Yield Curve

Special Report

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Asian Inflation Has Diverged From US Inflation has been largely subdued in emerging Asia and will remain so for now. This argues for the outperformance of emerging Asian local bonds versus their EM peers, as well as DM/US bonds.   The most important macro driver of Asian domestic bond yields is inflation. Rising inflation usually also hurts local currencies – creating a toxic cocktail for bonds’ total returns in US dollar terms. Diverging currency dynamics in emerging Asia is what will determine the relative performances of individual bond markets. Chinese, Indian, and Malaysian currencies have a better outlook than currencies in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. Book profits on the short Korean won position: this trade has generated a 5.2% gain since its initiation on March 25, 2021. Recommendation   Initiation Date Return to Date Short KRW / Long USD 2021-03-25 5.2% Bottom Line: Regional fixed income managers should overweight China, Korea, India and Malaysia, and underweight Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines within an emerging Asian bond portfolio. In an overall EM domestic bond portfolio however, Thailand and the Philippines should be accorded a neutral allocation, given their better inflation outlook compared to their peers in EMEA and Latin America. Feature US Treasury yields will likely go up further. If history is any guide, EM Asian bond yields should also rise in tandem (Chart 1). The basis is that business cycles in Asia and the US usually move together. Yet, in this cycle, inflation in emerging Asia has diverged considerably from that of the US. US core consumer price inflation has surged while in Asia, core inflation remains largely contained (Chart 2). How should bond investors position themselves in Asian domestic bond markets? Chart 1Asian Bond Yields Usually Move In Line With US Treasury Yields... Chart 2...But Diverging Inflation Means Asian Bonds Will Outperform US Bonds Chart 3Relative Domestic Bond Performances In Asian Markets In this report, we will discuss some of the common factors that drive Emerging Asian bond markets. We will also highlight each individual market’s idiosyncrasies to explain our recommended allocation across local currency bond markets in emerging Asia for the coming year.     Our recommended allocation is as follows: China, Korea, India and Malaysia merit an overweight stance in an emerging Asia domestic bond portfolio, while Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines warrant an underweight allocation (Chart 3). That said, given a much more benign inflation outlook in Asia than elsewhere in EM, we recommend that Thailand and the Philippines be accorded a neutral allocation in an overall EM domestic bond portfolio. The Two Drivers For international investors in local bonds, total returns are predicated on two main drivers: (1) the direction and magnitude of change in bond yields; and (2) currency performance. In all Asian countries, the most potent macro factor that drives local bond yields is the country’s inflation. Rising inflation is usually a harbinger of higher bond yields (and hence, worsening bond performance); and falling inflation is an indicator of lower yields (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 4Inflation Is The Most Important Macro Driver … Chart 5… Of Bond Yields In Emerging Asia What’s more, rising inflation in a country is also often associated with a depreciating currency. Currencies in countries with higher/rising inflation in general do worse than in countries with lower/falling inflation. This aspect is especially important when doing a cross-country comparison. The fact that higher inflation negatively impacts both the drivers of bond performance – it pushes up yields and weakens the currency – can indeed be seen happening in Asian financial markets. Rising inflation leads to poor performance of domestic bonds’ total return in dollar terms; and falling inflation leads to a better performance. The upshot is that the potential inflation trajectory is key to any country’s domestic bond performance in both absolute and relative terms. Inflation In Asia Is Benign Most of the Asian countries have their core and trimmed mean consumer price inflation running at or well below their central banks’ targets (Charts 6 and 7). Their inflation outlook also remains largely benign.1 As such, bond yields in these countries are unlikely to rise materially in the near future. Chart 6Inflation Is Running At Or Below … Chart 7… Central Banks’ Target in Asia Notably, even the recent surge in US yields did not spook Asian bond yields. The yield differentials between individual Asian domestic and US yields have remained flattish in the past few months. All this implies that Asian domestic bonds, in general, would likely fare better relative to the rest of the EM and the US – where inflation is high and well above their central banks’ targets. Currency Is A Key Differentiator Given inflation, and therefore the bond yield trajectories among Asian economies are unlikely to deviate significantly from one another, the key differentiator of their bond market performance (on a total return basis) will be their exchange rates. In fact, Asian currencies do vary considerably in their outlooks as their fundamentals differ.  For instance, in China and Korea, higher bond yields are usually associated with an appreciating currency (Chart 8, top and middle panels). The key driver of bond yields in these economies is the business cycle. Accelerating growth often pushes up both the currency as well as interest rates. The opposite is also true: decelerating growth usually leads to a weaker currency and falling bond yields.  The consequence is that in these countries, bond performance is tempered by two opposing forces. For example, the effect of falling yields (which is a positive for total return) is often mitigated by the effect of a falling currency (which is a negative for total return), or the other way around. In contrast to China and Korea, ASEAN countries usually experience rising bond yields accompanied by a depreciating currency (Chart 9). A crucial reason for this is significantly higher foreign ownership of their domestic bonds. In periods of stress, when foreigners exit their bond holdings, this leads to both higher yields and a falling currency. During risk-on periods, foreigners’ purchases do the opposite. Chart 8Higher Bond Yields Coincide With A Stronger Currency In China And Korea Chart 9Higher Bond Yields Coincide With A Weaker Currency In ASEAN In this context, foreign ownership of domestic bonds in ASEAN countries has fallen in the past few years, but remains non-trivial: 19% in Indonesia, 24.2% in Malaysia, 19.9% in the Philippines, and 11.3% in Thailand. Hence, the currency view on ASEAN countries is crucial to get the outlook right for their domestic bond performance. Incidentally, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have a weak currency outlook, while Malaysia’s is neutral. We discuss the individual currency outlooks in more detail in the respective country sections below. But in summary, this warrants a more positive stance on Malaysian domestic bonds compared to Indonesian, Thai and Filipino bonds. Finally, in case of India, bond yields and the rupee have little correlation (Chart 8, bottom panel). The main reasons for that are near absence of foreign investors in Indian government bond markets, and large captive domestic bond investors (its commercial banks). Yet, unlike China and Korea, India also has higher inflation and a persistent current account deficit. All these make the correlation of bond yields with the exchange rate different in India from both ASEAN as well as China and Korea. In the sections below, we discuss each country’s currency and overall bond outlook in more detail. We also explain the reasons behind our relative bond strategy. China: Overweight Chart 10Chinese Bond Yields Will Likely Fall More China’s economy will remain weak in the coming months. The hit to the economy from slowing property construction is material. Besides, COVID-induced rotational lockdowns are hurting consumption, income and investment in the service sector. The latest round of stimulus has so far not been sufficient to produce an immediate recovery. We expect growth to revive only in H2 2022. For now, the PBOC will reduce its policy rate further. This and the fact that the yield curve is positively slopped heralds more downside in Chinese government bond yields (Chart 10). Concerning the exchange rate, the ongoing US dollar rally could eventually cause a short period of yuan weakness. However, the latter will be small and short lived. In brief, Chinese domestic bonds will outperform both their Asian and EM peers in the coming months. Korea: Overweight The following factors argue for overweighting Korean bonds within both emerging Asian and EM domestic bond portfolios: Chart 11Korea Has No Genuine Inflation The Korean won has already depreciated quite a bit against the US dollar. While further downside is possible in the very near term, the medium-term outlook is positive. Even though headline and core inflation have exceeded the central bank’s target of 2%, trimmed mean consumer price inflation has not yet exceeded 2% (Chart 4, middle panel) and services CPI, excluding housing, seems to have rolled over. Importantly, no wage inflation spiral is evident. Unit labor costs have been falling in both the manufacturing and service sectors (Chart 11). Hence, there is little pressure for companies to hike prices. India: Overweight Indian bonds should continue to outperform other EM domestic bonds (Chart 3, middle panel). The combination of prudent fiscal policy, a benign inflation outlook and a cheap currency makes Indian bonds attractive to foreign investors. Even though yields will go up somewhat given a recovering economy, the rise will be capped as the inflation outlook remains benign. The reason for a soft inflation outlook is wages and expectations thereof are quite low (Chart 12). Global commodity prices will also likely soften in the months ahead. That will ease price pressures in India. The Indian rupee is cheap – it is now trading 12% below its fair value versus the US dollar (Chart 13). The rupee will likely be one of the best performers among EM currencies in the year