Economic Growth

Special Report

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market.  The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets.  Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder   Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply   Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks.   Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply.  The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns.  Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak.   An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: We will use the monthly US employment data to track progress toward the first Fed rate hike. At present, our base case outlook calls liftoff in late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Bonds: The macro environment is supportive for spread product returns, but there are better opportunities than in investment grade corporate bonds. We prefer high-yield over investment grade within the US corporate space, particularly the Ba credit tier. Munis: Muni value has deteriorated markedly, but the sector still looks attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds. EM Sovereigns: We recommend owning investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds instead of investment grade US corporates. Within high-yield, US corporates still offer a better opportunity than EM Sovereigns. Using Employment Data To Time Fed Liftoff The current debate raging in fixed income circles revolves around whether large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation to flare this year, possibly leading to a much earlier fed funds liftoff date than is currently priced into the yield curve (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Liftoff Priced For July 2023 Last week’s report discussed our outlook for inflation in 2021.1 In short, our base case calls for 12-month PCE inflation to peak above the Fed’s 2% target in April but to then fall back below 2% by the end of the year. However, there is a compelling case to be made that inflation could rise more quickly. Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Last week, our Global Investment Strategy service pointed out that the combined effect of December’s fiscal stimulus deal and President Biden’s newly proposed American Rescue Plan would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September.2 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently $80 billion. In that environment, it’s not hard to see how excess demand could lead to price increases in certain sectors. Chart 2How Far From "Maximum Employment"? Of course, for bond investors what matters is not just the path of inflation but how the Fed responds. If rising inflation prompts the Fed to lift rates before July 2023 – the liftoff date currently priced into the market – then bonds will sell off. If liftoff occurs later, then yields will fall. This makes timing the liftoff date critical, and fortunately, the Fed has given us three explicit criteria that must be met before liftoff will occur (Table 1). This week’s report focuses, not on inflation, but on the condition related to “maximum employment.” Our sense is that if the Fed does not think the economy is at “maximum employment” it will ignore modest overshoots of its 2% inflation target on the view that the large amount of labor market slack will eventually cause inflationary pressures to wane. We define “maximum employment” as an unemployment rate of 4.5%, consistent with the upper-bound of the Fed’s most recent range of NAIRU estimates (Chart 2). Using that assumption, and an assumption for the path of the labor force participation rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), we can calculate the average monthly payroll gains that must occur for the unemployment rate to hit the 4.5% target by specific future dates. Our results are shown in Table 2. We use four different scenarios for the labor force participation rate. The lowest estimate assumes that the participation rate remains at its current level. The highest estimate assumes that it re-converges to its pre-COVID level at the same time as the unemployment rate hits 4.5%. The two middle estimates assume smaller increases of 1% and 0.5%, respectively. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% Over The Given Horizon We expect the participation rate to rise as the economy recovers and people are drawn back into the labor force, but some workers have likely been permanently displaced by the pandemic and a full convergence back to pre-COVID levels may not occur until well after the unemployment rate reaches 4.5%, if at all. With that in mind, the “Convergence To Pre-COVID” scenario probably overstates the monthly payroll gains necessary to hit full employment and the “Stays At 61.5%” scenario almost certainly understates them. If we focus on the two middle scenarios, we see that average monthly payroll gains of between 472k and 572k are required for the unemployment rate to hit 4.5% by the end of this year. This range falls to 346k - 413k if we push the liftoff date out until mid-2022 and to 283k – 334k if we move out until the end of 2022. At first blush, these numbers look unattainable. Between 2010 and 2019, average monthly payroll growth averaged a mere +97k. But, given the downturn that just occurred, employment growth will likely be much stronger going forward. Our research into past economic cycles has found that the two main determinants of average monthly employment growth during the first year following a recession are: The drawdown in employment that occurred during the recession (a larger drawdown correlates with greater payroll growth in the first 12 months of recovery) Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery Chart 3 shows the correlation between the peak-to-trough decline in nonfarm payrolls during the past eight US recessions and the average monthly payroll gains seen during the first 12 months of economic recovery. The correlation is quite linear except for the 2008 recession where the peak-to-trough decline in payrolls was 8.7 million but the bounce-back was incredibly weak. Chart 4 explains why the 2008 recession looks like such an outlier in Chart 3. Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery coming out of the 2008 recession was very low, only 2.6%. Chart 3Large Payroll Drawdowns Tend To Be Followed By Strong Gains… Chart 4…And Occur Alongside Strong Economic Recovery Thinking about the current recovery from the COVID recession. Nonfarm payrolls fell by about 22 million from peak to trough in 2020. This is literally off the charts (looking at Chart 3), about 2.5 times the job loss seen in 2008. Then, the Fed’s most recent median estimate for real GDP growth in 2021 is a robust 4.2%, and this estimate was made before Democrats took control of the Senate and proposed a massive new stimulus bill. Considering both the large drawdown in employment and the outlook for rapid GDP growth in 2021, average monthly payroll gains should be quite strong this year. A return to a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2021 is probably a long shot, but we can easily envision average monthly payroll gains on the order of 300k to 400k per month, enough to prompt Fed tightening by late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Whatever transpires, we will monitor monthly payroll growth in the coming months and use this analysis to continuously reassess our liftoff expectations. For the time being, investors should keep portfolio duration low. Alternatives To Investment Grade Corporates Another conclusion that falls out of the above analysis is that the runway for spread product outperformance remains long. With Fed tightening unlikely until late-2022 or the first half of 2023, monetary conditions will remain accommodative for some time. This will drive a continued search for yield, supporting the outperformance of spread product relative to Treasuries. But despite the supportive macro environment, bond investors face a problem that the most popular US spread sector – investment grade corporate bonds – looks very expensive. The average option-adjusted spread for the Bloomberg Barclays investment grade corporate index is only 2 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread on Baa-rated bonds is exactly equal to its pre-COVID low. Aa- and A-rated bonds appear somewhat cheaper (Chart 5). The valuation picture is even bleaker after adjusting the index to ensure a constant average credit rating and average duration over time. The 12-month breakeven spread for the credit rating-adjusted corporate index has only been tighter 3% of the time since 1995 (Chart 6). Chart 5IG Spreads Are Tight... Chart 6...Especially After Adjusting For Risk The remainder of this report discusses potential alternatives to investment grade corporate bonds. Specifically, we’re looking for spread products that will benefit from the same macro environment as investment grade corporates, but where investors can pick up some additional risk-adjusted value. Candidate #1: Junk Bonds Chart 7Ba-Rated Corporates Are Cheap One obvious thing investors might consider is a move down the quality spectrum into high-yield bonds. This move comes with greater credit risk, but we believe the incremental spread pick-up provides more than fair additional compensation. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index’s average option-adjusted spread is still 33 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread pick-up in the Ba credit tier relative to the Baa credit tier looks particularly compelling (Chart 7). The supportive macro environment makes us less worried about taking additional credit risk in a portfolio, and we recommend that investors pick up the additional spread offered in the high-yield space. The elevated incremental spread pick-up in Ba bonds makes that credit tier look like the best risk-adjusted opportunity. Candidate #2: Tax-Exempt Municipal Bonds Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past couple of months and Aaa-rated Munis no longer look cheap compared to Treasuries (Chart 8). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (Chart 9), the same goes for Revenue bonds with 8-12 year maturities. Revenue bonds in the 6-8 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate of 10% or higher. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 14% and 26%, respectively. Chart 8Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 9Munis Still Attractive Versus Corporates All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we therefore downgrade our recommended allocation slightly from “maximum overweight” (5 out of 5) to “overweight” (4 out of 5). Investors should still prefer tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Candidate #3: USD-Denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns For all of last year we advised investors to favor investment grade corporate bonds over USD-denominated EM Sovereigns of equivalent credit rating and duration. This positioning worked out well. Since the March 23rd peak in credit spreads, the A3/Baa1-rated EM Sovereign index has only outperformed the duration-matched A-rated US Credit index by 159 bps while it has underperformed the Baa-rated US Credit index by 571 bps (Chart 10). In the high-yield space, the B1/B2-rated EM Sovereign index has significantly underperformed both the Ba and B-rated US junk bond indexes. Chart 10EM Sovereigns Underperformed US Corporates In 2020 But now, after nine months of poor relative performance, value is starting to look more compelling in the EM Sovereign space. Chart 11 shows that EM Sovereigns offer a yield pick-up versus duration-matched US corporate bonds for all credit tiers except Ba. At the country level, the yield advantage in the A and Aa credit tiers is attributable to opportunities in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia (Chart 12). In the Baa credit tier, investors should look for opportunities in Mexico, Russia and Colombia, while avoiding the Philippines. Chart 11USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Credit Rating Chart 12USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Country All in all, investors should shift some allocation away from investment grade corporates and into USD-denominated EM Sovereigns with equivalent duration and credit rating, focusing on the countries that offer a yield pick-up. Turning to high-yield, we would rather own junk-rated US corporate bonds than junk-rated EM Sovereigns. US corporates offer a yield pick-up over EM Sovereigns in the Ba credit tier, and the sky-high spreads offered by B and Caa-rated EMs are due to overly risky opportunities in Turkey and Argentina. We don’t see these countries benefiting from the supportive US macro environment in the same way as US corporate credit, and therefore recommend overweighting US corporate junk bonds over EM Sovereign junk bonds. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US fixed income portfolios but should look for opportunities outside of investment grade corporate bonds. We recommend owning municipal bonds and USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds in place of investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We also recommend taking additional credit risk in US junk bonds, particularly in the Ba credit tier. Investors should prefer US junk bonds over junk-rated EM Sovereigns.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trust The Fed’s Forward Guidance”, dated January 19, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Stagflation In A Few Months?”, dated January 22, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Yields: The fall in global bond yields over the past two weeks represents a corrective pullback from an overly rapid rise in inflation expectations, especially in the US. The underlying reflationary themes that drove yields higher, however, remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Duration Strategy: We maintain our broad core recommendations on global government bonds: stay below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, overweighting non-US markets versus US Treasuries, while favoring inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. Australia vs. US: Following from the conclusions of our Special Report on Australia published last week, we are initiating a new cross-country spread trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio: long 10-year Australian government bond futures versus short 10-year US Treasury futures. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Banks Will Stay Very Dovish The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield fell to 1.04% yesterday as this report went to press, after reaching a high of 1.18% on January 12th. 10-year government bond yields have also fallen over the same period, but by lesser amounts ranging between 5-10bps, in Germany, France, the UK and Australia. We view these moves as a consolidation before the next upleg in global yields, and not the start of a new bullish cyclical phase for government bond markets. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all showing diminished pressure for easier monetary policies, but are not yet signaling a need for tightening to slow overheating economies (Chart of the Week). Realized inflation and breakevens from inflation-linked bond markets remain below levels consistent with central bank policy targets, even in the US after the big run-up in TIPS breakevens. Reflationary, pro-growth monetary (and fiscal) policies are still necessary. Policymakers can talk all they want about optimism on future global growth with COVID-19 vaccines now being rolled out in more countries, but it is far too soon to expect any shift away from a maximum dovish monetary policy stance that is bearish for bonds and bullish for risk assets. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall stance on global cyclical duration exposure, with a country allocation focused most intensely on underweighting US Treasuries. The Global Backdrop Remains Bond Bearish Optimism over a potential boom in global economic growth in the second half of 2021 - fueled by the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, massive pandemic income support programs and other increased government spending measures, and ongoing easy monetary policies – has become an increasingly consensus view among investors. As evidence of this, the latest edition of the widely-followed Bank of America Fund Managers’ Survey highlighted that the biggest tail risks for financial markets all relate to that bullish narrative: a disappointing vaccine rollout, a “Tantrum” in bond markets, a bursting of the US equity bubble and rising inflation expectations.1 We can understand why investors would be most worried about the success of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution which has started with mixed results. According to the Oxford University COVID-19 database, the UK has now delivered 10.38 vaccinations per 100 people, while the US has given out 6.6 shots per 100 people (Chart 2). By comparison, the pace of the vaccine rollout has been far slower in Germany, France, Italy and China. Note that this data shows total vaccine shots administered and does not represent a count of the total number of inoculated citizens, as a full dose requires two shots. Chart 2Vaccine Rollout So Far: Operation Impulse Power Success on the vaccine front is what is needed for investors to envision an eventual end to the pandemic … or at least an end to the growth-damaging lockdowns related to the pandemic. So a slower-than-expected rollout does justify somewhat lower bond yields, all else equal. However, the news on the spread of the virus itself has turned more encouraging during this “dark winter” of COVID-19. The latest data on new cases of the virus shows that the severe surge in the US and UK appears to have peaked (Chart 3). In the euro area, the overall number of new cases is at best stabilizing with more divergence between countries: cases are continuing to explode higher in Italy and Spain but slowing in large economies like Germany and the Netherlands (and stabilizing in France). The growth in new virus-related hospitalizations, however, has clearly slowed across those major economies, including in places with surging new case numbers like Italy. Chart 3Lockdowns Will Not Last Forever Chart 4European Lockdowns Taking A Bite Out Of Growth A reduction in the strain on hospital bed capacity gives hope that the current severe economic restrictions seen in Europe and parts of the US can soon begin to be lifted. This can help sustain the cyclical upturn in global economic growth, especially in countries where lockdowns have been most onerous like the UK, which saw a sharp plunge in the preliminary Markit PMI data for January (Chart 4). So on the COVID-19 front, we interpret the overall backdrop as more positive for global growth expectations, and hence more supportive of higher global bond yields. Chart 5Reflationary Expectations Remain Well Entrenched Expectations are still tilted towards rising yields, judging by the ZEW survey of global financial market professionals (Chart 5). The survey shows that the bias continues to lean towards expectations of both higher long-term interest rates and inflation, but without any expected increase in short-term interest rates. This fits with the overall yield curve steepening theme that has driven global bond markets since last summer, which has been consistent with the dovish messaging from central banks. The Fed, ECB and other major central banks continue to project a very slow recovery of labor markets from the COVID-19 shock, with no return to pre-pandemic levels until at least 2024 (Chart 6). This is forcing central banks to maintain as dovish a policy mix as possible, including projecting stable policy rates over the next several years supported by ongoing quantitative easing (QE). These policies have helped support the rise in global inflation expectations and helped fuel the “Everything Rally” that has stretched the valuations of risk assets worldwide. So it is also not surprising that worries about a bond “Tantrum”, rising inflation expectations and a bursting of equity bubbles would also top the tail risks highlighted in that Bank of America investor survey. All are connected to the next moves of the major global central banks. Chart 6Central Banks Must Stay Easy For A Long Time On that front, we are not worried about any premature shift to a less dovish stance, given the lingering uncertainties over COVID-19 and with actual inflation – and inflation expectations - remaining below central bank targets. Several officials from the world’s most important central bank, the US Federal Reserve, have made comments in recent weeks discussing the outlook for US monetary policy. A few FOMC members raised the possibility of a potential discussion of slower bond purchases by year-end, if the US economy grows faster than expected and the vaccine rollout goes smoothly. Although the majority of FOMC members, including Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida, noted that any such discussion was premature and would not take place until 2022 at the earliest. In our view, the Fed will not begin to signal any shift to a less dovish policy stance before US inflation and inflation expectations have all sustainably returned to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 7). That means seeing TIPS breakevens rise to the 2.3-2.5% range that has prevailed during previous periods when headline PCE inflation as at or above 2%. Chart 7US Inflation Still Justifies Maximum Fed Dovishness Chart 8The Fed Is Not Yet Worried About Overly Easy Financial Conditions Such a shift by the Fed could happen by year-end, but only if there was also concern within the FOMC that financial conditions in the US had become overly stimulative and risked future instability of overvalued asset prices (Chart 8). At the present time, however, the Fed will continue to focus on policy reflation and worry about any negative spillover effects on financial markets at a later date. Financial conditions are also a potential issue for other central banks, but from a different perspective – currencies. Financial conditions in more export-focused economies like the euro area and Australia are more heavily influenced by the impact on competitiveness from currency values (Chart 9). Chart 9Currencies Dictate Financial Conditions Outside The US Chart 10Projected Relative QE Favors UST Underperformance The combination of the Fed’s lingering dovish policy bias and the improving global growth backdrop should keep the US dollar under cyclical downward pressure. The weaker greenback means that non-US central banks must try to maintain an even more dovish bias than the Fed to limit the upward pressure on their own currencies. A desire to fight unwanted currency appreciation via a more rapid pace of QE relative to the Fed – at a time when US Treasury yields are likely to remain under upward pressure from rising inflation expectations – should support a narrowing of non-US vs US bond spreads over the next 6-12 months (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The underlying reflationary themes that drove global bond yields higher over the past several months remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, overweighting non-US government bond markets versus US Treasuries, while also favoring global inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. A New Cross-Country Spread Trade: Long Australian Government Bonds Vs. US Treasuries In last week’s Special Report on Australia, which we co-authored jointly with BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy, we concluded that a neutral exposure to Australian government debt within global bond portfolios was still warranted.2 Uncertainty over the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) reaction function and the future path of Australia’s yield beta, which measures the sensitivity of Australian yields to global yields and remains elevated, justified a neutral stance. We do, however, have a higher conviction view that Australian government debt will outperform US Treasuries – especially given our expectation that US yields have more cyclical upside – given that the yield beta of the former to the latter has declined (Chart 11). Chart 11Australian Government Bonds Are "Defensive" When US Yields Are Rising This week, we translate that view into a new tactical trade—going long 10-year Australian government bonds versus shorting 10-year US Treasuries. This trade will be implemented through bond futures (details of the trade can be seen in our trade table on page 15). In addition to the yield beta argument, the Australia-US 10-year spread looks attractive on a fair value basis. Chart 12 presents our new Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model, based on fundamental factors such as relative policy interest rates, inflation and unemployment. The model also accounts for the impact from the massive bond buying by the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA); we include as an independent variable the relative central bank balance sheets as a share of respective nominal GDP. Although the Australia-US spread has converged somewhat towards fair value since the blow out in March 2020, it is still at attractive levels at 13bps or 0.8 standard deviations above fair value. The model-implied fair value of the Australia-US spread could also fall further, thereby creating a lower anchor point for spreads to gravitate towards. While the policy rate differential will likely remain unchanged until 2023, other factors will move to drag down the spread fair value (Chart 13). The gap in relative headline inflation should, much to the RBA’s chagrin, move further into negative territory given the relatively weaker domestic and foreign price pressures in Australia. On the QE front, the RBA also has much more room to expand its balance sheet relative to developed market peers, and will feel pressured to do so if the Australian dollar continues to rally. Finally, the RBA expects a much slower recovery in Australian unemployment than the Fed does for the US. This should further push down fair value if the central bank forecasts play out as expected. Chart 12The Australia-US 10-Year Spread Is Undervalued Technical considerations also seem to be in favor of our trade (Chart 14). While the deviation of the Australia-US 10-year spread from its 200-day moving average, and its 26-week change, are both slightly negative, the 2008 period is instructive. Chart 13Relative Fundamentals Point Towards A Lower Australia-US Spread Chart 14Technicals Favor Further Reduction In The Australia-US Spread For both measures, after blowing up to around the +75-150bps zone, they likewise fell by a commensurate amount, attributable to a strong “base effect”. A similar dynamic should play out now after the dramatic 2020 spike in spread momentum. Meanwhile, duration positioning in the US, while it is short on net, is still far from levels where it has troughed. Lastly and most importantly, forward curves are pricing in an Australia-US spread close to zero, which provides us a golden opportunity to “beat the forwards” as the spread tightens without incurring negative carry. As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash 10-year Australia-US bond spread at 4bps, with a target range of -30bps to -80bps over the usual 0-6 month horizon that we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We seek to capitalize on our view that Australian yields will be slower to rise relative to US yields by introducing a new spread trade: buy Australian government bond 10-year futures and sell US 10-year Treasury futures. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/record-number-of-fund-managers-overweight-on-emerging-markets-says-bofa-survey 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Chinese equities have rallied enthusiastically since the COVID-19 outbreak and are now exposed to underlying political and geopolitical risks. Xi Jinping’s intention is to push forward reform and restructuring, creating a significant risk of policy overtightening over the coming two years. In the first half of 2021, the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment suggest that overtightening will be avoided. But the risk will persist throughout the year. Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan and new focus on import substitution will exacerbate growing distrust with the US. We still doubt that the Biden administration will reduce tensions substantially or for very long. Chinese equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction. The renminbi is at fair value. Go long Chinese government bonds on the basis that political and geopolitical risks are now underrated again. Feature The financial community tends to view China’s political leadership as nearly infallible, handling each new crisis with aplomb. In 2013-15 Chinese leaders avoided a hard landing amid financial turmoil, in 2018-20 they blocked former President Trump’s trade war, and in 2020 they contained the COVID-19 pandemic faster than other countries. COVID was especially extraordinary because it first emerged in China and yet China recovered faster than others – even expanding its global export market share as the world ordered more medical supplies and electronic gadgets (Chart 1). COVID-19 cases are spiking as we go to press but there is little doubt that China will use drastic measures to curb the virus’s spread. It produced two vaccines, even if less effective than its western counterparts (Chart 2). Monetary and fiscal policy will be utilized to prevent any disruptions to the Chinese New Year from pulling the rug out from under the economic recovery. Chart 1China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID Chart 2China Has A Vaccine, Albeit Less Effective In short, China is seen as a geopolitical juggernaut that poses no major risk to the global bull market in equities, corporate bonds, and commodities – the sole backstop for global growth during times of crisis (Chart 3). The problem with this view is that it is priced into markets already, the crisis era is fading (despite lingering near-term risks), and Beijing’s various risks are piling up. Chart 3China Backstopped Global Growth Again First, as potential GDP growth slows, China faces greater difficulty managing the various socioeconomic imbalances and excesses created by its success – namely the tug of war between growth and reform. The crisis shattered China’s attempt to ensure a smooth transition to lower growth rates, leaving it with higher unemployment and industrial restructuring that will produce long-term challenges (Chart 4). Chart 4China's Unemployment Problem The shock also forced China to engage in another blowout credit surge, worsening the problem of excessive leverage and reversing the progress that was made on corporate deleveraging in previous years. Second, foreign strategic opposition and trade protectionism are rising. China’s global image suffered across the world in 2020 as a result of COVID, despite the fact that President Trump’s antics largely distracted from China. Going forward there will be recriminations from Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and its power grab in Hong Kong yet Trump will not be there to deflect. By contrast, the Biden administration holds out a much greater prospect of aligning liberal democracies against China in a coalition that could ultimately prove effective in constraining its international behavior. China’s turn inward, toward import substitution and self-sufficiency, will reinforce this conflict. In the current global rebound, in which China will likely be able to secure its economic recovery while the US is supercharging its own, readers should expect global equity markets and China/EM stocks to perform well on a 12-month time frame. We would not deny all the positive news that has occurred. But Chinese equities have largely priced in the positives, meaning that Chinese politics and geopolitics are underrated again and will be a source of negative surprises going forward. The Centennial Of 1921 The Communist Party will hold a general conference to celebrate its 100th birthday on July 1, just as it did in 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011. These meetings are ceremonial and have no impact on economic policy. We examined nominal growth, bank loans, fixed asset investment, industrial output, and inflation and observed no reliable pattern as an outcome of these once-per-decade celebrations. In 2011, for example, General Secretary Hu Jintao gave a speech about the party’s triumphs since 1921, reiterated the goals of the twelfth five-year plan launched in March 2011, and reminded his audience of the two centennial goals of becoming a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and a “modern socialist country” by 2049 (the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic). China is now transitioning from the 2021 goals to the 2049 goals and the policy consequences will be determined by the Xi Jinping administration. Xi will give a speech on July 1 recapitulating the fourteenth five-year plan’s goals and his vision for 2035 and 2049, which will be formalized in March at the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament. As such any truly new announcements relating to the economy should come over the next couple of months, though the broad outlines are already set. There would need to be another major shock to the system, comparable to the US trade war and COVID-19, to produce a significant change in the economic policy outlook from where it stands today. Hence the Communist Party’s 100th birthday is not a driver of policy – and certainly not a reason for authorities to inject another dose of massive monetary and credit stimulus following the country’s massive 12% of GDP credit-and-fiscal impulse from trough to peak since 2018 (Chart 5). The overarching goal is stability around this event, which means policy will largely be held steady. Chart 5China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred Far more important than the centenary of the Communist Party is the political leadership rotation that will begin on the local level in early 2022, culminating in the twentieth National Party Congress in the fall of 2022.1 This was supposed to be the date of Xi’s stepping down, according to the old schedule, but he will instead further consolidate power – and may even name himself Chairman Xi, as the next logical step in his Maoist propaganda campaign. This important political rotation will enable Xi to elevate his followers to higher positions and cement his influence over the so-called seventh generation of Chinese leaders, pushing his policy agenda far into the future. Ahead of these events, Beijing has been mounting a new battle against systemic risks, as it did in late 2016 and throughout 2017 ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. The purpose is to prevent the economic and financial excesses of the latest stimulus from destabilizing the country, to make progress on Xi’s policy agenda, and to expose and punish any adversaries. This new effort will face limitations based on the pandemic and fragile economy but it will nevertheless constitute the default setting for the next two years – and it is a drag on growth rather than a boost. The importance of the centenary and the twentieth party congress will not prevent various risks from exploding between now and the fall of 2022. Some political scandals will likely emerge as foreign or domestic opposition attempts to undermine Xi’s power consolidation – and at least one high-level official will inevitably fall from grace as Xi demonstrates his supremacy and puts his followers in place for higher office. But any market reaction to these kinds of events will be fleeting compared to the reaction to Xi’s economic management. The economic risk boils down to the implementation of Xi’s structural reform agenda and his threshold for suffering political pain in pursuit of this agenda. For now the risk is fairly well contained, as the pandemic is still somewhat relevant, but going forward the tension between growth and reform will grow. Bottom Line: The hundredth birthday of the Communist Party is overrated but the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is of critical importance to the governance of China over the next ten years. These events will not prompt a major new dose of stimulus and they will not prevent a major reform push or crackdown on financial excesses. But as always in China there will still be an overriding emphasis on economic and social stability above all. For now, this is supportive of the new global business cycle, commodity prices, and emerging market equities. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-25) The draft proposal of China’s fourteenth five-year plan (2021-25) will be ratified at the annual “two sessions” in March (Table 1). The key themes are familiar from previous five-year plans, which focused on China’s economic transition from “quantity” to “quality” in economic development. Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan China is seen as having entered the “high quality” phase of development – and the word quality is used 40 times in the draft. As with the past five years, the Xi administration is highlighting “supply-side structural reform” as a means of achieving this economic upgrade and promoting innovation. But Xi has shifted his rhetoric to highlight a new concept, “dual circulation,” which will now take center stage. Dual circulation marks a dramatic shift in Chinese policy: away from the “opening up and reform” of the liberal 1980s-2000s and toward a new era of import substitution and revanchism that will dominate the 2020s. Xi Jinping first brought it up in May 2020 and re-emphasized it at the July Politburo meeting and other meetings thereafter. It is essentially a “China First” policy that describes a development path in which the main economic activity occurs within the domestic market. Foreign trade and investment are there to improve this primary domestic activity. Dual circulation is better understood as a way of promoting import substitution, or self-reliance – themes that emerged after the Great Recession but became more explicit during the trade war with the US from 2018-20. The gist is to strengthen domestic demand and private consumption, improve domestic rather than foreign supply options, attract foreign investment, and build more infrastructure to remove internal bottlenecks and improve cross-regional activity (e.g. the Sichuan-Tibet railway, the national power grid, the navigation satellite system). China has greatly reduced its reliance on global trade already, though it is still fairly reliant when Hong Kong is included (Chart 6). The goals of the fourteenth five-year plan are also consistent with the “Made in China 2025” plan that aroused so much controversy with the Trump administration, leading China to de-emphasize it in official communications. Just like dual circulation, the 2025 plan was supposed to reduce China’s dependency on foreign technology and catapult China into the lead in areas like medical devices, supercomputers, robotics, electric vehicles, semiconductors, new materials, and other emerging technologies. This plan was only one of several state-led initiatives to boost indigenous innovation and domestic high-tech production. The response to American pressure was to drop the name but maintain the focus. Some of the initiatives will fall under new innovation and technology guidelines while others will fall under the category of “new types of infrastructure,” such as 5G networks, electric vehicles, big data centers, artificial intelligence operations, and ultra-high voltage electricity grids. With innovation and technology as the overarching goals, China is highly likely to increase research and development spending and aim for an overall level of above 3% of GDP (Chart 7). In previous five-year plans the government did not set a specific target. Nor did it set targets for the share of basic research spending within research and development, which is around 6% but is believed to need to be around 15%-20% to compete with the most innovative countries. While Beijing is already a leader in producing new patents, it will attempt to double its output while trying to lift the overall contribution of technology advancement to the economy. Chart 6China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency Dual circulation will become a major priority affecting other areas of policy. Reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, will take place under this rubric. The Xi administration has dabbled in SOE reform all along, for instance by injecting private capital to create mixed ownership, but progress has been debatable. Chart 7China Will Surge R&D Spending The new five-year plan will incorporate elements of an existing three-year action plan approved last June. The intention is to raise the competitiveness of China’s notoriously bloated SOEs, making them “market entities” that play a role in leading innovation and strengthening domestic supply chains. However, there is no question that SOEs will still be expected to serve an extra-economic function of supporting employment and social stability. So the reform is not really a broad liberalization and SOEs will continue to be a large sector dominated by the state and directed by the state, with difficulties relating to efficiency and competitiveness. Notwithstanding the focus on quality, China still aims to have GDP per capita reach $12,500 by 2025, implying 5%-5.5% annual growth from 2021-25, which is consistent with estimates of the International Monetary Fund (Chart 8). This kind of goal will require policy support at any given time to ensure that there is no major shortfall due to economic shocks like COVID-19. Thus any attempts at reform will be contained within the traditional context of a policy “floor” beneath growth rates – which itself is one of the biggest hindrances to deep reform. Chart 8China's Growth Target Through 2025 Chart 9Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions As the economy’s potential growth slows the Communist Party has been shifting its focus to improving the quality of life, as opposed to the previous decades-long priority of meeting the basic material needs of the society. The new five-year plan aims to increase disposable income per capita as part of the transition to a domestic consumption-driven economy. The implied target will be 5%-5.5% growth per year, down from 6.5%+ previously, but the official commitment will be put in vague qualitative terms to allow for disappointments in the slower growing environment. The point is to expand the middle-income population and redistribute wealth more effectively, especially in the face of stark rural disparity. In addition the government aims to increase education levels, expand pension coverage, and, in the midst of the pandemic, increase public health investment and the number of doctors and hospital beds relative to the population. Beijing seems increasingly wary of too rapid of a shift away from manufacturing – which makes sense in light of the steep drop in the manufacturing share of employment amid China’s shift away from export-dependency. In the thirteenth five-year plan, Beijing aimed to increase the service sector share of GDP from 50.5% to 56%. But in the latest draft plan it sets no target for growing services. Any implicit goal of 60% would be soft rather than hard. Given that manufacturing and services combined make up 93% of the economy, there is not much room to grow services further unless policymakers want to allow even faster de-industrialization. But the social and political risks of rapid de-industrialization are well known – both from the liquidation of the SOEs in the late 1990s and from the populist eruptions in the UK and US more recently. Beijing is likely to want to take a pause in shifting away from manufacturing. But this means that China’s exporting of deflation and large market share will persist and hence foreign protectionist sentiment will continue to grow. The fourteenth five-year plan ostensibly maintains the same ambitious targets for environmental improvement as in its predecessor, in terms of water and energy consumption, carbon emissions, pollution levels, renewable energy quotas, and quotas for arable land and forest coverage. But in reality some of these targets are likely to be set higher as Beijing has intensified its green policy agenda and is now aiming to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030. China aims to be a “net zero” carbon country by 2060. Doubling down on the shift away from fossil fuels will require an extraordinary policy push, given that China is still a heavily industrial economy and predominantly reliant on coal power. So environmental policy will be a critical area to watch when the final five-year plan is approved in March, as well as in future plans for the 2026-30 period. As was witnessed in recent years, ambitious environmental goals will be suspended when the economy slumps, which means that achieving carbon emissions goals will not be straightforward (Chart 9), but it is nevertheless a powerful economic policy theme and investment theme. Xi Jinping’s Vision: 2035 On The Way To 2049 At the nineteenth National Party Congress, the critical leadership rotation in 2017, Xi Jinping made it clear that he would stay in power beyond 2022 – eschewing the nascent attempt of his predecessors to set up a ten-year term limit – and establish 2035 as a midway point leading to the 2049 anniversary of the People’s Republic. There are strategic and political goals relevant to this 2035 vision – including speculation that it could be Xi’s target for succession or for reunification with Taiwan – but the most explicit goals are, as usual, economic. Chart 10Xi Jinping’s 2035 Goals Officially China is committing to descriptive rather than numerical targets. GDP per capita is to reach the level of “moderately developed countries.” However, in a separate explanation statement, Xi Jinping declares, “it is completely possible for China to double its total economy or per capita income by 2035.” In other words, China’s GDP is supposed to reach 200 trillion renminbi, while GDP per capita should surpass $20,000 by 2035, implying an annual growth rate of at least 4.73% (Chart 10). There is little reason to believe that Beijing will succeed as much in meeting future targets as it has in the past. In the past China faced steady final demand from the United States and the West and its task was to bring a known quantity of basic factors of production into operation, after lying underutilized for decades, which made for high growth rates and fairly predictable outcomes. In the future the sources of demand are not as reliable and China’s ability to grow will be more dependent on productivity enhancements and innovation that cannot be as easily created or predicted. The fourteenth five-year plan and Xi’s 2035 vision will attempt to tackle this productivity challenge head on. But restructuring and reform will advance intermittently, as Xi is unquestionably maintaining his predecessors’ commitment to stability above all. Outlook 2021: Back To The Tug Of War Of Stimulus And Reform The tug of war between economic stimulus and reform is on full display already in 2021 and will become by far the most important investment theme this year. If China tightens monetary and fiscal policy excessively in 2021, in the name of reform, it will undermine its own and the global economic recovery, dealing a huge negative surprise to the consensus in global financial markets that 2021 will be a year of strong growth, rebounding trade, a falling US dollar, and ebullient commodity prices. Our view is that Chinese policy tightening is a significant risk this year – it is not overrated – but that the government will ultimately ease policy as necessary and avoid what would be a colossal policy mistake of undercutting the economic recovery. We articulated this view late last year and have already seen it confirmed both in the Politburo’s conclusions at the annual economic meeting in December, and in the reemergence of COVID-19, which will delay further policy tightening for the time being. The pattern of the Xi administration thus far is to push forward domestic reforms until they run up against the limits of economic stability, and then to moderate and ease policy for the sake of recovery, before reinitiating the attack. Two key developments initially encouraged Xi to push forward with a new “assault phase of reform” in 2021: First, a new global business cycle is beginning, fueled by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus across the world (not only in China), which enables Xi to take actions that would drag on growth. Second, Xi Jinping has emerged from the US trade war stronger than ever at home. President Trump lost the election, giving warning to any future US president who would confront China with a frontal assault. The Biden administration’s priority is economic recovery, for the sake of the Democratic Party’s future as well as for the nation, and this limits Biden’s ability to escalate the confrontation with China, even though he will not revoke most of Trump’s actions. Biden’s predicament gives Beijing a window to pursue difficult domestic initiatives before the Biden administration is capable of turning its full attention to the strategic confrontation with China. The fact that Biden seeks to build a coalition of states first, and thus must spend a great deal of time on diplomacy with Europe and other allies, is another advantageous circumstance. China is courting and strengthening relations with Europe and those very allies so as to delay the formation of any effective coalition (Chart 11). Chart 11China Courts EU As Substitute For US Thus, prior to the latest COVID-19 spike, Beijing was clearly moving to tighten monetary and fiscal policy and avoid a longer stimulus overshoot that would heighten the country’s long-term financial risks and debt woes. This policy preference will continue to be a risk in 2021: Central government spending down: Emergency fiscal spending to deal with the pandemic will be reduced from 2020 levels and the budget deficit will be reined in. The Politburo’s chief economic planning event, the Central Economic Work Conference in December, resulted in a decision to maintain fiscal support but to a lesser degree. Fiscal policy will be “effective and sustainable,” i.e. still proactive but lower in magnitude (Chart 12). Local government spending down: The central government will try to tighten control of local government bond issuance. The issuance of new bonds will fall closer to 2019 levels after a 55% increase in 2020. New bonds provide funds for infrastructure and investment projects meant to soak up idle labor and boost aggregate demand. A cut back in these projects and new bonds will drag on the economy relative to last year (Chart 13). Chart 12China Pares Government Spending On The Margin Chart 13China Pares Local Government Spending Too Monetary policy tightening up: The People’s Bank of China aims to maintain a “prudent monetary policy” that is stable and targeted in 2021. The intention is to avoid any sharp change in policy. However, PBoC Governor Yi Gang admits that there will be some “reasonable adjustments” to monetary policy so that the growth of broad money (M2) and total social financing (total private credit) do not wildly exceed nominal GDP growth (which should be around 8%-10% in 2021). The risk is that excessive easiness in the current context will create asset bubbles. The implication is that credit growth will slow to 11%-12%. This is not slamming on the brakes but it is a tightening of credit policy. Macro-prudential regulation up: The People’s Bank is reasserting its intention to implement the new Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework designed to tackle systemic financial risk. The rollout of this reform paused last year due to the pandemic. A detailed plan of how the country’s various major financial institutions will adopt this new mechanism is expected in March. The implication is that Beijing is turning its attention back to mitigating systemic financial risks. This includes closer supervision of bank capital adequacy ratios and cross-border financing flows. New macro-prudential tools are also targeting real estate investment and potentially other areas. Larger established banks will have a greater allowance for property loans than smaller, riskier banks. At the same time, it is equally clear that Beijing will try to avoid over-tightening policy: The COVID outbreak discourages tightening: This outbreak has already been mentioned and will pressure leaders to pause further policy tightening at least until they have greater confidence in containment. The vaccine rollout process also discourages economic activity at first since nobody wants to go out and contract the disease when a cure is in sight. Local government financial support is still robust: Local governments will still need to issue refinancing bonds to deal with the mountain of debt coming into maturity and reduce the risk of widespread insolvency. In 2020, they issued more than 1.8 trillion yuan of refinancing bonds to cover about 88% of the 2 trillion in bonds coming due. In 2021, they will have to issue about 2.2 trillion of refinancing bonds to maintain the same refinancing rate for a larger 2.6 trillion yuan in bonds coming due (Table 2). Thus while Beijing is paring back its issuance of new bonds to fund new investment projects, it will maintain a high level of refinancing bonds to prevent insolvency from cascading and undermining the recovery. Table 2Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule Monetary policy will not be too tight: The People’s Bank’s open market operations in January so far suggest that it is starting to fine-tune its policies but that it is doing so in an exceedingly measured way so as not to create a liquidity squeeze around the traditionally tight-money period of Chinese New Year. The seven-day repo rate, the de facto policy interest rate, has already rolled over from last year’s peak. The takeaway is that while Beijing clearly intended to cut back on emergency monetary and fiscal support this year – and while Xi Jinping is clearly willing to impose greater discipline on the economy and financial system prior to the big political events of 2021-22 – nevertheless the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment will ensure a relatively accommodative policy for the first half of 2021 in order to secure the economic recovery. The underlying risk of policy tightening is still significant, especially in the second half of 2021 and in 2022, due to the underlying policy setting. Investment Takeaways The CNY-USD has experienced a tremendous rally in the wake of the US-China phase one trade deal last year and Beijing’s rapid bounce-back from the pandemic. The trade weighted renminbi is now trading just about at fair value (Chart 14). We closed our CNY-USD short recommendation and would stand aside for now. China’s current account surplus is still robust, real reform requires a fairly strong yuan, and the Biden administration will also expect China not to depreciate the currency competitively. Thus while we anticipate the CNY-USD to suffer a surprise setback when the market realizes that the US and China will continue to clash despite the end of the Trump administration, nevertheless we are no longer outright short the currency. Chinese investable stocks have rallied furiously on the stimulus last year as well as robust foreign portfolio inflows. The rally is likely overstretched at the moment as the COVID outbreak and policy uncertainties come to the fore. This is also true for Chinese stocks other than the high-flying technology, media, and telecom stocks (Chart 15). Domestic A-shares have rallied on the back of Alibaba executive Jack Ma’s reappearance even though the clear implication is that in the new era, the Communist Party will crack down on entrepreneurs – and companies like fintech firm Ant Group – that accumulate too much power (Chart 16). Chart 14Renminbi Fairly Valued Chart 15China: Investable Stocks Overbought Chart 16Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Chart 17Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Chinese government bond yields are back near their pre-COVID highs (though not their pre-trade war highs). Given the negative near-term backdrop – and the longer term challenges of restructuring and geopolitical risks over Taiwan and other issues that we expect to revive – these bonds present an attractive investment (Chart 17). Housekeeping: In addition to going long Chinese 10-year government bonds on a strategic time frame, we are closing our long Mexican industrials versus EM trade for a loss of 9.1%. We are still bullish on the Mexican peso and macro/policy backdrop but this trade was premature. We are also closing our long S&P health care tactical hedge for a loss of 1.8%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Indeed the 2022 political reshuffle has already begun with several recent appointments of provincial Communist Party secretaries.

Highlights Further fiscal easing is likely in the US now that the Democrats are set to take control of the US Senate following Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia. With the end of the pandemic in sight, a growing chorus of commentators, including none other than Larry Summers, are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In the short term, the risk that economies will overheat due to excessive fiscal support is low. There is still too much labor market slack, the bulk of any stimulus checks will be saved, and the short-run Phillips curve remains quite flat. Looking beyond the next two years, fiscal policy could indeed turn out to be inflationary. Political populism is rising. Central banks, fearful of the zero lower-bound constraint on interest rates, want higher inflation. Falling interest rates have also made it easier for governments to run larger budget deficits. We estimate that the US can run a primary budget deficit that is more than 2% of GDP larger than at the start of 2019, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The “fiscal envelope” has increased significantly in other major economies as well. Ironically, in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth in GDP, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio permits larger budget deficits. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit more from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years once inflation begins to accelerate. A Race Against Time The past few weeks have seen a race between the virus, which continues to infect people at an alarming rate, and efforts to vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society. So far, the virus has the upper hand. Chart 1Tracking The Progress In Global Vaccination Rates The “UK strain” has become more prevalent around the world.1 By some estimates it is 70% more contagious than the original virus that emerged in Wuhan, China. Another, potentially even more dangerous strain, has surfaced in South Africa and has spread to South America. The early evidence suggests that the recently approved vaccines will be effective in fighting the UK strain. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to judge whether this is also true for the South African strain. Right now, only 0.2% of the world’s population has been inoculated, but that number will rise rapidly over the coming months (Chart 1). Assuming that existing vaccines are effective against the myriad virus strains, the infection rate should fall precipitously by the middle of the year.   Georgia Runoffs Will Lead To Even More Stimulus Governments eased fiscal policy significantly last year in response to the unfolding crisis (Chart 2). At the worst point of the pandemic in April, US real disposable income was up 14% year-over-year (Chart 3). Transfers to households fell sharply following the expiration of the CARES Act, but are set to rise again thanks to the recently completed stimulus deal. Chart 2Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis   The victory by both Democratic candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff races on Tuesday moves the political configuration in Washington even further towards fiscal easing. Having gained control of the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to use the “reconciliation process” to pass a budget that boosts spending on health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment. Granted, reconciliation requires that any extra spending be offset by additional revenue measures over a 10-year budgetary horizon. Thus, corporate taxes will probably rise. Nevertheless, the combination of more spending and higher corporate taxes will still produce a net boost to aggregate demand. This is partly because any revenue measures are likely to be backloaded. It is also because raising corporate taxes will not reduce investment by very much. The experience from the Trump tax cuts revealed that the main consequence of lowering corporate tax rates was to lower corporate tax receipts. The touted boost to corporate investment from lower taxes never materialized. In fact, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 4). Chart 3Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic   Chart 4No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment   For stock market investors, the prospect of higher taxes will take some of the bloom off the rose from additional fiscal stimulus. That said, the impact will vary considerably across equity sectors. Cyclical stocks such as industrials and materials will benefit from stimulus-induced economic growth. Banks will also gain because stronger growth will suppress loan losses, while leading to steeper yield curves, thus raising net interest margins in the process. Value stocks have more exposure to banks and deep cyclicals, and hence we remain positive on them. Small caps also have more exposure to these sectors, but are starting to look increasingly pricey. Stimulus: How Much Is Enough? Chart 5Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Fiscal stimulus helped avert the cascade of business failures that normally accompany recessions. Despite a tick up in bankruptcies among large companies shortly after the pandemic began, 16% fewer companies filed for bankruptcy in the first 11 months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Overall bankruptcy filings, which include personal bankruptcies, have fallen to a 35-year low according to Epiq AACER. The pipeline for bankruptcies also looks fairly narrow. Junk bond prices have been rebounding and consumer loan delinquency rates have been trending down (Table 1). Table 1Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Generous fiscal transfers have allowed households to accumulate plenty of savings, which should help propel future spending. Chart 6 shows that accumulated US household savings are about $1.5 trillion above their pre-pandemic trend. We estimate that the combination of increased savings, rising home prices, and a surging stock market pushed up household net worth by $8 trillion in Q4 alone, leaving it 11% above Q4 2019 levels. In comparison, household net worth fell by over 15% during the Great Recession. Chart 6Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Little Risk Of Near-Term Fiscal Overheat With the prospect of a vaccine-led economic recovery in sight, a growing chorus of commentators are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Larry Summers contended that President Trump’s attempt to increase the size of stimulus checks from $600 per person to $2000 was “a serious mistake” that risked overheating the economy. Summers argued for a more streamlined approach that prioritized aid to state and local governments and increased funding for Covid testing and vaccine deployment. Despite Larry’s admonition, we see little risk that loose fiscal policy will cause any major economy to overheat in the near term, even if the Senate does enact more stimulus. For one thing, recent stimulus proposals have emphasized direct transfers to households. Unlike most other types of spending, across-the-board stimulus checks will go mainly into savings. The New York Fed has estimated that less than 30% of the direct stimulus payments in the CARES Act were used for consumption, with 36% saved and 35% used to pay down debt. Consistent with past experience, households expect to spend only about one-third of the forthcoming stimulus checks according to CivicScience, a market research firm (Chart 7). Chart 7How Will Americans Spend Their Second Stimulus Check? Chart 8Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Moreover, there is still plenty of labor market slack. Chart 8 shows the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers remains well below pre-pandemic levels across the OECD. In a best-case scenario, it will take a couple more years for employment levels to return to normal. Long-term inflation expectations are also well anchored, implying that the short-run Phillips curve is quite flat. In simple English, this means that a temporary burst of stimulus is unlikely to trigger an inflationary price-wage spiral. Some decline in budget deficits is also likely after the pandemic ends. The Hutchins Center at Brookings expects the fiscal package passed by the US Congress in December to boost GDP by 7% in the first quarter. However, it expects the four-quarter moving average in the fiscal contribution to growth to turn negative in the third quarter, and stay that way right through 2022 (Chart 9). Likewise, in its most recent forecasts, the IMF projected a negative fiscal impulse in the major advanced economies in 2021-22 (Chart 10). Chart 9Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part I)   Chart 10Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part II) Long-Term Fiscal Picture Is More Inflationary Granted, a negative fiscal impulse simply means that the structural budget deficit is declining over time. In absolute terms, the IMF expects budget deficits to remain quite large by historic standards, even if they do come down from their pandemic peak. Remember, it is the level of the budget deficit that helps determine the level of demand throughout the economy. Economies overheat when the level of aggregate demand exceeds the level of aggregate supply. If private-sector demand recovers more quickly than budget deficits come down, overall demand will rise. As such, it is certainly possible that excessively easy fiscal policy will contribute to an inflationary overshoot once labor market slack has been fully absorbed in two-to-three years. Politically, such an overshoot seems quite plausible. Populism is rising both on the left and the right. It is noteworthy that the Republican candidates in Tuesday’s runoff Senate races supported President Trump’s call for boosting the size of stimulus checks. The same goes for Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio is widely considered an early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Economically, the case for bigger budget deficits has also become more appealing. Real interest rates are negative across the major economies. Low interest rates allow governments to take on more debt without having to make large interest payments. Indeed, the Japanese government today receives more interest than it pays by virtue of the fact that more than half of its debt was issued at negative rates. Persistent worries about the zero lower-bound constraint also encourage central banks to pursue policies that could fuel inflation, such as refraining from tightening monetary policy in response to looser fiscal policy. The current level of policy rates gives central banks almost no scope to cut rates in response to an adverse economic shock. If inflation were to rise, central banks would be able to bring real rates even further into negative territory should economic conditions warrant it. The Paradox Of Debt Sustainability When  r  Is Less Than  g One might think that today’s high debt-to-GDP ratios would force governments to slash deficits to keep debt from spiraling out of control. However, things are not so straightforward in a world of ultra-low interest rates. As Appendix A shows, the primary budget balance that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as: Where p is the primary budget balance (the difference between tax receipts and non-interest spending, expressed as a share of GDP), r is the real interest rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy. Notice that when r is less than g, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio corresponds to a larger primary budget deficit (i.e., a more negative p). In other words, by taking on more debt, governments would not only be able to raise spending or cut taxes, but they would also have enough money left over to pay the additional interest on the debt. And they could do all this without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Chart 11More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... What sort of funky magic allows this to happen? The answer is that even a small percentage increase in debt will correspond to a large increase in the absolute stock of debt when debt levels are elevated to begin with. If interest rates are low, most of the additional debt can go into financing a larger primary deficit instead of higher interest payments. One can see this point with a simple example. Suppose that initially, debt is 50, GDP is 100, and hence the debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. Let us also assume that the primary deficit is 1% of GDP, the interest rate is 2%, and GDP grows at 4%. Next year, debt will be 50+50*0.02+1=52 while GDP will be 100*1.04=104. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain 52/104=50%. Now rerun the same example but assume that debt is initially equal to 100, implying an initial debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. In that case, it is simple to verify that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall to 103/104≈99% the following year if the primary deficit remained at 1% of GDP. The primary deficit would have to rise to 2% of GDP to keep the debt-to-GDP stable – double what it was in the first example. The level of the US primary budget deficit that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from 0.8% of GDP at the start of 2019 to 3.1% today if one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of trend growth and the 10-year TIPs yield as a proxy for the real interest rate (Chart 11). A similar trend is visible abroad (Chart 12).   Chart 12... As Well As In Other Major Economies Investment Conclusions Thanks to the drop in interest rates, governments today have more scope to run larger budget deficits than they did in the past. This suggests that the sort of fiscal tightening that impeded the recovery following the Great Recession is unlikely to reoccur. The combination of above-trend growth and continued low rates will buoy equities in 2021. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit both from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years as unemployment approaches pre-pandemic levels and central banks begin to contemplate raising interest rates. A higher debt burden allows for a larger budget deficit when r is less than g, but requires a bigger budget surplus when r rises above g. If debt-saddled governments are unable or unwilling to tighten fiscal policy, they may end up applying political pressure on central banks to keep rates artificially low in order to suppress interest payments. As such, excessively easy monetary policy could trigger a bout of inflation. With that in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios, favor inflation protected-securities over nominal bonds, and hold other inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. Cryptocurrencies could potentially serve as an inflation hedge, but given the recent run up in bitcoin prices, we would avoid this area of the market for the time being. Appendix AThe Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  A number of SARS-CoV-2 variants are circulating globally. The WHO reported this week that the UK variant of Covid-19 has spread to 40 other countries. Initial research suggests that the UK strain is more transmissible, but is characterized by unchanged disease severity compared to the original virus. The South African strain is also believed to be more contagious and was detected in six other countries. Some have raised concerns about the high number of mutations found in the South African variant. Research is ongoing to determine the potential consequences of the emerging variants on the speed of transmission, disease severity, ability to evade detection, and the efficacy of current treatments and vaccines. Please see Antony Sguazzin, “South Africa Virus Strain More Transmissible, Not More Severe,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2021;  Gabriele Steinhauser, “The New Covid-19 Strain in South Africa: What We Know,” The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2021; “Weekly epidemiological update - 5 January 2021,” World Health Organization; and “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated January 3, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Dear Client, I am writing as the US Capitol goes under lockdown to tell you about a new development at BCA Research. Since you are a subscriber of Geopolitical Strategy, we wanted you to be the first to know. This month we are launching a new sister service, US Political Strategy, which will expand and deepen our coverage of investment-relevant US domestic political risks and opportunities. Over the past decade, we at Geopolitical Strategy have worked hard to craft an analytical framework that incorporates policy insights into the investment process in a systematic and data-dependent way. We have learned a lot from your input and have refined our method, while also building new quantitative models and indicators to supplement our qualitative, theme-based coverage. While our method served us well in 2020, the frantic US election cycle often caused clients to lament that US politics had begun to crowd out our traditional focus on truly global themes and trends. We concurred. Therefore we have decided to expand our team and deepen our coverage. With a series of new hires, we are now better positioned to provide greater depth on US markets in US Political Strategy while redoubling our traditional global sweep in the pages of Geopolitical Strategy. Going forward, US Political Strategy will cover executive orders, Capitol Hill, federal agencies, regulatory risk, the Supreme Court, emerging socioeconomic trends, and their impacts on key US sectors and assets. It will be BCA Research’s newest premium investment strategy service and will include the full gamut of weekly reports, special reports, webcasts, and client conferences. Meanwhile Geopolitical Strategy will return to its core competency of geopolitics writ large – including the US in its global impacts, but diving deeper into the politics and markets of China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, the Middle East, and select emerging markets.  Both strategies will utilize our proprietary analytical framework, which relies on data-driven assessments of the “checks and balances” that shape policy outcomes (i.e. comparing constraints versus preferences). As you know best, we are agnostic about political parties, transparent about conviction levels and scenario probabilities, and solely focused on getting the market calls right. To this end, we offer you a complimentary trial subscription of US Political Strategy. We aim to become an integral part of your work flow – separating the wheat from the chaff in the political and geopolitical sphere so that you can focus on honing your investment process. We know you will be pleased to see Geopolitical Strategy return to its roots – and we hope you will consider diving deeper with us into US politics and markets. We look forward to hearing from you. Happy New Year! All very best, Matt Gertken, Vice President BCA Research   The outgoing Trump administration is powerless to stop the presidential transition and the US military and security forces will not participate in any “coup.” Investors should buy the dip if social instability affects the markets between now and President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day. Democrats have achieved a sweep of US government with two victories in Georgia’s Senate election. The Biden administration is no longer destined for paralysis. Investors no longer need fear a premature tightening of US fiscal policy. Fiscal thrust will expand by around 6.9% of GDP more than it otherwise would have in FY2021 and contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022. Democrats will partly repeal the Trump tax cuts to pay for new spending programs, including an expansion and entrenchment of Obamacare. Big Tech is the most exposed to the combination of higher corporate taxes and inflation expectations. Investors should go long risk assets and reflation plays on a 12-month basis. We recommend value over growth stocks, materials over tech, TIPS over nominal treasuries, infrastructure plays, and municipal bonds. The special US Senate elections in Georgia produced a two-seat victory for Democrats on January 5 and have thus given the Democratic Party de facto control of the Senate.Financial markets have awaited this election with bated breath. The “reflation trade” – bets on economic recovery on the back of ultra-dovish monetary and fiscal policy – had taken a pause for the election. There was a slight setback in treasury yields and the outperformance of cyclical, small cap, and value stocks, which rallied sharply after the November 3 general election (Chart 1). The Democratic victory ensures that US corporate and individual taxes will go up – triggering a one-off drop in earnings per share of about 11%, according to our US Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou (Table 1). But it also brings more proactive fiscal policy. Since the Democrats project larger new spending programs financed by tax hikes, the big takeaway is that the US economic recovery will gain momentum and will not be undermined by premature fiscal tightening. Chart 1Markets Will Look Through Unrest To Reflation   Table 1What EPS Hit To Expect? Chart 2Democrats Won Georgia Seats, US Senate Republicans Snatch Defeat From Jaws Of Victory The results of the Georgia runoffs, at the latest count, are shown in Chart 2. Republican Senator David Perdue has not yet officially lost the race, as votes are still being tallied, but he trails his Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff by 16,370 votes. This is a gap that is unlikely to be changed by subsequent vote disputes or recounts (though it is possible and the results are not yet declared as we go to press). President-elect Joe Biden only lost 1,274 votes to President Trump when ballots were recounted by hand in November. The Democratic victory offers some slight consolation for opinion pollsters who underestimated Republicans in the general election in certain states. Opinion polls had shown a dead heat in both of Georgia’s races, with Republican Senators Perdue and Kelly Loeffler deviating by 1.4% and 0.4% respectively from their support rate in the average of polls in December. Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock differed by 1.3% and 2.3% from their final polling (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3AOpinion Pollsters Did Better … Chart 3B… In Georgia Runoffs By comparison, in the November 3 general election, polls underestimated Perdue by 1.3% and overestimated Warnock by 5.3% (Chart 4). On the whole, the election shows that state-level opinion polling can improve to address new challenges. Our quantitative Senate election model had given Republicans a 78% chance of winning Georgia. This they did in the first round of the election, but conditions have changed since November 3, namely due to President Trump’s refusal to concede the election after the Electoral College voted on December 14.1 Our model is based on structural factors so it did not distinguish between the two Senate candidates in the same state. For the whole election, the model predicted that Democrats would win a net of three seats, resulting in a Republican majority of 51-49. Today we see that the model only missed two states: Maine and Georgia. But Georgia has made all the difference, with the result to be 50-50, for Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie (Chart 5). Chart 4Ossoff In Line With Polls, Warnock Slightly Beat Chart 5Our Quant Model Missed Maine And Georgia – And Georgia Carries Two Seats To Turn The Senate COVID-19 likely took a further toll on Republican support in the interim between the two election rounds. The third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has not peaked in the US or the Peach State. While the number of cases has spiked in Georgia as elsewhere, the number of deaths has not yet followed (Chart 6). Chart 6COVID-19 Surged Since November Lame Duck Trump Risk Before proceeding to the policy impacts of the apparent Democratic sweep of both executive and legislative branches, a word must be said about the presidential transition and President Trump’s final 14 days in office. First, the Joint Session of Congress to count the Electoral College ballots to certify the election of the new US president has been interrupted as we go to press. There is zero chance that protesters storming the proceedings will change the outcome of the election. The counting of the electoral votes can be interrupted for debate; it will be reconvened. Disputes over the vote could theoretically become meaningful if Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, as the combined voice of the legislature could challenge the legitimacy of a state’s electoral votes. But today the Republicans only control the Senate, and while some will press isolated challenges, based on legal disputes of variable merit, these challenges will not gain traction in the Senate let alone in the Democratic-controlled House. What did the US learn from this controversial election? US political polarization is reaching extreme peaks which are putting strain on the formal political system, but Trump lacks the strength in key government bodies to overturn the election. Second, there was no willingness of state legislatures to challenge their state executives on the vote results. This has to do with the evidence upon which challenges could be lodged, but there is also a built-in constraint. Any state legislature whose ruling party opposes the popular result will by definition put its own popular support in jeopardy in the next election. Third, the Supreme Court largely washed its hands of state-level disputes settled by state-level courts. Historically, the Supreme Court never played a role in presidential elections. The year 2000 was an exception, as the high court said at the time. The 2020 election has established a high bar for any future Supreme Court involvement, though someday it will likely be called on to weigh in. Hysteria regarding the conservative leaning on the court – which is now a three-seat gap – was misplaced. The three Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump took no partisan or interventionist role. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative leaning will be one of the Trump administration’s biggest legacies. The marginal judge in controversial cases is now more conservative and will take a larger role given that Democrats now have a greater ability to pass legislation by taking the Senate. President Trump is still in office for 14 days. There is zero chance of a successful military coup or anything of the sort in a republic in which institutions are strong and the military swears allegiance to the constitution. Attempts to oppose the Electoral College and Congress will be opposed – and ultimately they will be met with an overwhelming reassertion of the rule of law. All ten of the surviving secretaries of defense of the United States have signed an open letter saying that the election results should no longer be resisted and that any defense officials who try to involve the military in settling electoral disputes could be criminally liable.2 With Trump’s options for contesting the election foreclosed, he will turn to signing a flurry of executive orders to cement his legacy. His primary legacy is the US confrontation with China, so he will continue to impose sanctions on China on the way out, posing a tactical risk to equity prices. The business community will be slow to comply, however, so the next administration will set China policy. There is a small possibility that Trump will order economic or even military action against Iran or any other state that provokes the United States. But Trump is opposed to foreign wars and the bureaucracy would obstruct any major actions that do not conform with national interests. Basically, Trump’s final 14 days may pose a downside risk to equities that have rallied sharply since the November 9 vaccine announcement but we are long equities and reflation plays. Sweeps Just As Good For Stocks As Gridlock The balance of power in Congress is shown in Chart 7. The majorities are extremely thin, which means that although Democrats now have control, there will remain high uncertainty over the passage of legislation, at least until the 2022 midterm elections. Investors can now draw three solid conclusions about the makeup of US government from the 2020 election: The White House’s political capital has substantially improved – President-elect Joe Biden no longer faces a divided Congress. He won by a 4.5% popular margin (51.4% of the total), bringing the popular and electoral vote back into alignment. He will have a higher net approval rating than Trump in general, and household sentiment, business sentiment, and economic conditions will improve from depressed, pandemic-stricken levels over the course of his term. The Senate is evenly split but Democrats will pass some major legislation – Thin margins in the Senate make it hard to pass legislation in general. However, the budget reconciliation process enables laws to pass with a simple majority if they involve fiscal matters. Hence, Democrats will be able to legislate additional COVID relief and social support that they were not able to pass in the end-of-year budget bill. They can pass a reconciliation bill for fiscal 2022 as well. They will focus on economic recovery followed by expanding and entrenching the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). We fully expect a partial repeal of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, if not initially then later in the year. Democrats only have a five-seat majority in the House of Representatives – Democrats will vote with their party and thus 222 seats is enough to maintain a working majority. But the most radical parts of the agenda, such as the Green New Deal, will be hard to pass. Chart 7Democrats Control Both Houses With the thinnest possible margin, the Senate has a highly unreliable balance of power. Table 2 shows top three Republicans and Democrats in terms of age, centrist ideology, and independent mentality. Four senators are above the age of 85 – they can vote freely and could also retire or pass away. Centrist and maverick senators will carry enormous weight as they will provide the decisive votes. The obvious example is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has opposed the far-left wing of his party on critical issues such as the Green New Deal, defunding the police, and the filibuster. Table 2The Senate Will Hinge On These Senators The Democrats could conceivably muster the 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote majority to pass most legislation, but it will be very difficult. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D, CA), Angus King (I, ME), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), Jon Tester (D, MT), and Manchin are all skeptical of revoking this critical hurdle to Senate legislation.3 We would not rule it out, however. The US has reached a point of “peak polarization” in which surprises should be expected. By the same token, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins often vote against their party. Collins just won yet another tough race in Maine due to her ability to bridge the partisan gap. There are also mavericks like Rand Paul – and Ted Cruz will have to rethink his populist strategy given his thin margins of victory and the Trump-induced Republican defeat in the South. Not shown are other moderates who will be eager to cross the political aisle, such as Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. None of the above means Democrats will fail to raise taxes. All Democrats voted against Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which did not end up being popular or politically beneficial for the Republicans. The Democratic base is fired up and mobilized by Trump to pursue its core agenda of increasing the government role in US society and the economy and redressing various imbalances and disparities. This requires revenue, especially if it is to be done with only 51 votes via the budget reconciliation process. The two Democratic senators from Arizona are vulnerable, but they will toe the party line because Trump and the GOP were out of step with the median voter. Moreover, Arizonians voted for higher taxes in a state ballot measure in November. Since 1980, gridlocked government has resulted in higher average annual returns on the S&P500. But since 1949, single-party sweeps have slightly edged out gridlocked governments in stock returns, though the results are about the same (Chart 8). The point is that gridlock makes it hard for government to get big things done. Sometimes that is positive for markets, sometimes not. The macro backdrop is what matters. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to start tightening until late 2022 at earliest and fiscal thrust in 2021-22 will be more expansionary now that the Democrats have control of the Senate. This policy backdrop is negative for the dollar and positive for risk assets, especially equity sectors that will suffer least from impending corporate tax hikes, such as energy, industrials, consumer staples, materials, and financials. Chart 8Sweeps Don’t Always Underperform Gridlock Meanwhile, Biden will have far less trouble getting his cabinet and judicial appointments through the Senate (Appendix). His appointees so far reflect his desire to return the US to “rule by experts,” as opposed to Trump’s disruptive style of personal rule. Investors will cheer the return to technocrats and predictable policymaking even if they later relearn that experts make gigantic mistakes too. Fiscal Policy Outlook The critical feature of the Trump administration was the COVID-19 pandemic, which sent the US budget deficit soaring to World War II levels relative to GDP. In the coming years, the change in the budget deficit (fiscal thrust) will necessarily be negative, dragging on growth rates (Chart 9). Fiscal policy determines how heavy and abrupt that drag will be. Chart 9US Budget Deficit Surged – Pace Of Normalization Matters Chart 10 presents four scenarios that we adjusted based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline would see an extraordinary 6.7% of GDP contraction in the budget deficit that would kill the recovery, which the Georgia outcome has now rendered irrelevant. The “Republican Status Quo” scenario is now the minimum. Chart 10Democratic Sweep Suggests Big Fiscal Thrust In FY2021 And Less Contraction FY2022 The “Democratic Status Quo” scenario assumes that the $600 per household rebate will be increased to $2,000 per family and that the remaining $2.5 trillion of the Democrats’ proposed HEROES Act will be enacted. The “Democratic High” scenario adds Biden’s $5.6 trillion policy agenda on top of the Democratic status quo, supercharging the economic recovery with a fiscal bonanza. Biden will not achieve all of this, so the reality will lie somewhere between the solid blue and dotted blue lines. This Democratic status quo implies a 6.9% of GDP expansion of the deficit in FY2021. It also implies that the deficit will contract by 12.3% of GDP in FY2022, instead of 13.5% in the Republican status quo scenario. The economic recovery will be better supported. So, too, will the Fed’s timeline for rate hikes – but the Fed’s new strategy of average inflation targeting shows that it is targeting an inflation overshoot. So the threat of Fed liftoff is not immediate. The longer the extraordinary fiscal largesse is maintained, the greater the impact on inflation expectations and the more upward pressure on bond yields (Chart 11). Big Tech will be the one to suffer while Big Banks, industrials, materials, and energy will benefit. Chart 11Bond Bearish Blue Sweep Our US Political Risk Matrix There is no correlation between fiscal thrust and equity returns. This is true whether we consider the broad market, cyclicals/defensives, value/growth stocks, or small/large caps (Chart 12). Normally, fiscal thrust surges when recessions and bear markets occur, leading to volatility in asset prices. However, in the new monetary policy context, the risk is to the upside for the above-mentioned sectors, styles, and segments. Looking at sector performance before and after the November 3 election and November 9 vaccine announcement, there has been a clear shift from pandemic losers to pandemic winners. Big Tech and Consumer Discretionary (Amazon) thrived during the period before the vaccine, while value stocks (industrials, energy, financials) suffered the most from the lockdowns. These trends have reversed, with energy and financials outperforming the market since November (Chart 13). The Biden administration poses regulatory risks for Big Oil and arguably Big Banks, but these will come into play after the market has priced in economic normalization and the emerging consensus in favor of monetary-fiscal policy coordination, which is very positive for these sectors. Chart 12Fiscal Thrust Not Correlated With Stocks Chart 13Energy And Financials Turned Around With Vaccine In the case of energy, as stated above, the Biden administration will still struggle to get anything resembling the Green New Deal approved in Congress. Nevertheless, environmental regulation will expand and piecemeal measures to promote research and development, renewables, electric vehicles, and other green initiatives may pass. Large cap energy firms are capable of adjusting to this kind of transition. Coal companies are obviously losers. In the case of financials, Biden’s record is not unfriendly to the financial industry. His nominee for Treasury Secretary, former Fed Chair Janet Yellen, approved of the relaxation of some of its more stringent financial regulations under the Trump administration. Big Banks are no longer the target of popular animus like they were after the 2008 financial crisis – in that regard they have given way to Big Tech. Our US Investment Strategist Doug Peta argues that the Democratic sweep will smother any gathering momentum in personal loan defaults, which would help banks outperform the broad market. Biden’s regulatory approach to Big Tech will be measured, as the Obama administration’s alliance with Silicon Valley persists, but tech stands to suffer the most from higher taxes, especially a minimum corporate tax rate. With a unified Congress, it is also now possible that new legislation could expand tech regulation. There is a bipartisan consensus emerging on tech regulation so Republican votes can be garnered. Tech thrives on growth-scarce, disinflationary environments whereas the latest developments are positive for inflation expectations. In the recent lead-up to the Georgia vote, industrials, financials, and consumer discretionary stocks have not benefited much, even though they should (Chart 14). These are investment opportunities. Chart 14Upside For Energy And Financials Despite Regulatory Risk In our Political Risk Matrix, we establish these views as our baseline political tilts, to be applied to the BCA Research House View of our US Equity Strategy. The results are shown in Table 3. When equity sectors become technically stretched, the political impacts will become more salient. Table 3US Political Risk Matrix Investment Takeaways Over the past few years our sister Geopolitical Strategy has written extensively about “Civil War Lite,” “Peak Polarization,” and contested elections in the United States. We will dive deeper into these themes and issues in forthcoming reports, but for now suffice it to say that extremist events will galvanize the majority of the nation behind the new administration while also driving politicians of both stripes to use pork-barrel spending to try to stabilize the country. Congress will err on the side of providing too much fiscal stimulus just as surely as the Fed is bent on erring on the side of providing too much monetary stimulus. That means reflation, which will ultimately boost stocks in 2021. We also expect stocks to outperform government bonds, at least on a tactical 3-6 month timeframe. As the above makes clear, we prefer value stocks over growth stocks. Specifically we favor cyclical plays like materials over the big five of Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook. An infrastructure bill was one of the few legislative options for the Biden administration under gridlock, now it is even more likely. Infrastructure is popular and both presidential candidates competed to see who could offer the bigger plan. Moreover, what Biden cannot achieve under the rubric of climate policy he can try to achieve under the rubric of infrastructure. The BCA US Infrastructure Basket correlates with the US budget deficit as well as growth in China/EM and we recommend investors pursue similar plays. In the fixed income space, Treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS) are likely to continue outperforming nominal, duration-matched government bonds. Our US Bond Strategist Ryan Swift is on alert to downgrade this recommendation, but the change in US government configuration at least motivates a tactical overweight in TIPS. The chances of US state and local governments receiving fiscal support – previously denied by the GOP Senate – has increased so we will also go long municipal bonds relative to treasuries.   Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Perdue defeated Ossoff on November 3 but fell short of the 50% threshold to avoid a second round; meanwhile the cumulative Republican vote in the multi-candidate special election outnumbered the cumulative Democratic vote on November 3. 2     Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, et al, “All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory,” Washington Post, January 3, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 3    Jordain Carney, “Filibuster fight looms if Democrats retake Senate,” The Hill, August 25, 2020, thehill.com.  

Highlights 2021 Model Bond Portfolio Broad Allocations: Translating our 2021 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions: target a relatively aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, while maintaining a moderately below-benchmark duration exposure alongside overweight allocations to lower-quality global corporate credit, and inflation-linked debt, versus nominal government bonds. Specific Allocation Changes: We are increasing credit spread risk in the US by upgrading our recommended overall US high-yield allocation to overweight, focused on B- and Caa-rated credit tiers, while downgrading US investment grade corporates to neutral. We are also reducing the size of our underweights in euro area corporates and shifting the overall allocation to emerging market USD-denominated credit to overweight. Feature Happy New Year! Just before our holiday break last month, we published our 2021 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the BCA 2021 Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we translate those themes into specific investment recommendations and changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that the expected global backdrop of improving economic growth momentum, a reduction in coronavirus uncertainty as vaccines are distributed, highly accommodative monetary policy and a weakening US dollar will all provide an additional reflationary lift to global financial markets after a strong H2/2020. That means moderately higher global government bond yields (led by US Treasuries) along with outperformance of growth-related spread product like corporate bonds – specifically in the riskier credit segments like US high-yield and emerging markets (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months A Review Of The 2020 Model Bond Portfolio Performance Before we look ahead to discuss the details of the changes to our model bond portfolio for 2021, we need to take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2020. Chart 12020 Performance: A Positive Year After A Volatile Start Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a total return (hedged into US dollars) of 5.9%, which outperformed its custom benchmark index by +20bps (Chart 1).2 That moderately solid return was not delivered without some volatility over the course of the year, particularly during the global market tumult last February and March. Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -70bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +90bps. The government bond underperformance occurred entirely in the first quarter of the year, as we began 2020 with a recommended below-benchmark global duration stance and an underweight overall allocation to government bonds versus spread product. For a portfolio that is intended to reflect our strategic investment recommendations, the COVID-19 market volatility in Q1/2020 forced us to change our allocations more frequently and aggressively than usual. In early March, we moved to an overweight recommendation on government bonds and underweight on spread product (particular corporate debt) while also shifting the portfolio duration to above-benchmark. That was a large flip from a pro-risk portfolio construction to a defensive one, but which helped claw back some of the severe underperformance in the month of February as government bonds yields plunged and corporate credit spreads surged higher. After the dramatic easing of monetary policy by the major global central banks in March, most notably the US Federal Reserve’s decision to begin buying corporate bonds, we reverted back to a pro-risk stance by upgrading US investment grade credit and Ba-rated high-yield to overweight – positions that were maintained for the rest of 2021. Those US corporate bond exposures alone accounted for essentially all of the spread product outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2020 (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Overall Return Attribution In terms of specific country exposures (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) early in 2020 severely hurt the government bond portion of the portfolio (-76bps of underperformance versus the benchmark). This dwarfed the 2020 outperformance from other countries like Italy (+11bps), Japan (+17bps), and the UK (+5bps). Importantly, our move to allocate out of nominal government bonds to inflation-linked debt in the US, Italy and Canada back in June was a positive contributor on the year, boosting the overall portfolio outperformance by a combined +25bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains outside of US investment grade came from UK investment grade (+18bps), euro area investment grade (+12bps) and US CMBS (+11bps). The biggest drags on performance came from underweights in euro area high-yield (-23bps) and US B-rated high-yield (-17bps), as we maintained a relatively cautious stance on those sectors even during the sharp rally in the latter half of 2020 given the lingering risks from COVID-19 and US election year uncertainty. In the end, 2020 proved to be an outstanding year for taking any kind of credit risk, as the majority of spread product sectors in our model bond portfolio universe strongly outperformed government debt. Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector In the end, 2020 proved to be an outstanding year for taking any kind of credit risk, as the majority of spread product sectors in our model bond portfolio universe strongly outperformed government debt (Chart 4). Given our overweight stance toward credit, the year ended on a strong note, with the portfolio delivering +16bps of outperformance in Q4/2020 – the details of which can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In 2020 Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from our 2021 Key Views report were the following: Global growth will accelerate over the course of 2021 as COVID-19 vaccines are distributed and economic confidence improves in response. Longer-term global nominal bond yields should see some upward pressure as growth picks up, with US Treasury yields rising the most. Global real bond yields will stay deeply negative with on-hold central banks actively seeking an inflation overshoot. The US dollar will remain soft in 2021, providing an additional reflationary impulse to the global economy. Lower-quality global credit should outperform against a backdrop that will prove positive for risk assets: easy money policies, improving growth momentum and a reduction in virus-related uncertainty. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: MODERATELY BELOW BENCHMARK Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic growth variables, is already signaling that the direction of global bond yields will be higher in 2021 (Chart 5). Successful distribution of COVID-19 vaccines should eventually add additional upward momentum to global growth as confidence improves later in the year. Even if the vaccine rollout does not go as smoothly as expected, that would put pressure for fiscal stimulus policy responses – especially in the US - that can help sustain economic recoveries. Chart 5Global Bond Yields Will Drift Higher In 2021 Chart 6Stay Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure However, with major central banks like the Fed and ECB likely to keep policy rates unchanged in 2021, so as not to impede a recovery in inflation, any upward lift to bond yields will be moderate and driven overwhelmingly by rising longer-term inflation expectations and not a repricing of future monetary policy tightening. That means developed market yield curves should bearishly steepen, in general, as front-end yields remain anchored. We shifted to a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance back at the end of last October, equal to just over 0.5 years of duration versus the custom benchmark index (Chart 6). We are comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, while maintaining a bearish steepening bias to yield curve exposure across all countries in the model portfolio. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT LOW YIELD BETA MARKETS, OVERWEIGHT PERIPHERAL EUROPE, UNDERWEIGHT THE US In more normal times, we would let our expectations of monetary policy changes guide our recommended government bond country allocations. Yet in 2021, we see almost no chance for any meaningful change in the monetary policy bias of any developed market central bank. Thus, we continue to rely on a “yield beta” framework for making fixed income country allocation decisions in our model bond portfolio. In 2021, we see almost no chance for any meaningful change in the monetary policy bias of any developed market central bank. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2021 to occur in the US, thus we recommend favoring countries that have a lower sensitivity to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. the “yield beta”). The obvious candidates are government bonds in Japan and core Europe, where inflation expectations are likely to see less upward pressure than in the US – especially if the US dollar weakens further (Chart 7). Thus, we begin 2021 by maintaining our existing overweight positions in Germany and France. Chart 7Favor Government Bond Markets Less Correlated To UST Yields In 2021 The UK has been transitioning from a high-beta to low-beta bond market in recent years and we do not see that trend turning in 2021. The Bank of England (BoE) will maintain a dovish policy bias this year as the UK economy begins adjusting to the post-Brexit world and a stronger pound will dampen inflation pressures. We also begin 2021 by staying overweight UK gilts in our model portfolio. We anticipate that the Italy-Germany government bond spread will converge to the lower Spain-Germany spread in 2021. Chart 8Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds Australia and Canada are two countries where a high yield beta to US Treasuries would make them ideal underweight candidates in a global bond portfolio this year. However, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) have instituted aggressive quantitative easing (QE) programs that are designed to dampen increases in government bond yields. As a result of these opposing forces on Australian and Canadian bond yields, we begin 2021 with a neutral allocation to both countries. However, we may shift either or both to an underweight stance if we sense any wavering of the commitment of the RBA or BoC to their QE programs amid improving economic growth.  We also expect further declines in the risk premia for Italian government bond yields in 2021. The combination of aggressive ECB government bond purchases, which includes greater buying of BTPs than in years past, and signs of a somewhat more supportive backdrop of fiscal unity within the European Union (the €750bn Recovery Fund) reduce both the sovereign credit risk and “redenomination risk” of a potential euro breakup. We anticipate that the Italy-Germany government bond spread will converge to the lower Spain-Germany spread in 2021 – an outcome that last occurred in 2016 (Chart 8). We are not only maintaining our long-held overweight stance on Italy in our model portfolio, we are increasing the size of the allocation to begin 2021. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN EXPOSURE IN THE US, ITALY AND CANADA; ADD A NEW ALLOCATION TO FRANCE Chart 9Stay Overweight Global Inflation-Linked Bonds Inflation-linked bonds had a strong relative performance versus nominal government debt across the developed markets during the second half of 2020, with breakevens widening even in countries with low realized inflation like France and Australia. Dovish central banks, the reflationary impacts of rising commodity prices (also fueled by US dollar weakness), and the V-shaped recovery in global economic growth from the 2020 COVID-19 recession have all played a role in helping lift breakevens from the depressed levels seen last spring. None of those factors is expected to change during at least the first half of 2021, thus allocations to inflation-linked bonds are still justified in several countries. We are adding a new position in French inflation-linked bonds versus nominal French bonds with breakevens below our model-implied fair value. Our fair value models for 10-year inflation breakevens show that valuations are no longer unequivocally cheap in most countries, but only in Australia do breakevens look much too high relative to underlying fundamental drivers (Chart 9). US TIPS breakevens are approaching levels that would appear “expensive”, defined as at least one standard deviation above fair value, but we still see additional upside as the model implied fair value is also rising. We currently have recommended allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the US, Italy and Canada in our model portfolio, and we are maintaining those positions as we begin 2021. We are adding a new position in French inflation-linked bonds versus nominal French bonds with breakevens below our model-implied fair value. Spread Product Allocation: OVERWEIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATES VERSUS GOVERNMENT BONDS, FOCUSED ON US HIGH-YIELD AND EM Our expectation of a combination of improving global economic growth and persistent reflationary monetary policies is a very positive backdrop for global spread product, most notably corporate bonds. However, valuations across the global corporate debt spectrum are not universally cheap after the strong H2/2020 performance. Thus, we are maintaining only a moderate overall overweight stance on spread product versus government bonds in our model bond portfolio, equal to 5% of the portfolio (Chart 10). At the same time, we recommend taking more relative spread risk within that moderate overweight allocation. This is the way we are balancing the competing forces of a pro-risk backdrop and increasingly stretched valuations in many sectors. The biggest change we are making to the credit side of our model bond portfolio is downgrading US investment grade corporate exposure to neutral while upgrading US high-yield to overweight. As we discussed in our 2021 Key Views report, spread valuation measures are more stretched for higher-rated US investment grade corporate debt compared to junk bonds. Chart 10A Moderate Recommended Overweight To Global Spread Product In 2021 Combined with a monetary liquidity backdrop that supports the performance of riskier assets like high-yield (Chart 11), we anticipate that US high-yield will be a relatively strong performer within the US credit markets in 2021. Chart 11Upgrade Lower Rated US High-Yield To Overweight When looking at the relationship between spread valuation (using our preferred metric of 12-month breakeven spreads) and risk (using a standard measure like duration-times-spread), the lower rated credit tiers of US high-yield stand out as having the most attractive risk/valuation tradeoff (Chart 12). Thus, we are focusing our shift to an overweight stance on US high-yield in our model bond portfolio by increasing the allocations to the B-rated and Caa-rated tiers. Chart 12Comparing Value (Breakeven Spreads) With Risk (Duration Times Spread) Outside the US, we are also adding additional spread product exposure by increasing the weightings to euro area high-yield and emerging market USD-denominated sovereign debt. However, we are still maintaining a relatively higher allocation to US high-yield over euro area equivalents, and emerging market USD-denominated corporate debt over sovereigns. The biggest change we are making to the credit side of our model bond portfolio is downgrading US investment grade corporate exposure to neutral while upgrading US high-yield to overweight. Finally, we are entering 2021 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) we maintained during the latter half of 2020, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Overall Portfolio Risk: AGGRESSIVE The net impact of all the changes made to our portfolio allocations is to boost the estimated tracking error – the relative portfolio volatility versus that of the benchmark – from 31bps to 73bps (Chart 13). This is a significant increase in the usage of our portfolio “risk budget”, but the tracking error is still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps. Chart 13Taking A More Aggressive Posture On Overall Portfolio Risk Chart 14Boosting Portfolio Yield Through Selective Overweights After maintaining a cautious stance on overall portfolio risk levels in the latter half of 2020, given the persistent uncertainties over the spread of COVID-19 and the US presidential election, we now deem it appropriate to be more aggressive within our model bond portfolio allocations. The pro-risk positioning changes will also boost the overall yield of the model bond portfolio. The greater allocations to riskier spread product sectors leave the portfolio with a yield that begins 2021 modestly higher than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations, which can all be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the first half of 2021. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Base Case The current surge of global COVID-19 cases gives way to increased distribution of vaccines. The result is a steady improvement in global growth. Some additional fiscal stimulus is delivered in the US and the larger countries of Europe. Central banks keep their foot on the monetary accelerator with realized inflation moving only modestly higher. The US Treasury curve bear steepens as US inflation expectations continue drifting higher. The VIX index reaches 23, the US dollar depreciates by -5%, oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Optimistic Scenario The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines goes smoothly and rapidly, while the current surge in COVID-19 cases fades in the early weeks of 2021. Global growth quickly accelerates on the back of soaring consumer & business confidence. Global fiscal stimulus surprises to upside, while central banks remain super-dovish even as inflation perks up. The US Treasury curve bear-steepens substantially as US inflation expectations steadily increase. The VIX index falls to 18, the US dollar depreciates by -10% in a pro-risk/pro-growth move, oil prices climb +20% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Pessimistic Scenario The vaccine rollout is slower than expected, with COVID-19 restrictions remaining in place for longer. Policymakers deliver inadequate new fiscal and monetary stimulus measures to support underwhelming growth. The US Treasury curve bull-flattens as US inflation breakevens plunge. The VIX index soars to 35, the US dollar appreciates by +5%, oil prices plunge -20% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 3B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 15 and Chart 16, respectively. Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 15Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 16US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over its performance benchmark during the next six months of +50bps in the base case and +78bps in the optimistic scenario, but is projected to underperform by -37bps in the pessimistic scenario. These are larger expected relative returns than witnessed during the latter half of 2020, consistent with the larger tracking error we are taking entering 2021.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2021 Key Views: Vaccination, Reflation, Rotation," dated December 17, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Our model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt and USD-denominated emerging market debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Appendix Appendix Chart 1Q4/2020 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Appendix Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2020 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.1” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,2 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework3 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.4 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.5 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,6 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.7 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 2 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 3 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 4 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global growth will accelerate over the course of 2021 as COVID-19 vaccines are distributed and economic confidence improves in response. Longer-term global bond yields see some upward pressure as growth picks up, but global real yields will stay negative with on-hold central banks actively seeking an inflation overshoot. Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure, and position for steeper government bond yield curves and wider inflation breakevens. The rise in global bond yields we anticipate will be relatively moderate, with US Treasury yields rising the most. Underweight the US in global bond portfolios, and favor countries where yields have a lower sensitivity to rising US yields (core Europe, Japan, UK). Also overweight Peripheral European debt given supportive monetary and fiscal policies that are helping to reduce credit risk (Italy, Spain, Portugal). The US dollar will remain soft in 2021, providing an additional reflationary impulse to the global economy. Overweight global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. Lower-quality global credit should outperform against a backdrop that will prove positive for risk assets: easy money policies, improving growth momentum and a reduction in virus-related uncertainty. Upgrade US high-yield to overweight through higher allocations to lower rated credit tiers, while downgrading US investment grade, where valuations are far less compelling, to neutral. Favor US corporates versus euro area equivalents, of all credit quality, based off less attractive euro area spread valuations. Within US$-denominated emerging market debt, favor corporates over sovereigns. Feature Dear Client, This report, detailing our global fixed income investment outlook for next year, will be our last for 2020. Please join me for a webcast this coming Friday, December 18 at 10:00 AM EST (3:00 PM GMT, 4:00 PM CET, 11:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook followed by a Q&A session. Best wishes for a very safe, healthy and prosperous 2021. We’ve all earned that after a difficult 2020 that none of us will soon forget. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist BCA Research’s Outlook 2021 report, “A Brave New World”, outlining the main investment themes for next year based on the collective wisdom of our strategists, was sent to all clients in late November.1 In this report, we discuss the broad implications of those themes for the direction of global fixed income markets in 2021. In a follow-up report to be published in the first week of the New Year, we will translate those themes into specific recommended allocations and weightings within our model bond portfolio framework. A Summary Of The 2021 BCA Outlook The tone of the BCA 2021 Outlook was generally positive, with conclusions that are supportive for the outperformance of risk assets relative to safe havens like government bonds (Chart 1). Chart 1How To Play Recovery & Reflation In 2021 Global growth will strengthen over the course of next year, after an initial soft patch related to the late-2020 COVID-19 economic restrictions in Europe and the US. Economic confidence will improve as the COVID-19 vaccines become more widely distributed, at a time of ongoing substantial monetary and fiscal stimulus in most important countries. A major release of pent-up demand is likely, fueled by the surge in private sector savings in the US and Europe after households and businesses cut back on spending because of the pandemic. The lingering impact of China’s substantial fiscal and credit stimulus in 2020 will still be felt throughout the world for most of 2021, even with Chinese authorities likely to begin curtailing the expansion of credit around mid-year. The tremendous amount of global spare capacity created by the virus and associated economic restrictions will keep inflation subdued in most countries. Thus, both monetary and fiscal policymakers will be under no pressure to pre-emptively tighten policy. The pace of monetary/fiscal stimulus will inevitably slow on a rate-of-change basis after the massive ramp up of government spending, income support, loan guarantees and central bank asset purchases. However, policymakers are expected to pull any and all of those levers once again in the event of a severe pullback in economic growth or a major bout of financial market turbulence. After a wild 2020 in a US election year, geopolitical uncertainty is expected to recede a bit next year. Although US-China tensions will remain elevated even under the incoming Biden administration, European politics are expected to be a tailwind for financial markets. A UK-EU Brexit deal is expected to be reached given economic realities, increased fiscal cooperation within the EU will support fiscally weaker countries like Italy, and the threat of the US imposing tariffs on Europe will disappear after Donald Trump leaves office. Our Four Main Key Views For Global Fixed Income Markets In 2021 The following are the main implications for global fixed income investment strategy based off the conclusions from the 2020 BCA Outlook: Key View #1: Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure, and position for steeper government bond yield curves and wider inflation breakevens. Chart 2COVID-19 Lockdowns Will Not Last Forever COVID-19 was the elephant in the room for financial markets in 2020, influencing sentiment whenever cases flared up or subsided. Yet the impact diminished steadily since the first wave of the virus stretched beyond China in the spring. The broad span of global risk assets – equities, corporate credit, industrial commodities – has performed very well during the current, and much larger, surge in cases occurring in the US and Europe. One big reason for this is that investors now understand that lockdowns, and the associated drag on economic growth, do not last forever. In addition, investors know that policymakers in most countries will react to any sharp downturn in economic confidence with more fiscal and monetary stimulus to help offset the negative growth impact of the lockdowns. In Europe, many European governments enacted harsh national lockdowns in a bid to “flatten the curve” during the latest surge. This has helped successfully reduce the growth rate of new cases and hospitalizations (Chart 2). This will eventually lead to an easing of restrictions, and a recovery in economic activity, in early 2021. While US case numbers are also surging, the response by governments has been much less widespread, and severe, compared to Europe. There is little political appetite (even with a new president) for another wave of harsh restrictions along the lines of what took place last spring. Some slowing of economic activity is inevitable because of increased regional restrictions in large states like California and New York, as is already evident in some late-2020 data. However, any downturn should not be expected to last long with the growth rate of US COVID-19 hospitalizations having already peaked. The big game-changer, of course, is the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines which have already begun to be distributed in the UK and US. While there are uncertainties related to the operational logistics of a worldwide vaccine rollout, including whether enough people will voluntarily choose to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity on a global scale, the very high announced efficacy levels of the various vaccines mean that an end of the pandemic is now achievable. Investors should see through the current surge in COVID-19 cases, and any short-term hiccup in economic growth, and focus on the bigger picture of the introduction of the vaccine and the positive implications for global economic confidence in 2021. Growth has already been holding up well in the US and China in the final months of 2020, with both manufacturing and services PMIs remaining solidly above the 50 line indicating expanding activity. As the euro area lockdowns begun to ease up, growth there will catch up, which already appears to be underway with the sharp uptick in the December PMI data (Chart 3). Those three regions account for one-half of worldwide GDP, so that is already a solid footing for global growth entering 2021. A sustained improvement in the pace of global economic activity is important, as it is becoming increasingly harder for governments to sustain the extreme levels of policy stimulus delivered in 2020. In China, policymakers are starting to rotate their focus away from aggressive stimulus and fighting deflation back to the cautious risk management approach to credit expansion that was in place prior to COVID-19. BCA Research’s China strategists expect the latest Chinese credit cycle to peak by mid-2021, with the credit impulse set to decline in the second half of the year (Chart 4). Combined with the tightening of monetary conditions through a strengthening yuan and higher local interest rates, some slowing of Chinese growth is inevitable. Although given the lags between stimulus and growth, the impact is more likely to be felt toward year-end and into 2022 – good news for much of the global economy that still relies heavily on exporting to China as an engine of growth. Chart 3A Growth Recovery Without Inflation Chart 4China Stimulus Will Peak Out By Mid-2021 Overall global fiscal policy is on track to be less supportive in 2021. The latest estimates from the IMF show that the “fiscal thrust”, or the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance relative to potential GDP, in most developed economies will turn negative next year (Charts 5A and 5B). Such a swing is inevitable given the sheer magnitudes of the fiscal stimulus measures first introduced to combat the economic damage from COVID-19 that will not be repeated in 2021. By the same token, less fiscal stimulus will be necessary if overall global growth improves, especially if vaccines can be successfully distributed to much of the world. Chart 5ANegative Fiscal Thrust In 2021 … Chart 5B… But Governments Will Spend More If Needed What does all this mean for global government bond yields? We believe that it signals a continuation of the trends seen towards the end of 2020 – a slow grind higher in longer-term yields, led by better growth and rising inflation expectations, but without any need to discount a move to tighter monetary policy because of a sustained overshoot of realized inflation. The current economic projections of the Fed, ECB, Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) all show that policymakers there expect unemployment rates to remain above pre-pandemic levels to at least 2023 (Chart 6). At the same time, central banks are also projecting inflation to be below their target levels/ranges over that same period. In response, the forward guidance from these central banks has been very dovish, with policy interest rates expected to remain at current levels at or near 0% for at least the next two to three years. Interest rate markets have taken the hint, with a very low expected path for rates over the next few years discounted in overnight index swap curves. Chart 6Central Banks Projecting A Slow Return To Full Employment Chart 7Markets Expect Years Of Negative Real Policy Rates The implication of this is that central banks are projecting a sustained, multi-year period where policy rates will remain below forecasted inflation (Chart 7). Or put more simply, central banks are consistently signaling that negative real interest rates will persist for a long time. This means that one of the most oft-discussed “oddities” of global bond markets in 2020 - the persistence of negative real long term bond yields in most major economies, most notably in the US Treasury market, even as inflation expectations increase – is unlikely to disappear in 2021. Those negative real yields reflect, to a large part, the expectation that real global policy rates will stay persistently negative (Chart 8). At some point in 2021, markets could challenge this dovish guidance from central banks that could temporarily push up both future interest rate expectations and longer-term real yields, especially in the US. However, it is more likely that central banks will not validate that move higher in yields for fears of pre-emptively short-circuiting an economic recovery. Such a hawkish shift could be more plausibly delivered in 2022 at the earliest, with the Fed the most likely candidate to change its guidance. Summing up all of the above points with regards to our recommendations on overall management of government bond portfolios, we arrive at the following conclusions (Chart 9): Chart 8Rising Inflation Breakevens With Stable Negative Real Yields Chart 9Moderately Higher Global Bond Yields In 2021 Duration exposure should be set below-benchmark. Our forward-looking Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and economic expectations data, is strongly signaling that global yields should head higher in 2021. Position for a bearish steepening of yield curves. This will be driven more by rising longer-term inflation expectations, as the short-ends of yield curves will remain anchored by dovish on-hold central banks. Key View #2: Underweight the US in global bond portfolios, and favor countries where yields have a lower sensitivity to rising US yields Moving beyond the overall global duration view, there are significant country allocation decisions that derive from our outlook for 2021. First and foremost, we recommend underweighting US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, as we anticipate the biggest increase in developed market bond yields next year to occur in the US. We expect the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield to rise to the 1.25% to 1.5% range sometime in 2021. This move will come mostly through higher inflation expectations. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is expected to reach the 2.3-2.5% range that we have long considered to be consistent with the market pricing in the Fed sustainably achieving its 2% inflation goal. Any additional Treasury yield increases beyond our 2021 forecast range would require the Fed to shift to a more hawkish stance signaling future rate hikes. With the Fed now operating with an Average Inflation Target framework, allowing for temporary overshoots of inflation after periods when inflation was below the Fed’s 2% target, the hurdle for such a shift in Fed guidance is much higher than in previous years. The Fed has also changed the nature of its forward guidance compared to years past, signaling that any future monetary tightening will only occur once actual inflation has sustainably returned to the 2% target. That means that the Fed will no longer pre-emptively choose to hike rates on merely a forecast of higher inflation – it will first need to see a sustained period of higher inflation materialize before considering any tightening. Thus, any move beyond our expected 1.25% to 1.5% range on US Treasuries would require a hawkish signal by the Fed that it intends to begin removing monetary accommodation through rate hikes. Under the Average Inflation Target framework, that will not happen in 2021 but could happen the following year if inflation stays at or above 2% over the course of next year. Turning to other countries, we recommend favoring bond markets with a lower historical “yield beta” to US Treasuries. In other words, we prefer overweighting counties where government bond yields are typically less correlated to changes in Treasury yields. We show those historical yield betas, using 10-year yields, in Chart 10. Importantly, the betas are calculated only for periods when Treasury yields are moving higher. We call this “upside beta”, which is a useful tool to identify which bond markets are more sensitive to selloffs in the US Treasury market. Chart 10Favor Lower Beta Government Bond Markets In 2021 The highest “upside beta” countries among the major developed markets are Australia, Canada and New Zealand, while the lowest “upside beta” countries are Germany, France and Japan. The UK is in the middle of those two groupings, although the trend over the past few years suggests that it is transitioning from a high-beta to low-beta country. Note that for all countries shown, the upside yield betas are below one, indicating that no market should be expected to see a bigger rise in yields than the US. Strictly based on our forecast of higher Treasury yields and calculated yield betas, we would recommend more overweight allocations to markets in the lower-beta group and more underweight allocations to the higher-beta group. We are comfortable recommending overweights to the lower-beta group of Germany, France, Japan and the UK. Although among the higher-beta group, we are reluctant to recommend underweighting all three countries because of the policy choices of their central banks. The RBA, BoC and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) have all enacted aggressively large quantitative easing (QE) programs in 2020 as a way to provide additional monetary stimulus after cutting policy rates to near-0%. The BoC stands out as being extremely aggressive on QE with its balance sheet expanding more than three-fold on a year-over-year basis (Chart 11). Chart 11More Divergence In The Pace Of Global QE None of these three central banks has discussed slowing the pace of purchases anytime soon. In the case of the RBA and RBNZ, they have gone as far as signaling the role of QE in dampening their bond yields to help stem the appreciation of their currencies. They may have limited success in driving down yields further, however. Measures of bond valuation like the term premium, which typically move lower when QE accelerates, have bottomed out across the developed markets even as central banks have absorbed a greater share of the stock of government debt in 2020 (Chart 12). Yet even if QE can no longer drive yields lower, it can limit how much yields can increase when under cyclical upward pressure. For this reason, we do not expect government bond yields in Australia, Canada or New Zealand to behave in line their historical higher yield beta that would make them clear underweight candidates in a period of rising US Treasury yields, as we expect. Net-net, we recommend that investors focus underweights solely on US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios. This suggests that yield spreads between Treasuries and other bond markets should continue to widen, as has been the case over the final few months of 2020 (Chart 13). We recommend neutral allocations to Australia, Canada and New Zealand, while overweighting core Europe, Japan and the UK. Chart 12More QE Is Less Impactful In Pushing Down Bond Yields Chart 13US Treasuries Will Continue To Underperform In 2021 We also are maintaining our overweight recommendation on Italian and Spanish government debt, which was one of our most successful calls of 2020. We view those markets more as a credit spread story versus core Europe, rather than a directional yield instrument like US Treasuries or German Bunds. On that basis, the spread of Italian and Spanish yields versus German yields has room to compress even further, as both are strongly supported by ECB bond purchases. Also, the introduction of the European Union’s €750bn Recovery Fund is a strong signal of greater fiscal co-operation within Europe – another important factor that has helped reduce the risk premium (credit spread) on Italy and Spain. When looking at the yields currently on offer in the developed world, Italy and Spain offer very attractive yields in a global low-yield environment (Table 1). Stay overweight. Table 1Developed Market Bond Yields, Both Unhedged & Hedged Into USD Key View #3: Overweight global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt We have discussed the importance of rising inflation expectations as a core driver of the rise in global bond yields that we expect in 2021. This has been in the context of improving global growth, reduced spare economic capacity and central banks staying very dovish, all of which are necessary ingredients to boost depressed inflation expectations. A weaker US dollar will also play a significant role in that boost to inflation expectations and bond yields that we expect next year. The decline in the greenback seen in the latter half of 2020 has been driven by the typical factors (Chart 14): Chart 14More Negatives Than Positives For The USD The Fed’s aggressive rate cuts, dating back to 2019, have reduced much of the relative interest rate attractiveness of the US dollar Accelerating global growth after the sharp worldwide plunge in growth in Q2/2020 benefitted non-US economies more, eliciting a standard decline in the “anti-growth” US dollar Uncertainty and risk aversion declined after the initial COVID-19 shock at the start of 2020, easing the safe haven demand for dollars. Looking ahead, rate differentials continue to point to additional downward pressure on the US dollar, even with the moderate rise in longer-term US Treasury yields that we expect next year. Risk aversion and uncertainty should also decline in a dollar-bearish fashion with the US presidential election behind us and the COVID-19 vaccine ahead of us. Improving global growth should also be supportive of more dollar weakness, especially as Europe recovers from the current lockdown-driven slowdown. A weaker US dollar is a key variable to trigger faster global inflation through the link between the currency and global traded goods prices. On a rate-of-change basis, a weakening US dollar has a strong negative correlation to the growth rate of world export prices and commodity prices (Chart 15). Thus, more USD weakness in 2021 will lift realized global inflation through commodities and traded goods prices, especially against a backdrop of faster global growth. Chart 15Global Reflation Through A Weaker USD Chart 16Stay Overweight Global Inflation-Linked Bonds In 2021 BCA Research’s commodity strategists expect oil prices to move higher next year on the back of an improving demand/supply balance, with the benchmark Brent price of oil averaging $63/bbl over the course of 2021. A weaker USD could provide additional upside to that forecast, giving a further lift to realized inflation rates around the world. To position for this boost to inflation via a weaker dollar and rising commodity prices, we recommend that fixed-income investors continue holding a core allocation to inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. We have maintained that recommendation since last spring after the collapse of global breakeven inflation rates that left breakevens very undervalued according to our fair value models (Chart 16).2 The valuation case is far less compelling now after the steady climb in breakevens over the latter half of 2020, with only French and Japan breakevens below fair value. However, given our expected backdrop of improving global growth and highly accommodative global monetary policy, breakevens are likely to continue to climb to more expensive levels. Our preferred allocations are to US and French inflation-linked bonds, while we would be cautious on Australian inflation-linked bonds which appear extremely overvalued on our models. Key View #4: Within an overweight allocation to global corporate debt, overweight US high-yield versus US investment grade and favor all US corporates versus euro area equivalents. Global corporate bond markets have enjoyed a spectacular rally over the final three quarters of 2020 after the huge pandemic related selloff of last February and March. The benchmark index yields for investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and UK have all fallen back below pre-COVID levels, while index yields for high-yield in the same three regions are back at the pre-COVID lows (Chart 17). The story is similar on a credit spread basis. The benchmark index option-adjusted spread (OAS) for investment grade corporates is only 11bps away from the pre-COVID low in the US and 4bps from the pre-COVID low in the euro area, with the UK spread now slightly below the pre-pandemic low (Chart 18). High-yield spreads still have some more room to compress with US, euro area and UK junk index spreads 67bps, 68bps and 110bps above the pre-pandemic low, respectively. Chart 17Corporate Bond Yields Falling To New Lows Chart 18Corporate Bond Spreads Approaching Pre-COVID Lows Supportive monetary policy has played a huge role in the global credit rally. Central banks have used their balance sheets aggressively to help ease financial conditions, including the direct buying of corporate bonds by the Fed, ECB and BoE. Looking ahead to 2021, it is clear that credit markets are still benefitting from loose monetary policy while also enjoying a tailwind from better global growth. The global high-yield default rate is rolling over and the US default rate has clearly peaked (Chart 19). There is now less of a need for direct buying of corporates by central banks with credit markets seeing major investor inflows with a robust pace of corporate bond issuance. Corporate bond markets can now walk on their own with the support of central bank crutches. This means that investors should pivot away from the more cautious “buy what the central banks are buying” approach that we had advocated for much of 2020 and be more selectively aggressive. First and foremost, that means increasing allocations to US high-yield corporate debt, both out of US investment grade and euro area corporates. Default-adjusted spreads in the US, which measure the high-yield index OAS net of realized default losses, will look far more attractive as the US default rate peaks (Chart 20). If the US default rate moves back below 5% over the next year from the current 8% rate, the US default-adjusted spread will climb back into positive territory. This will compare more favorably to the default-adjusted spread for euro area high-yield, which has been higher because the euro area default rate did not suffer a major spike this year despite the sharp downturn in euro area growth back in the spring. Chart 19Easy Money Policies Supporting Global Credit Chart 20High-Yield Looks More Attractive With Fewer Defaults In 2021 US high-yield also looks most attractive using our preferred metric of pure spread valuation, the 12-month breakeven spread. This measures the amount of spread widening that must occur over a one year period for corporate debt to have the same return as a duration-matched position in government bonds. We compare this “spread cushion” to its own history in a percentile ranking to determine if spreads look relatively attractive. Within US corporate debt, the 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade credit is down to the 5th percentile, suggesting virtually no room for additional spread tightening (Chart 21). For US high-yield credit, the 12-month breakeven spread is still relatively elevated at the 60th percentile level, suggesting more room for spread compression. Within euro area corporates, the 12-month breakeven percentile rankings for investment grade and high-yield are at the 27th and 28th percentile, respectively, suggesting a more limited scope for spread compression compared to US high-yield (Chart 22). Chart 21Move Down In Quality Within US Corporates Chart 22No Compelling Value In Euro Area Corporates When comparing the 12-month breakeven spreads of all corporate debt in the US, euro area and UK, broken down by credit tier, to a more pure measure of spread risk - duration times spread – the attractiveness of lower-rated US junk bonds is most compelling (Chart 23). In particular, US B-rated and Caa-rated junk spreads offer very high 12-month breakeven spreads relative to spread risk. Chart 23Comparing Value (Breakeven Spreads) With Risk (Duration Times Spread) Adding it all up, it is clear that lower-rated US high-yield debt offers an attractive value proposition for 2021. This is especially true given the positive global growth and monetary policy backdrop. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, BoE and Bank of Japan has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess return of US high-yield US Treasuries (Chart 24). The surge in balance sheet growth of 2020 is pointing to strong US high-yield bond performance versus Treasuries, and an outperformance of lower-rated US high-yield, in 2021. Chart 24Upgrade US High-Yield To Overweight Chart 25Within EM USD Credit, Favor Corporates Over Sovereigns This leads us to shift to an overweight stance on US high-yield, while downgrading US investment grade to neutral, as our key global spread product recommendation for 2020. Within other corporate credit markets, we recommend only a neutral allocation to euro area corporate credit, given the relatively less attractive valuations. Finally, within the emerging market US dollar denominated universe, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on corporates versus sovereigns, as the former will benefit more in 2021 from the lagged effect of Chinese credit stimulus and central bank balance sheet expansion in 2020 (Chart 25).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2021: A Brave New World", dated November 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Our breakeven inflation models use the growth rate of oil prices in local currency terms and a long-term moving average of realized inflation as the inputs. Recommendations Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns