inventories and decelerating home prices. This has still not occurred. The total inventory of new and existing homes is near its all-time low and home prices were up 18% during the 12-month period ending in January (Chart 4). The second phase of the housing slowdown is critical because builders will be incentivized to add supply as long as inventories remain low and prices remain elevated. That is, the housing slowdown will not reach its third phase – declining housing starts – until weak demand pushes inventories up and prices down, making new construction less attractive. Presently, while homebuilder equities have sold off as mortgage rates have risen, homebuilder confidence is still extremely high (Chart 5). This tells us that we are still quite far away from seeing a trend reversal in housing starts. Chart 4Phase 2: Falling Prices Chart 5Phase 3: Less Construction Bottom Line: A trend reversal in housing starts, as indicated by the 12-month moving average dipping below the 24-month moving average, will send a strong signal that the Fed is near the peak of its tightening cycle. Given that the housing slowdown is still in its early stages, we view this development as at least one year away. Agency MBS: The Rout Is Over, But It’s Still Too Soon To Buy Chart 6Poor MBS Performance Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) have performed terribly during the past year (Chart 6). Not only have the securities drastically underperformed duration-matched Treasuries, but they have also performed worse than investment grade corporate bonds and Agency-backed Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities. The chief reason for the poor performance has been the surge in bond yields and the resulting increase in Agency MBS duration. It became less attractive for homeowners to prepay their mortgages as mortgage rates rose. This caused MBS duration to extend, meaning that every further increase in yields led to a more severe drop in price. Chart 7 shows that the average duration of the conventional 30-year Agency MBS index was around 3.0 at the beginning of 2021. It is now above 6.0! The good news is that this is probably about as high as the index duration will get. The refi option on most mortgages is already out-of-the-money. That is, close to 0% of the amount outstanding of the conventional 30-year MBS index can profitably refinance with the mortgage rate at its current level (Chart 7, panel 2). We also observe that the average price of the index has fallen to well below par (Chart 7, panel 3) and the average convexity of the index is close to zero (Chart 7, bottom panel). The key point is that there is now very little convexity risk in the MBS index, so further movements in bond yields will lead to much smaller changes in index duration. Low convexity risk means that the worst of the MBS duration extension has already passed. MBS returns should be somewhat better going forward, though we still don’t recommend increasing exposure to the sector. At this juncture, the main reason to stay defensive on Agency MBS is that spreads simply don’t offer sufficient value. The average index spread versus Treasuries is close to its lowest level since 2000 (Chart 8). Interestingly, dramatic MBS underperformance didn’t lead to spread widening during the past year because MBS yields kept getting compared to longer and longer duration Treasuries as the MBS index duration extended. Chart 7The Extension Trade Is Over Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Too Tight MBS value is also relatively poor compared to investment grade rated corporate bonds. The option-adjusted spread differential between Agency MBS and investment grade corporates is close to its median since 2000 (Chart 8, panel 2). MBS value looks slightly more expensive if we adjust for index duration by using the 12-month breakeven spread (Chart 8, bottom panel). With value relative to investment grade corporates either at its historical median or slightly more expensive, we don’t see a compelling case for favoring Agency MBS over investment grade corporates. Bottom Line: MBS index duration extension has likely run its course. We therefore expect MBS returns to improve somewhat during the next 6-12 months. That said, we continue to recommend an underweight allocation to the sector as current spreads don’t justify favoring MBS over Treasuries or investment grade corporates. Take A Look At Low Coupons We think investors should consider favoring low coupons (1.5%-2.5%) within an overall underweight allocation to agency MBS. We view this recommendation as a way to position for a drop in Treasury yields between now and the end of the year. In prior reports we noted that long-dated forward Treasury yields are elevated relative to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate, and also that we expect inflation to trend down in the coming months.2 While we continue to recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon, a low-coupon bias within Agency MBS is a good way to position for the possibility that falling inflation will push bond yields down. To see why, we need to simply consider that low coupon mortgages are the least likely to refinance and thus low-coupon MBS have the highest durations (Chart 9). With convexity currently close to zero for the entire coupon stack (Chart 10), MBS relative coupon positioning can really be boiled down to a play on rates and duration risk. Chart 9Agency MBS 30-Year Conventional Coupon Stack: OAS vs. Duration Chart 10Agency MBS 30-Year Conventional Coupon Stack: OAS vs. Convexity A further rise in bond yields will cause higher coupon MBS (3%-4.5%) to outperform lower coupon MBS (1.5%-2.5%), while a drop in bond yields will lead to low-coupon outperformance. Given our current macro outlook, we think it makes sense to bet on the latter. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.nber.org/papers/w13428 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Peak Inflation”, dated April 19, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns