Economy

Executive Summary Inflation Surprise Reinforces Gridlock And Fiscal Drag A US recession is increasingly likely as the Fed will have to hike rates more aggressively in the short run to contain inflation. Recession would exacerbate US policy uncertainty during a period of peak polarization in the 2022-24 election cycle. The Fed’s struggle with inflation will become entangled in extreme US politics. The Fed will come under immense pressure to pause rate hikes earlier than warranted in 2023. The Fed could get blamed for both over-tightening and politicization. Investors should fade the risk of another Democratic sweep in the midterm elections. Republicans are still highly likely to gain control of the House, resulting in gridlock and a freeze to fiscal policy.   If Democrats lose the House, their odds of retaining the White House will decline. A recession would greatly reduce their odds. In this context the US faces another tumultuous political cycle, as Republicans will stage a comeback. However, reform of the Electoral Count Act could reduce the risk of a catastrophic breakdown in the electoral system. Recommendation (Tactical) INITIATION DATE Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) Feb 23, 2022 12.6% Bottom Line: Stay long US dollar for now but prepare to downgrade to neutral. Feature BCA Research hosted our annual conference at the Plaza Hotel in New York last week. Clients heard a range of views on various topics, including US politics and policy. In this report we touch on some of the insights from the conference while providing our own views on what to expect going forward. A Politicized Federal Reserve? The real Fed funds rate stands at -2.2% today despite the Federal Reserve’s decision to hike rates by 225 basis points this year. The last time the real Fed funds rate was this low was in 1975, under the chairmanship of Arthur Burns – i.e. the epitome of a politicized Fed (Chart 1). Chart 1A Politicized Federal Reserve? Is the Fed already politicized or will it become politicized in the coming years? What would that mean for monetary policy, the economy, and financial markets? The Fed waded into political territory when it began pursuing unorthodox policies in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and again during the Covid-19 pandemic. Ideally monetary policy sets interest rates across the economy and applies equally to all economic actors. But once the Fed began quantitative easing (bond buying) and coordinating its actions with the fiscal authorities (which had bailed out major banks), it entered the game of income and wealth redistribution. Not least because asset price inflation favors asset owners over others. Now that the Fed and other central banks have pioneered these unorthodox policies, they will continue to use them in the face of future economic and political turmoil. They will also innovate new tools to deal with each crisis. As the pandemic response highlighted, the Fed will continue down the path of redistribution, which will continue to provoke political backlash from legislators and the public. At the same time, the Fed’s policy parameters today have been reined in and disciplined by the post-pandemic inflation overshoot. For example, there is not so much excited talk today about implementing Modern Monetary Theory – debt monetization – as there was in the heady days of 2019. Instead the Fed today is focused almost exclusively on fulfilling its price stability mandate, at least until inflation gets down into the 2%-3% range. The market appears over-eager for interest rate cuts in 2023 when the Fed is expecting to continue hiking rates throughout 2023 (Chart 2). The surprise in core and headline inflation in August reinforces this point. If the Fed cannot bring inflation below 3%, what will it do? Could it accept reality and modify the inflation target to 3%? A higher inflation target has long been discussed – it would enable the Fed to stimulate more effectively in the next recession. But Chairman Jerome Powell and his monetary policy strategy review rejected the idea of raising the long-term inflation target from 2% to 3% or above – and that rejection is likely to be sustained at least until the next review in 2024. Even then a higher inflation target seems unlikely as it would be very hard to achieve politically in the wake of the inflation overshoot. Chart 2Will Fed Cut Rates Next Year? Of course, a lot can happen by 2024 and new deflationary shocks could conceivably force a change to the inflation target. What is clear to us is that the Fed still has a dovish bias that took a long time to develop and has not yet been entirely overturned by the inflation overshoot (Chart 3).  Chart 3Dovish Consensus Built Up Over Time And Remains In Place For Now Meanwhile the Fed’s single-minded focus on restoring price stability will bring an entirely different set of political problems – and accusations of politicization. For example, the Fed wants tighter financial conditions – since that will help to cool the economy and bring down inflation – but cannot well speak openly about deliberately driving down stock market prices and home values. The Fed also believes that a recession with unemployment ranging from 4%-5% would not be the end of the world but it cannot well speak openly about deliberately increasing unemployment. Especially because unemployment rarely stays so low in recessions. The Fed acknowledges that it will need to pause hiking interest rates at some point, hopefully before it tightens monetary conditions so much as to trigger a recession, but it does not want to call it a “pause” since financial markets will take that as a hard stop. It could cause a premature loosening of financial conditions and be blamed for a lack of vigilance when inflation revives. Will the Fed ultimately be prevented from tightening monetary policy enough because of the pressure that higher interest rates will put on the government’s fiscal sustainability? It is entirely possible. Sustaining social programs is more popular than paying bond holders. Since the Fed pays market interest rates on reserve balances, it will stop making a profit if it hikes rates to 3.25% or above (which is slated to happen this month). Very soon the Fed will be turning a loss on its holdings, rather than remitting profits to the Department of Treasury, and it will be amply criticized for spending taxpayer money. In that case there will be plenty of ammunition from critics on all sides. When it comes to the Fed’s specific predicament in 2022-24, Chairman Powell does not want to be the next Arthur Burns, i.e. he does not want to go down in history as the chairman who made a historic mistake by not forcing inflation back into an acceptable and containable range of say 2%-3.5%. Neither he nor the Fed can afford to lose control of price stability, which would damage the US economy and the Fed’s credibility. The implication is that Powell will need to hike rates until price stability is obtained. Yet even a conservative estimate would suggest that hiking rates until inflation falls beneath 3% will require the unemployment rate to rise by more than the estimated 0.5-1.0 percentage points, likely considerably more than this, which historically implies a recession in 2023-24. Recession odds have already risen sharply as priced by the bond market, according to Jonathan LaBerge at our Bank Credit Analyst flagship service (Chart 4). Of course, recession odds have an important implication for the 2022-24 political cycle, implying that the Fed’s handling of the economy will become entangled once again in America’s extreme political polarization. Chart 4Recession Odds Rising Our past research has shown that the Fed does not pay close attention to midterm elections. The Fed is more likely to hike rates than cut rates during a midterm election year – and more likely to hike rates during a president’s first midterm election as opposed to his second. Whereas the Fed is about equally likely to cut rates as to hike them during a presidential election year. Most importantly, the Fed is more likely to hike rates during a non-election year than otherwise (Table 1). Table 1The Fed Doesn’t Care About Midterms … But Prefers To Hike In Off-Years While the Fed had no choice but to hike in 2022, supporting these data, a critical decision will emerge in 2023, when the Fed is still expected to hike but the risk of recession grows. Recessions sharply reduce the odds of the incumbent political party staying in the White House (Table 2). Moreover a recession could bring back President Trump or a Trumpist Republican candidate bent on revenge against the political establishment. The result is that the FOMC will be under immense political pressure not to overtighten monetary policy in 2023-24. In normal times, a Fed chair appointed by a Republican president could conceivably have the license to hike rates aggressively to whip inflation, knowing that if a recession occurs and a Republican comes to power, he would be likely to be reappointed. But Powell can have no such assurance from the erratic President Trump, who is still favored for the Republican nomination as things stand. Even aside from Trump, Powell and the FOMC will fear that a populist Republican Party would seek to audit the Fed or curtail its powers. Table 2Biden’s Odds Fall If Recession Occurs In sum, the Washington political establishment believes it is under attack from right-wing insurrectionists and will put immense pressure on the FOMC to avoid triggering a recession in 2023-24. This could produce an inflationary surprise. Bottom Line: A recession is likely to occur as the Fed continues hiking rates to bring inflation below 3%. This increases political uncertainty for the 2022-24 cycle. But a politicized Fed may compromise when inflation is closer to 4% for fear of a populist win in 2024. That would likely prove to be a historic monetary policy mistake, enabling long-term inflation expectations to rise substantially.   Midterm Elections: Fade The “Blue Sweep” Risk  While the Fed ignores midterm elections, investors are increasingly uncertain over fiscal policy and the outcome of the midterms. Will Congress become gridlocked, as we expect, or will Democrats retain control of Congress and continue the federal spending splurge that has played a large role in the inflation overshoot? Clearly the midterm races have tightened since President Biden changed his tone and started prioritizing the fight against inflation back in June. As inflation has abated, online betting markets have discounted Republican odds of victory, particularly in the Senate where they are now 36% (Chart 5). We anticipated that Biden’s approval ratings would stabilize on the passage of legislation and that the election would tighten in the final months, particularly on the back of women voters turning out to support Democrats in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce abortion access. However, we also argued that gridlock would still be the most likely result based on the high odds that the House would flip to Republican control regardless of Roe. This is a consensus view that should be challenged and reassessed as November approaches. Chart 5Bookies Still Expect Gridlock In Midterms Senate elections are held statewide and are therefore more susceptible to a shift in suburban and women voters. State-level polls leave much to be desired but the overall picture is that the races are closer than they were earlier this year – and closer than the Republicans would want them to be (Charts 6A & 6B). Persistent high inflation should be the clincher in favor of Republicans but the Senate is simply too close to call at this stage. Chart 6ANeck-And-Neck Races In Senate Chart 6BNeck-And-Neck Races In Senate Yet the Senate is overrated in this election because if Democrats lose either chamber, gridlock will be the result. Gridlock is what matters most for fiscal policy and hence for investors. The gridlock view rests on the House of Representatives. While the president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterm election, losing seats is not the same as losing control. In fact, over the past 120 years, a party that controls the House and/or Senate is more likely than not to retain control in a midterm election (Chart 7). But in the post-WWII era, the president’s party is slightly more likely to lose control of the House. And in almost all midterms, the president’s party loses seats in the House.  Chart 7Presidents Do Not Always Lose Control, But Dems Have Small Cushion In 2022 The key point about 2022 is that the Democrats only have a six-seat buffer in the House. In other words, losing seats is very likely to be equivalent to losing control this year. To save the House, Biden’s Democrats would have to perform as well as John F. Kennedy’s Democrats in 1962, when they only lost four House seats. Our House model predicts they will lose 21 seats (Appendix). While Democrats could beat this prediction, they would be hard pressed to lose fewer than six seats on a net basis: inflation is high and sticky, real wages and incomes have fallen, consumer confidence has fallen, the president’s approval rating is low, and approval of Congress is low. If a president’s party loses control of the House, its odds of keeping the White House in 2024 also fall (Chart 8). This is another reason for investors to expect that fiscal policy will freeze, policy uncertainty will remain high, and the Fed will be under political pressure not to hike rates aggressively in 2023-24. Chart 8Biden’s 2024 Odds Fall If He Loses The House Bottom Line: Fade the “Blue Sweep” risk in 2022. The midterm election is tightening but Republicans are still likely to win the House. Fiscal policy will remain a drag on growth and the 2024 election will become even more uncertain, putting political pressure on the Fed to avoid overtightening. Limited Big Government Another Democratic sweep would greatly reinforce the new US policy trajectory of Big Government: a trajectory that points away from the Washington Consensus and Reagan revolution toward a future of higher taxes, larger budget deficits, higher tariffs, and more extensive regulation (Chart 9).1  But Democrats will be forced to share power. This is why we call the new policy paradigm “Limited Big Government.” It is still a shift in the direction of a larger government role in the economy and society, but it is taking place within the context of the US constitutional system of checks and balances and two-party politics. We do not expect the latter two factors to disappear. Looking at the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations together we can see that the turn toward Big Government is also compromised by vested interests: Democrats failed to increase corporate taxes, though they did put a floor under the effective tax rate by imposing a new 15% minimum tax on corporate book income. The budget deficit is normalizing after the gargantuan pandemic stimulus. But Democratic legislation will not reduce the deficit substantially over time, contrary to Biden administration propaganda. But Republicans are fiscally profligate themselves, which is clear from Trump’s term in office as well as previous periods of single-party GOP rule. Republicans joined Democrats in passing the infrastructure bill and the Chips and Science Act, which revives US industrial policy in an era of great power competition. Biden has now accepted Trump’s tariff hikes on China. While Republican leadership may push deregulation in future, they may also believe that government regulation will be required to fight back against “woke” or socially left-wing corporations. Chart 9Buenos Aires Consensus equal Spending, Taxes, Tariffs, Regulations Thus the US’s new policy paradigm is bipartisan in nature. Of course, if Republicans take the House they will turn fiscally conservative for tactical reasons. That will put a halt to the spending splurge of 2020-22. But it will not signal a new fiscally austere paradigm since full Republican control in 2025 would be highly likely to lead to another fiscal blowout. This is even more likely to be the case now that Republicans have adopted a populist and pro-working class approach. Bottom Line: The US shift away from limited government toward Big Government is entrenched even if it suffers a setback due to gridlock from 2022-24. Given that partisan checks will prevent the US from moving too radically in any direction, we dub this paradigm “Limited Big Government.” It is marginally inflationary due to the rise in taxes, spending, regulations, and tariffs. US Electoral System: A Possible Positive Surprise Our expectation that the Fed will be politicized and that populist policies will persist stems from the underlying inequality and political polarization in the United States. Yet these same factors serve to increase overall political instability and threaten to cause a fundamental breakdown in political order. Will US institutions be able to handle the strain in the coming election cycle? There can be no doubt that polarization is reaching dangerous extremes. The US has suffered two out of five contested elections in the past 22 years. The last two Republican presidential victories have occurred without gaining the popular vote. The Biden administration’s low approval creates the risk of another tight election in 2024, implying controversy over the vote count and procedure (see Appendix). Another tight election could lead to a single state’s controversy determining the outcome of the entire election. Or it could lead to an electoral college tie in which Congress would decide the election result and could decide against the popular verdict.    It is not hard to think of scenarios where contested elections and social unrest get out of hand. For example, one important consequence of the January 6 rebellion is that future governments will suppress protests with force if they attempt to interfere with the electoral process or the workings of the legislature. But imagine if a Republican administration comes to power through a contested election in Congress and then suppresses the resulting protests against it? Or imagine if Democrats retain power and push their “domestic war on terrorism” far enough to provoke a low-level militant insurgency from disaffected nationalists? It is easy to think of scenarios on either side that could lead to a much greater breakdown in public order than what occurred in 2020.   It is unlikely that an institutional fix will occur in time for the 2024 election. However, there is one exception on the congressional agenda: a possible revision of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This law was designed to prevent a failure of the electoral system in the wake of the “Stolen Election” of 1876. Its main achievement was to have the governor of each state certify the electoral votes of that state before sending them to Washington. However, the law also leaves open the door for state legislatures, secretaries of state, and governors to influence their state’s electoral votes. Democrats have written a revised version of the law that would close some of the loopholes and ambiguities. So far 10 Senate Republicans have co-sponsored the bill, making it very likely they will vote for it (Table 3). If these Republicans do not change their minds in the critical hour, and if all Democrats can be brought to vote for the measure, then a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority will exist to pass the law. Table 3Republican Senators Who Support Revising The Electoral Count Act The original Electoral Count Act took ten years to pass, so there is no reason to be overly optimistic. But if 60 votes can be found in the Senate, then the electoral system will be fortified ahead of the 2024 election and structural US political risks will be at least somewhat reduced. Bottom Line: The US faces serious social and political instability in the coming years and remains at “peak polarization.” But a bipartisan law could help solidify the electoral system prior to 2024, which would reduce some of the risk of election controversies spiraling out of control. Investment Takeaways Headline consumer price inflation for August came in at 8.3% year-on-year versus an expected 8.1%, while core inflation accelerated from 5.9% to 6.3%. Financial markets took it on the chin, with the S&P500 falling by 4.3%, due to the disappointed expectation that inflation had already peaked. This disappointment is the second of its kind this year: investors have been over-eager to call the peak in inflation. Market volatility is likely to continue through the fall as investors now expect that the Fed will hike interest rates by another 75-100 basis points in September and continue hiking until inflation falls more convincingly. Twice-bitten investors will be hesitant to endorse a third rally until they are certain that inflation is coming down – but by then a recession may already be upon them. A significant increase in unemployment is likely necessary to cool inflation, which implies recession. Higher inflation will drive real wages further into the red, which is negative for the Biden administration’s midterm campaign. Otherwise the economy looked to be improving just in time for the vote. Manufacturing and non-manufacturing employment is perking up, labor force participation is reaching pre-Covid levels, and consumer confidence ticked up in the latest data, albeit still much lower than in 2021 (Chart 10). Now the tightening of financial conditions will cool the economy and sentiment in the advance of the election, reinforcing the opposition party and the expected gridlock. Inflation may indeed be peaking but not in time for the election.  Throughout this year we bet on the US dollar index. This trade is getting very toppy and net speculative positions have rolled over (Chart 11). The dollar is overvalued but its momentum remains strong given extreme macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. We have put this trade on watch for a downgrade to neutral but we expect the momentum to be sustained at least through the US election and Chinese party congress this fall. Chart 10Small Bounce In Economy Will Not Save Democrats Chart 11Dollar Is Overvalued But Has Momentum     Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     This trajectory is the opposite of the Washington Consensus. As such, Marko Papic, the founder of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, has dubbed it the “Buenos Aires Consensus,” as it resembles Argentine economic policy more so than the Thatcher/Reagan policy mix.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets 

Executive Summary Assessing the future scenarios discounted in asset prices is always a challenge, but investors need a consensus baseline so they can formulate their own investment strategy decisions. The conversations we had at BCA’s annual investment conference last week reinforced our view that investors are overly pessimistic about corporate earnings prospects. Fears about runaway compensation growth are unfounded. The money markets, on the other hand, appear to be overly blasé about the fed funds rate. We think terminal rate expectations will have to be revised higher and that investors will have to wait longer for rate cuts than the OIS curve currently projects. Margins Have Peaked, But They're Still High Bottom Line: We remain more optimistic than the consensus over the immediate term and continue to recommend a risk-friendly tilt in multi-asset portfolios over the next six months. We are more cautious about the twelve-month outlook and recommend neutral positioning over that timeframe. Feature BCA held its first in-person conference in three years last week at The Plaza Hotel in New York. The agenda offered attendees a smorgasbord of thought-provoking discussions with recognized experts inside and outside of BCA. We enjoyed the programmed content as well as the impromptu interactions with speakers, attendees, our colleagues and the financial media. Again and again, our unplanned conversations homed in on questions about the expectations embedded in stock prices and bond yields. The future scenarios that securities prices are discounting cannot be directly observed and therefore can never be known definitively in real time. If investors do not continuously approximate them, however, they will be unable to evaluate the likelihood that actual outcomes will be better or worse than expected. Our view that markets and the economy can surprise on the upside has been built on the idea that expectations are overly gloomy. That is still our view on balance, as we think the S&P 500 is pricing in a worse near-term earnings outlook than is likely to occur, though we expect the Fed to surprise markets hawkishly before this rate hiking cycle ends. The combination of positive earnings surprises over the next few quarters and a negative monetary policy surprise coming sometime by the second half of next year leaves us optimistic about risk assets over the next six months but wary of them over the next twelve months and beyond. Earnings The analyst consensus currently estimates that S&P 500 earnings per share over the next four quarters will exceed the second quarter’s annualized run rate by just 0.3% and the trailing four quarters by 5.5% (Table 1). Modest as those expectations may be, we do not sense that investors are counting on them. Financial media reports and our discussions with clients and colleagues suggest that investors are braced for peak-to-trough earnings declines in the double digits, consistent with past recessions (Chart 1). Those bandying about estimates of a 10-20% decline are not necessarily calling for them to occur in the next four quarters, but we think it is clear that the forward S&P 500 whisper number is below the official I/B/E/S consensus. Table 1The Official Bar Is Low, The Whisper Bar Is Lower Chart 1Recessions Are Hard On Earnings For nominal earnings growth to miss such meager expectations while inflation is high, profit margins will have to contract sharply, but we would also expect declining revenues to play a major role, as in the 2001 and 2007-2009 recessions (Chart 2). That expectation follows from our view that nominal GDP growth is a solid proxy for S&P 500 sales growth (Chart 3), with nominal GDP explaining 41% of the variation in S&P 500 sales since 1997 (64% correlation). Nominal GDP grew at close to a 10% clip in the first half, and if inflation is around 6% in the second half, we would expect 8% growth over the next two quarters and about 6% growth in the first half of next year.1 Chart 2Sales Fall In Downturns, Too Chart 3As Goes GDP, So Go Corporate Revenues Despite the revenue buffer provided by 7% nominal GDP growth, we expect S&P 500 profit margins will extend their decline from the 2Q21 peak (Chart 4). Investors nearly unanimously expect that margins are imperiled, but we are more sanguine about the pace of the decline than the consensus and suspect the difference comes down to the pace of wage growth. Compensation is the largest expense category by a wide margin and has the capacity to move the aggregate margin needle on its own. Just as the US growth outlook may rest on consumption, compensation may be the key to margins’ future path. Chart 4A Slower-Than-Expected Decline Much has been made of the shortage of available workers and its impact on wages, which are rising at the fastest pace in decades (Chart 5). In real terms, however, wage growth has been deeply negative ever since frontline workers stopped receiving hazard pay early in the pandemic (Chart 6). Real wages should find a footing as inflation cools and may eventually break into positive territory, but rampant talk of a wage-price spiral suggests that the consensus is factoring in much more. We think the prospects of a wage-price spiral like the one in the late seventies are being dramatically overestimated. Chart 5The Nominal Gains Have Been Great ...​​​​​ Chart 6... But They're Way Behind Consumer Prices​​​​​ We will not revisit the rationale for our wage-price spiral view in detail, but it is founded on the notion that workers’ current advantage, even if it were to persist for the rest of the Biden administration’s term, will not be sufficient to offset four decades of employers’ structural gains. Labor surely has the upper hand from a cyclical perspective – demand for workers exceeds supply – but we do not think it can convert its near-term advantage into durable gains. Private sector union membership has dwindled from over 30% at its mid-sixties peak to less than 7% today, leaving workers badly outgunned when trying to assemble a sellers’ cartel to counter the formidable buyers’ cartel enabled by 40 years of lax anti-trust enforcement. Even the “most pro-labor president leading the most pro-labor administration you’ve ever seen” isn’t likely to be able to counter several decades of weakened state-level labor protections.2 History says that employers will take as hard a line with their employees as is socially acceptable and what is deemed kosher has moved so far in their favor since President Reagan crushed the air traffic controllers’ union early in his first term that the seventies template does not apply. Monetary Policy If the earnings mood is unduly glum, however, it would seem to be offset by what strikes us as unfounded expectations that the Fed will stand down from its inflation fight before too long. Perhaps BCA strategists are a bit too credulous, but we are inclined to take the Fed at its word that, as former Vice Chair Richard Clarida put it at the conference, “failure [to subdue inflation] is not an option.” While we side with the consensus in our expectation that inflation will soon recede to 4% of its own accord as COVID bottlenecks are cleared, we judge that monetary and fiscal policymakers overstimulated aggregate demand in their efforts to shelter the economy from the pandemic. As a result, we expect that the Fed will have to administer much harsher monetary medicine to achieve its inflation mandate than markets are currently discounting. We have two objections to the money market’s fed funds rate expectations as derived from the overnight index swap curve (Chart 7). We think the fed funds rate will peak well north of 4% in this hiking cycle and there is almost no chance that the Fed will cut rates at any point in 2023. While markets have gotten more realistic about the monetary policy path than they were after the FOMC’s July meeting, we think they are still clinging to a vain hope. All financial assets will have to be repriced once it is snuffed out, and that repricing represents a significant risk to our constructive six-month view if it occurs before underweight asset managers are forced back into risk assets to protect their funds’ relative performance. Chart 7Magical Thinking The wide range of views about the neutral, or equilibrium, rate that demarcates the line where the fed funds rate flips from accommodative to restrictive explains the terminal rate uncertainty. The neutral rate cannot be directly observed and everyone from investors to central bankers is left to infer its location from the variables that they can see. We think the neutral rate is north of 4%, possibly as high as 4.5-5%, especially given our view that inflation will likely linger at 4%. New York Fed president John Williams suggested in a Wall Street Journal interview two weeks ago that it may be in the mid-3s. “We need to get the interest rate, relative to where inflation is expected to be over the next year, into a positive space and probably even higher.” The article said Williams expects inflation to range between 2.5 and 3% next year, suggesting that the real funds rate is on course to turn positive this fall. Melting one-year inflation expectations as implied by TIPS break-evens suggest that it’s been rising in sizable chunks week after week since the FOMC’s July meeting (Chart 8). We would take the over on Thursday’s 1.71% close if only it were available on New York’s newly legalized online sports books but someone who does expect sub-2% inflation next year might logically conclude that the Fed will be cutting rates soon. Chart 8Garbage In, Garbage Out Investment Implications Our conversations at the conference and its margins left us essentially where we began. We think investors are underestimating the economy’s ability to grow at a rate that will support continued corporate earnings growth over the next four quarters, albeit at a decelerating rate. On the other hand, we think markets face a reckoning when they are forced to price in a longer and more extensive rate hiking campaign than they currently expect. We square the circle from an investment strategy perspective by conditioning our views on investor timeframes. Because we think the earnings whisper numbers will be meaningfully revised higher before monetary policy expectations are reset more hawkishly, we remain tactically bullish. If rate expectations were to reset sooner than we currently expect (sometime early next year), our tactical call would be at significant risk and we would likely become as cautious over the six-month timeframe as we are over the twelve-month timeframe. As it stands now, we continue to recommend overweighting equities in balanced portfolios over the next six months while pursuing neutral risk asset positioning over timeframes of twelve months or more.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Our nominal growth expectations assume the US economy maintains real growth at close to its 2% trend level, as consumption is supported by households’ considerable excess savings, but we do not repeat our case here. 2     The weather is fine, and the Saturday football unmatched, but it is flimsy labor protections that drew Boeing’s Dreamliner assembly work and a slew of foreign automakers to the Southeastern Conference’s legacy Deep South footprint and the other states competing for good factory jobs have taken notice.

Special Report

Executive Summary Central banks are aggressively tightening policy around the world. Their ability to rein in inflation without causing a recession depends upon the level of the real neutral rates. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden have elevated r-stars, but the picture changes drastically when their large debt loads are factored in. While real policy rates remain below r-star across DM economies for now, a more rapid decline in supply-driven inflation would correct this situation. Consequently, a global recession does not constitute our base case for the next six months, although it is a growing threat. The ECB is front-loading interest rate increases while it can, but the destination of travel is not changing significantly. Global R-Star Bottom Line: The global r-star varies greatly around the world and debt sustainability concerns weigh on the real neutral rates of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. The US economy remains best capable of handling higher interest rates.   Chart 1Rising Global Inflation Inflation around G10 economies has been very strong and much more durable than originally hoped. As a result, inflation now averages 7.1% on a headline CPI basis and 4.6% based on core CPI across among G10 economies (Chart 1). Central banks are tightening policy aggressively to prevent this elevated inflation from becoming entrenched. Essentially, they are aiming to avert the emergence of the kind of inflationary mentality that prevailed in the 1970s, which caused stubborn inflation during that decade. This exercise is fraught with difficulty. The objective is to achieve a policy setting that is slightly above the neutral rate of interest, but not too much so. On the one hand, keeping policy too accommodative will increase the chances that an inflationary mentality will emerge; on the other hand, if policy is tightened too much, a recession will become unavoidable and deflationary risks will escalate. A sense of where the neutral rate for major economies lies is therefore necessary to draw that line in the sand. To do so, we estimate the real neutral rate of interest for major DM economies using the methodology we introduced seven weeks ago, when we evaluated the neutral rates for the major Eurozone economies. This exercise shows that, at the current level of interest rates and inflation, policy among major economies remains accommodative. However, if inflation decelerates sharply in the coming months in response to declining global supply constraints and lower commodity prices, the recent increase in policy rates will have already gone a long way to normalizing monetary policy around the world. A Simple Approach The methodology we use is based on the approach developed by Holston, Laubach, and Williams (HLW)  to estimate the neutral real interest rate – or “r-star.” Specifically, we run regressions between the real interest rates in the US, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Switzerland versus trend GDP growth and current account balances, which approximate the savings-investment balance. Mimicking the HLW methodology, the inflation expectations used to extract real interest rates from nominal short rates reflect an adaptative framework whereby inflation expectations are a function of the ten-year moving average of core CPI.1  Table 1Unadjusted R-Stars The results are shown in Table 1. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have the highest real-neutral rate of the major economies. They have had stronger growth over the past 20 years because of their rapid population growth caused by high immigration rates. Moreover, their commodity-based economies and their booming construction sectors pushed up investment rates, which requires high interest rates to attract sufficient savings to finance. Sweden and the US follow. These two economies have lower population growth rates than the commodity producers; nonetheless, they outperform Japan and the other European nations in the survey on that dimension. Moreover, they fare comparatively well in terms of productivity growth, which implies that their trend growth – a key driver of the neutral rate – is also higher than that of the UK, Japan, Switzerland, or the Euro Area. The US’s r-star shows up as being slightly below what would be expected based on its potential GDP growth. This surprising outcome most likely reflects the role of the dollar in global FX reserves and its standing at the core of the global financial system. These two characteristics of the greenback create an important demand for dollar-denominated assets that is dissociated from US domestic economic fundamentals. This additional demand biases downward the US real neutral rate and suggests that weak trend growth abroad and global excess savings remain important forces for US financial markets. Chart 2Japan's Dissociated Real Rates Japan displays a surprisingly elevated real neutral rate of 0.1%. This result reflects the limitation of the approach. Japanese interest rates have been at zero since the late 1990s and real rates have been negatively correlated with inflation because of this nominal rigidity (Chart 2). However, while Japanese inflation has averaged a paltry 0.2% since 1997, it has nonetheless fluctuated with commodity prices and global economic activity. As a result, real rates have been essentially dissociated from Japanese domestic drivers. Hence, an empirical approach based on the evolution of domestic economic variables yields poor results for Japan. Instead, the lack of inflation when public debt has increased by 200% of GDP over the past 32 years and Japan’s large net international investment position imply that its r-star is inferior to that of the other countries in the sample, and thus should lie below -1%. For the Eurozone, we use the average result of our July study, which estimated the neutral rates of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain independently. Germany flatters this estimate since its real neutral rate stands near 0%. An average, excluding Germany, would be closer to -0.5%, or well below the US r-star. Meanwhile, the Swiss r-star is depressed by both a low population growth and the Swiss exceptional savings generation, as highlighted by its current account surplus that has averaged 8% of GDP over the past 20 years. Finally, the UK’s r-star stands at the bottom of the pack. The UK’s productivity growth has been very poor over the past ten years, averaging 0.7% per annum. This points to a weak potential GDP for that economy. Moreover, the hurdles to UK growth have only increased in recent years with the implementation of Brexit, which is hurting the availability of labor in the country, while putting the UK at an even greater disadvantage in European markets, its largest export destination. What About Debt? This approach to estimating r-star ignores a key dimension: debt sustainability. If we factor in this crucial variable, the level of interest rates causing economic activity to decelerate changes drastically for many countries. Chart 3Massive Real Estates Bubbles Since 2000, real estate prices have surged by 280%, 220%, 170%, and 200% in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden, respectively. These gains dwarf the house price appreciation observed in the US, the UK, Japan, or Germany (Chart 3, top panel). This outperformance of house prices is particularly problematic because it does not reflect more rapid underlying cash-flow growth from the assets. Instead, the main driver of the stronger house prices in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden has been the explosion of their price-to-rent and price-to-income ratios (Chart 3, bottom two panels). Rising real estate prices boosted economic activity relative to the underlying trend GDP of these countries. As a result, the long-term growth numbers of these four nations potentially overstate their underlying rate of growth. Even more importantly, real estate prices and activity are extremely sensitive to interest rates. Therefore, the risk of bursting bubbles in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden limits how high interest rates may rise there without causing growth to plunge and deflationary spirals to emerge. Chart 4Rapidly Rising Debt Loads The accumulation of debt in these four countries accentuates the threats to growth created by real estate activity. The private-sector debt of New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden has risen much more quickly than has been the case in Germany and the US (Chart 4). Ultimately, these debt burdens create major headwinds against higher interest rates and suggest that the effective r-star of these nations lies well below the estimates constructed using only trend growth and the savings/investment balance. Table 2Drastic Changes Once Debt Is Accounted For To account for the private-sector leverage, we estimated new debt-adjusted r-stars. The impact of high debt loads on r-star estimates is evident in Table 2. The average real neutral rate of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada drops from 1.9% to -1.9%. In fact, Australia and Canada would sport the lowest r-star estimates of the nations under study. Sweden’s neutral rate also experienced a big decline from 0.6% to 0.2%. The US r-star estimate is also lowered by the addition of debt metrics in its equation, declining from 0.2% to -0.4%. The Eurozone average r-star experiences a significant decrease as well, driven mostly by Spain and France. The Swiss economy also sports a large private debt load, and its r-star is therefore curtailed from -0.75% to -1.3%. Finally, Japan’s r-star estimate barely changes, which confirms that the approach does not work well for that country. The greatest drawback of the method is that it is backward-looking. The main force that has brought down the global r-star over the past 20 years is the collapse in trend growth among most advanced economies (Chart 5). Consequently, neutral rates could improve from their current low levels if trend growth were to pick up in the coming years. On the positive side, the current age of the capital stock in both Europe and the US is extremely advanced (Chart 6), which suggests that a capex upturn is likely. Such an upturn would boost productivity and lift the r-star among most major economies. On the negative side, the growth of human capital is deteriorating as educational attainment stalls among most DM nations. The decline in the growth rate of human capital is a large threat to productivity over the coming decades. These problems are magnified in the Eurozone, as its high degree of economic fragmentation, lack of common fiscal policy, and higher regulatory burden create further handicaps to trend growth. Chart 5R-star And Global Growth Chart 6A Capex Revival? Bottom Line: Estimating the real neutral rates for the global economy often relies on trend growth and the savings/investment balance. However, such an approach often misses the vulnerability to higher interest rates created by high private-sector indebtedness. If this constraint is considered, the high r-star recorded in countries like New Zealand, Australia, or Canada is reduced dramatically. The US r-star also declines but significantly less so. As we already showed seven weeks ago, the same phenomenon is also visible in the Eurozone, albeit driven by France and Spain, not Germany or Italy. Investment Implications There are three main conclusions from the analysis above. First, the risk of a financial accident in commodity-producing economies is growing increasingly large. On the one hand, economies like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are buoyed by the recent surge in commodity prices, with agricultural prices up 90% since their 2020 lows, metal prices up 68%, and energy prices up 340% since April 2020. On the other hand, the inflationary pressures created by robust commodity sectors invite the RBNZ, the RBA, and the BoC to lift interest rates quickly, which is hurting massively indebted private sectors. Already, in response to the 275bps and 300bps of hikes implemented by the RBNZ and the BoC, house prices in New Zealand have begun to buckle, down 12% and since their more recent peaks, and they are expected to plunge by as much as 25% in Canada by the end of next year. Chart 7NZD And CAD At A Disadvantage This suggests that non-commodity equities in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, especially financials, could experience significant periods of underperformance, both against their domestic equity benchmark and global market averages. Additionally, while the NZD, AUD, and CAD all benefit from improving terms of trades, the potential for domestic weakness is such that these currencies are likely to lag their historical sensitivity to commodity price fluctuations. In fact, according to BCA’s foreign exchange strategist, the New Zealand and Canadian dollars are among the most expensive currencies in the G10 (Chart 7), and thus, it is likely to underperform other pro-cyclical currencies once the USD bull market reverses. Second, the neutral rate in the US has risen by 200bps relative to the rest of the world over the past seven years. The US economy has undergone a long deleveraging period in the wake of the GFC, which means that its private-debt-to-GDP ratio has declined relative to other advanced economies. Consequently, the vulnerability of the US economy to higher interest rates has decreased, even if relative US trend growth has not improved meaningfully. The market implications of this pickup in the neutral rate are manifold. To begin with, it allows US rates to rise further relative to other DM economies. BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy team continues to underweight US Treasurys in global fixed-income portfolios, especially relative to German Bunds (Chart 8). As a corollary, it also means that US financials are likely to continue to outperform their foreign peers, especially Canadian and Australian ones which will bear the brunt of the negative consequences of their debt bubbles. The increase in the US r-star relative to the rest of the world has been a key contributor to the dollar rally. It helps explain why the recent dollar strength has not hurt relative profit growth (Chart 9). However, the dollar is trading at a 32% premium to its purchasing power parity, or the same overvaluation as in 1985 and 2001. Thus, with the worsening US balance of payment picture, the US dollar is vulnerable to an eventual improvement in global growth next year. Chart 8US Rate Differentials Have Upside Chart 9The US Fares Better Chart 10Easy Or Not? Finally, despite the recent increase in rates, the high level of inflation recorded around the world implies that real policy rates are still well below r-star for major global economies, whether one uses actual inflation or the smooth formulation recommended by the HLW paper (Chart 10). This suggests that a recession is unlikely, especially in the US. The recession threat is higher in Europe but has little to do with policy. It is mostly a consequence of the massive terms of trade shock caused by the sudden jump in European energy prices in the wake of the Ukrainian war. However, because policy remains accommodative even in Europe, it follows that the Eurozone economy will rebound quickly once the worst of the energy shock is over next spring. Some humility is required. It is hard to gauge how much of the inflation surge over the past 18 months reflects supply factors. If inflation suddenly becomes much weaker because the easing in supply constraints has a greater-than-anticipated impact on inflation, real interest rates would jump rapidly around the world. In this scenario, policy rates could rise quickly and overtake r-star. This would mean that the disinflation impulse could rapidly morph into an outright deflationary environment, which implies that the odds of a deflationary bust like the one experienced in 1921 is greater than the market currently prices in.  Bottom Line: The debt-fueled real estate bubbles in the dollar-bloc economies suggests that they are at a greater risk of a financial accident than the US or the Eurozone. As a result, their financial sector looks vulnerable. Meanwhile, the higher US r-star compared to that of the rest of the world will continue to support higher yields in the US rather than in Europe or Japan. This phenomenon has been hugely positive for the US dollar, but it has likely run its course. Finally, global real interest rates remain below r-star estimates. Hence, the current slowdown is likely to prove to be a mid-cycle slowdown and Europe will rebound quickly from a potential recession caused by the recent surge in its energy prices. The ECB Joins The 75bps Club Last week, the ECB increased interest rates by 75bps, which brought its deposit rate to 0.75%. Interestingly, the euro did not rally much in response to this policy decision, even though it has not been fully discounted by the market. At first glance, the lack of responsiveness from European assets seems strange, especially since the vote for a 75bps rate hike was unanimous. The ECB is taking advantage of strong economic numbers to push up rates rapidly. The Eurozone Q2 GDP growth was robust at 0.6%, while the unemployment rate hit an all-time low of 6.6%. Meanwhile, inflation continues to beat consensus forecasts, with Eurozone core CPI and headline CPI standing at 4.3% and 9.1%, respectively in August. Chart 11Big ECB Revisions The market believes that more rapid interest rate hikes now will not translate into a much higher terminal rate, with the expected rates for June 2023 moving from 2.2% on September 7th to 2.4% after last Thursday’s decision. The ECB may have increased its inflation forecasts for the whole horizon, but it has also brought down GDP forecasts to 0.9% and 1.9% in 2023 and 2024, respectively (Chart 11). Moreover, ECB President Christine Lagarde went out of her way to telegraph to investors that the number of upcoming hikes was finite. The jumbo hike does not spell the start of a euro rally—for now. First, the lack of major change in the ECB’s terminal deposit rate is more important than the more rapid pace of hikes for the remainder of 2022. Second, the Fed is also lifting rates faster than investors expected ahead of the Jackson Hole meeting three weeks ago. Third, the euro remains vulnerable to any flare-ups in the energy market. True, natural gas and electricity prices have recently fallen, but the situation in Ukraine continues to be highly fluid, which suggests that volatility will linger in the energy market over the coming weeks.   Despite the near-term hurdles, the euro’s medium-term outlook is brightening. We are gaining confidence in our thesis that energy prices will peak once natural gas inventories have reached approximately 90% by November. Additionally, the support of the Governing Council’s doves for a 75bps hike suggests that they received something in exchange for their votes. In our view, this “something” is an activation of the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) before year-end. The TPI activation will allow for a normalization of the risk premia in the Italian debt market and will support the ECB’s ability to increase interest rates further down the road, despite the much lower r-star in Italy, Spain, and France than in Germany (Table 3). Table 3The Eurozone’s Different R-Stars Will Force The TPI’s Activation Bottom Line: The ECB may have delivered a jumbo hike last week, but its market impact was muted. Investors understand full well that the ECB is taking advantage of the recent bout of robust economic activity to front-load interest rate increases ahead of a likely economic contraction in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023. As a result, the terminal rate estimates have scarcely moved. Ultimately, we expect the ECB deposit rate to settle between 1.5% and 2% in the summer of 2023. While the move may not provide much of a boost to the euro in the near term, conditions are falling into place for a euro rally later this year.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     For the US, we opted for core PCE, since it is the benchmark inflation measure the Federal Reserve uses.