ahead. Chart 12Low Urban And Rural Wages Will Keep A Lid on Indian Inflation Chart 13Indian Rupee Is Cheap   The spread of India’s 10-year bonds over that of GBI-EM Broad index is 190 basis points. The currency performance will likely offset any possible capital loss owing to rising yields, while a positive carry will boost total returns. Stay overweight. Indonesia: Underweight Indonesian relative bond yields versus both EM and the US have already fallen massively and at multi-year lows (Chart 14). The currently low yield differential between Indonesia and the aggregate EM local bonds as well as US Treasury yields is a negative for Indonesia’s relative performance going forward. Chart 15 shows that the rupiah is also vulnerable over the next several months as the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has fallen to its previous lows while the rupiah has not yet depreciated. We believe raw material prices will correct in the coming months, weighing on the rupiah. Hence, the country’s local bonds’ relative performance is facing a currency headwind too. Chart 14Indonesian Relative Bond Yields Are Quite Low Chart 15Indonesian Rupiah Is Vulnerable   Notably, a weaker currency by itself could cause bond yields to rise – because that may prompt foreign bond holders to exit this market. For now, investors would do well to underweight this domestic bond market in an emerging Asian or global EM portfolio. Malaysia: Overweight Chart 16Malaysian Yield Curve Is Too Steep Given The Deflationary Macro Backdrop Malaysian domestic bonds will likely fare well as the nation’s economy is still working through credit excesses of the previous decade. Domestic demand weakness has been exacerbated by a constrained fiscal policy. All of this has paved the way for a strong disinflationary backdrop.   The job market has not recovered either: the unemployment rate is hovering at a high level. That in turn has put downward pressures on wages. Average manufacturing wages are weak. Dwindling wages have contributed to depressed household incomes, leading to weak consumption and falling house prices (Chart 16). Considering the economic backdrop, Malaysia’s yield curve is far too steep (Chart 16, bottom panel). Odds are that the curve will flatten going forward – yields at the long end of the curve are likely heading lower. At a minimum, they will rise less than most other EM countries. Notably, the ringgit is quite cheap, and is unlikely to depreciate much versus the US dollar. Hence, it will outperform many other Asian/EM currencies. That calls for an overweight position in Malaysian local bonds within an Asian/EM universe.  Thailand: Underweight To Neutral Given the high correlation between Thai bond yields and the baht (rising yields coincide with a weakening currency), the total return of Thai bonds in USD terms is highly dependent on the baht’s performance. (Chart 17). The baht outlook remains weak, as the two main drivers of the currency, exports and tourism revenues, remain sluggish and absent, respectively. As such, absolute return investors in Thai domestic bonds should continue to avoid this market. Asset allocators should underweight Thai domestic bonds in an emerging Asia basket. In an overall EM domestic bond portfolio, however, Thai bonds warrant a neutral allocation. That’s because Thailand has been a defensive bond market due to its traditionally strong current account, very low inflation, and lower holding of bonds by foreigners (now at 11.3% of total). In periods of stress, the baht usually falls less than most other EM currencies; and often Thai bond yields fall more (or rise less) than overall GBI-EM yields (Chart 18, top panel). Chart 18Thai Bonds' Relative Performance Can Get Better During Periods Of Risk-Off Chart 17Thai Domestic Bonds' Absolute Performance Is Highly Contingent On The Baht   The net result is that Thai bonds outperform their overall EM brethren in common currency terms during risk-off periods. This is what happened during the EM slowdown of 2014-15, and again during the pandemic scare in early 2020 (Chart 18, bottom panel). Given we are entering a period of volatility in risk assets, it makes sense to have a neutral positioning on Thai bonds in an EM domestic bond portfolio. The Philippines: Underweight To Neutral The Philippines also merits an underweight allocation in an emerging Asian domestic bond portfolio, but a neutral stance within EM. This is because of this market’s dependence on the appetite of foreign debt investors for Philippine debt securities. This appetite depends on how much extra yield the country offers over US Treasuries. Chart 19 shows that whenever the yield differential between the Philippines’ local bonds and US Treasuries widens to 400 basis points or more, the Philippines typically witnesses net debt portfolio inflows over the following year. On the other end, when the yield differential narrows to around 300 basis points or less, foreign fixed income inflows typically stop, and often turn into outflows during the following year. This is what is happening now. Chart 19Narrow Yield Differential With US Treasuries Is Hurting Philippines' Portfolio Inflows Chart 20Philippines Peso Is At Risk As The Current Account Has Slid Back Into Deficit Going forward, rising US yields would mean that the Philippines’ bond spreads over US Treasuries will continue to stay less than 300 basis points. Consequently, reduced foreign debt inflows will weigh on the peso. Notably, the Philippines’ current account balance has also slid back to deficit, which makes the peso more vulnerable (Chart 20). On a positive note, contained inflation means little upward pressure on bond yields. Further, there might be a lower need of new bond issuances this year as a substantial amount of proceeds from past bond issuances are lying unspent with the central bank. This would help put a cap on bond yields.  Investment Conclusions Emerging Asian local bonds will outperform their counterparts in Latin America and EMEA in common currency terms for now. In the medium and long run, emerging Asian bonds will outperform US/DM bonds on a total return basis in common currency terms. We will discuss rationale for the latter in our future reports. Considering both the overarching macro backdrop as well as their individual situations, it makes sense to overweight China, Korea, India and Malaysia in an emerging Asian domestic bonds portfolio. Whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines warrant an underweight allocation. Yet, in an overall EM domestic bond portfolio, we recommend a neutral allocation for Thailand and the Philippines. The reason is they have a much better inflation outlook compared to economies in EMEA and Latin America. Chart 21Book Profit On Our Recommended Short Korean Won Trade Notably, among the Asian currencies, we have a positive bias on the Chinese yuan and the Indian rupee. On the contrary, we have been shorting the Korean won, the Thai baht, the Philippine peso and the Indonesian rupiah vis-à-vis the US dollar. That said, this week we recommend taking profits on the short Korean won position: this trade has generated a 5.2% gain since its initiation on March 25, 2021 (Chart 21). Our view on the won has played out well. While the exchange rate might continue depreciating in the near run, the risk/reward of staying short is not very attractive now. Finally, we recommend continuing to receive 10-year swap rates in China and Malaysia. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     For a detailed discussion on each country’s inflation dynamics, please click on our reports on China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines.

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Cyclical UST Curve Flattening, But With Unusually Low Rate Expectations The US Treasury curve is unusually flat given high US inflation and with the Fed not having begun to raise interest rates. The dichotomy between deeply negative real interest rates and a flattening yield curve is not only evident in the US, but in other major developed countries like Germany and the UK. A low term premium on longer-term US Treasury yields is one factor keeping the curve so flat, but the term premium will likely rise as the Fed begins to hike rates. An overly flat US Treasury curve more likely reflects a belief that the neutral real fed funds rate (r-star) is actually negative. This is consistent with markets pricing in a very low peak in the funds rate for the upcoming tightening cycle, despite the current high inflation and tight labor market. Bottom Line: The Fed will hike by less than the market expects in 2022 and longer-term Treasury yields remain too low versus even a moderate 2-2.5% peak in the fed funds rate. Stay in US curve steepeners, as the Treasury curve is already too flat and will not flatten as much as discounted in forward rates this year. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting essentially confirmed that the Fed will begin lifting rates in March and deliver multiple rate hikes this year. This was considered a hawkish surprise as the Fed signaled imminently tighter monetary policy even with the elevated financial market volatility seen so far in 2022. Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the US economy was in a stronger position compared to the 2016-18 tightening cycle, justifying a faster pace of hikes – and an accelerated pace of QE tapering – this time around. Markets have responded to the increasingly hawkish guidance of the Fed by pushing up rate expectations for 2022, continuing a path dating back to last September’s FOMC meeting when the Fed first signaled that QE tapering was imminent (Chart 1). There are now 163bps of Fed rate hikes by year-end discounted in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. Some Wall Street investment banks are calling for the Fed to hike as much as 6 or 7 times in 2022. We see this as much too aggressive. Chart 1Fed Hawkishness Pushing Up Rate Expectations For 2022/23 - But Not Beyond That Our base case scenario calls for the Fed to lift rates “only” 3-4 times this year. The persistently high inflation that is troubling the Fed is likely to peak in the first half of 2022, taking some heat off the FOMC to move as aggressively as discounted in markets this year. Although inflation will remain high enough, and the labor market tight enough, to keep the Fed on a tightening path into 2023. The US Treasury Curve Looks Too Flat What is unique about the upcoming Fed tightening cycle is that it is starting with such a flat US Treasury curve. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year yield now sits at 61bps, the lowest level since October 2020. This dynamic is not unique to the US, as yield curves are quite flat in other major countries where policy rates are near 0% and inflation remains relatively high, like the UK and Germany (Chart 2). In the US, the modest slope of the Treasury curve is notably unusual given a growth and inflation backdrop that would be more consistent with much higher bond yields: The US unemployment rate fell to 3.9% in December, well within the range of full employment estimates from FOMC members (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 2Bond Bearish Yield Curve Flattening In The US & UK US labor costs are accelerating; the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index for Private Industry Workers rose to a 38-year high of 5.0% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2021 (middle panel) Chart 3Challenges To The Fed's Inflation Fighting Credibility​​​​​​ Higher inflation is becoming more embedded in medium term consumer inflation expectations measures like the University of Michigan 5-10 year ahead series that climbed to 3.1% last month (bottom panel). Importantly, market-based measures of inflation expectations have pulled back, even with little sign of inflation pressures easing. The 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward has fallen 35bps from the October 2021 peak of 2.41%. The bulk of that decline occurred in January of this year, alongside a rising trend in real TIPS yields as markets began pricing in a faster pace of Fed rate hikes. TIPS breakevens can often be something of a “vote of confidence” by the markets in the appropriateness of the Fed’s policy stance; rising when policy appears overly stimulative and vice versa. Thus, the decline in the TIPS 5-year/5-year forward breakeven, which climbed steadily higher since the Fed introduced massive monetary easing in March 2020 in response to the pandemic, can be interpreted as a sign that markets agree with the Fed’s recent hawkish turn. However, while the move in TIPS breakevens is sensible, the flatness of the Treasury curve appears unusual. In Chart 4, where we look at the previous times since 1975 that the 2-year/10-year US Treasury spread flattened to 70bps (just above the current level). In past cycles, the Treasury curve would be flattening into such a level after the Fed had already hiked rates a few times, which is obviously not the case today. Also, US unemployment was typically approaching, or falling through, the full employment NAIRU when the 2/10 Treasury curve fell to 70bps, suggesting diminished spare economic capacity and rising inflation pressures – similar to the current backdrop. Chart 4The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Chart 5UST Curve Too Flat Relative To Inflation Pressures In those past cycles, the funds rate was rising at a faster pace than that of core inflation, suggesting that the Fed was pushing up real interest rates. The backdrop looks very different today, with US realized inflation soaring and the real funds rate now deeply negative. In the top panel of Chart 5, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” chart of the 2/10 Treasury curve versus an average of the previous five instances where the curve flattened to 70bps. The green line is the median outcome of all the cycles, while the shaded region represents the range of all the outcomes. In the other panels of the chart, we show US economic variables (the Conference Board leading economic index and the ISM Manufacturing index) and US inflation variables (the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index and the US Congressional Budget Office estimate of the US output gap). The panels are all lined up so that the vertical line in the middle of the chart represents the date that the 2/10 curve falls to 70bps. The conclusion from Chart 5 is that the US economic variables shown are currently at the high end of the range of past curve flattening episodes, but the inflation variables are well above the high end of the historical range. In other words, the current modest slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is in line with US growth momentum but is too flat relative to US inflation trends. So Why Isn’t The US Treasury Curve Steeper? There are a few possible reasons why the US curve is as flat as it is before the Fed has even begun tightening amid above-trend US growth and very high US inflation: Fears of a deeper financial market selloff The Fed believes strongly in the role of financial conditions in transmitting its monetary policy into the US economy. That often means that, during tightening cycles, the Fed hikes rates “until something breaks” in the financial markets, like a major equity market downturn or a big widening in corporate credit spreads. Such moves act as a brake on US growth through negative wealth effects for investors and by raising the cost of capital for businesses – reducing the need for additional Fed tightening. If bond investors thought that a major market selloff was likely before the Fed could successfully lift rates back to neutral (or even restrictive) levels during a tightening cycle, then they would discount a lower peak level of the funds rate. This would also lower the expected peak level of longer-term Treasury yields, resulting in a flatter Treasury yield curve. Given the current elevated valuations on so many asset classes – like equities, corporate credit and housing – it is likely that the relatively flat Treasury curve incorporates some believe that the Fed will have difficulty delivering a lot of rate hikes in this cycle. However, it should be noted that the US financial conditions remain quite accommodative, even after the recent equity market turbulence (Chart 6), and represent no impediment to US growth that reduces how much tightening the Fed will need to do. Longer-term bond term premia are too low A relatively flat yield curve could reflect a lack of a term premium on longer-maturity bonds. That is certainly the case when looking at the slope of the 2/10 government yield curve in the US, as well as in the UK and Germany (Chart 7).1 Chart 6US Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To US Growth​​​​​​ Chart 7Flatter Yield Curves? Or Just Lower Bond Term Premia?​​​​​ The term premium is the defined as the extra yield that investors require to commit to own a longer-maturity bond instead of the compounded yield from a series of shorter-maturity bonds. The latter can also be expressed as the “expected path of short-term interest rates”, which is often proxied by an average expected path of the monetary policy rate over the life of the longer-maturity bond. So the term premium on a 10-year US Treasury yield is the difference between the actual 10-year Treasury yield and the expected (or average) path of the fed funds rate over the next ten years. The term premium can also be thought of as a risk premium to holding longer-term bonds. On that basis, the term premium should correlate to measures of bond risk, like bond price volatility or inflation volatility. That is definitely true in the US, where the 10-year Treasury term premium shows a strong correlation to the MOVE index of Treasury market option-implied volatility or a longer-term standard deviation of headline CPI inflation (Chart 8). Estimated term premia can also rise during periods of slowing economic growth momentum, but that is typically due to a rapid decline in the expected path of interest rates rather than a rise in bond risk premia (in this case, this is probably more accurately described as a rise in bond uncertainty). Currently, a low term premium on US Treasury yields is justified by the relatively low level of bond volatility and solid US growth momentum. However, the term premium looks far too low compared to the more volatile US inflation seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the Fed set to respond to that higher inflation with rate hikes, rising real interest rate expectations could also give a lift to the Treasury term premium. Our favorite proxy for the market expectation of the peak/terminal real short-term interest rate for the major developed market economies is the 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate minus the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate. That “real” 5-year/5-year forward rate measure is typically well correlated to our estimates of the 10-year term premium in the US, Germany and the UK (Chart 9). This correlation likely reflects the level of certainty bond investors have over the likely future path of real interest rates. When there is more uncertainty about how high rates will eventually go to in a tightening cycle, a higher term premium is required. The opposite is true during periods of very low and stable interest rates. Chart 8Drivers Of US Term Premia Pointing Upward​​​​​​ Chart 9Bond Term Premia Positively Correlated To Real Rate Expectations​​​​​​ Chart 10Global Yield Curves Are Too Flat Versus Real Policy Rates Currently, the estimated 10-year US term premium is increasing alongside a rising market-implied path for the real fed funds rate. We anticipate these trends will continue as the Fed lift rates over the next couple of years, boosting longer-term Treasury yields and potentially putting some steepening pressure on the US Treasury curve (or at least limiting the degree of flattening as the Fed tightens). Markets believe that the neutral real rate (r*) is negative Historically, yield curve slopes for government bonds were well correlated to the level of real interest rates, measured as the central bank policy rate minus headline inflation. That relationship has broken down in the US, with the Treasury curve flattening in the face of soaring US inflation and an unchanged fed funds rate (Chart 10). Similar dynamics can also be seen in the German and UK yield curves. The most plausible reason for such a dramatic shift in the relationship between curve slopes and real policy rates is that bond investors now believe that the neutral real interest rate, a.k.a. “r-star”, is negative … and perhaps deeply so. The New York Fed has produced estimates of the US r-star dating back to the 1960s. The gap between the real fed funds rate and that r-star estimate has typically been fairly well correlated to the slope of the Treasury curve (Chart 11). When the real fed funds rate is below r-star, indicating that the policy is accommodative, the Treasury curve is usually steepening, and vice versa. Under this framework, the recent flattening trend of the Treasury curve would indicate that policy is actually getting tighter, despite the falling, and deeply negative, real fed funds rate of -5.4% (deflated by core inflation). Chart 11UST Curve Slope Is Positively Correlated To The 'Real Policy Gap' The last known estimate of r-star from the New York Fed was 0%, but no update has been provided for almost two years. Blame the pandemic for that. The sharp lockdown-fueled collapse in US GDP growth in 2020, and the rapid recovery in growth as the economy reopened, made it impossible to estimate the the “neutral” level of real interest rates given such massive swings in demand that were not related to monetary policy. One way to try and “back out” the implicit pricing of r-star currently embedded in US Treasury yields is to estimate a model linking the gap between the real fed funds rate and r-star to the slope of the Treasury curve. We did just that, with the results presented in Chart 12. This model estimates the “Real Policy Gap”, or r-star minus the real fed funds rate, as a function of the 2/10 Treasury curve slope. In other words, the model shows the Real Policy Gap that is consistent with the current slope of the curve. Chart 12Current UST Yield Curve Makes Slope Sense ... If The Fed Followed The Taylor Rule With 7% Inflation The model estimates that the current 2/10 curve slope is consistent with a Real Policy Gap of 96bps. With US core CPI inflation currently at 5%, and assuming r-star is still 0% as per the last New York Fed estimate, the fed funds rate would have to rise to 4% to justify the current slope of the 2/10 curve. While that may sound like an implausibly large increase in the funds rate, similar results are produced using straightforward Taylor Rules.2 We can also use our Real Policy Gap model to infer the level of inflation that is consistent with a Gap of 96bps, for various combinations of the funds rate and r-star. Those are shown in Table 1. Assuming the funds rate rises in line with current market expectations to 1.7% and r-star remains close to 0%, the current slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve suggests a fall in US inflation to just around 3% - still above the Fed’s inflation target - from the current 5%. Table 1The UST Curve Slope Has Already Discounted A Big Drop In US Inflation We see this as the most plausible reason for the relatively flat level of the 2/10 US Treasury curve. Markets expect somewhat lower US inflation and a moderate rise in the funds rate over the next couple of years, making the real funds rate less negative but not pushing it above a negative r-star expectation. This would suggest upside risk for US Treasury yields, and potential bearish steepening pressure, as markets come to realize that the neutral real fed funds rate is actually positive, not negative. Fight The Forwards, Stay In US Treasury Curve Steepeners While it may sound counter-intuitive with the Fed set to begin a rate hiking cycle, we continue to see better value in tactically positioning in US Treasury curve steepening trades. Specifically, we are keeping our recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay on page 19, where we are long a 2-year Treasury bullet versus a duration-neutral barbell of cash (a 3-month US Treasury bill) and a 10-year Treasury bond. The trade is currently underwater, but we see good reasons to expect the performance to rebound over the next few months. The front end of the curve now discounts more hikes than we expect will unfold in 2022, which should limit further increases in the 2-year Treasury yield. At the same time, the 10-year yield looks too low relative to the expected cyclical peak for the fed funds rate (Chart 13). One way we can assess this is by comparing 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rates to survey estimates of the longer run, or terminal, fed funds rate. The median FOMC forecast (or “dot”) for the terminal funds rate is 2.5%, the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 2%. This sets a range of estimates of the longer-run terminal rate of 2-2.5%, in line with the current expectations of the BCA Research bond services. The current 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rate is 2.0%, at the low end of that range. We see those forwards rising to the upper part of that 2-2.5% range by the end of 2022, which will push the 10-year Treasury yield toward our year-end target of 2.25%. Chart 13The 5-Year/5-Year UST Forward Rate Is Too Low​​​​​​ Chart 14Stay In UST Curve Steepeners, Even With Fed Liftoff Imminent​​​​​​ Some of our colleagues within the BCA family see the longer-term neutral funds rate as considerably higher than survey estimates, perhaps as high as 3-4%. We are sympathetic to that view, but it will take signs of US economic resiliency in the face of rate hikes before bond investors – and more importantly, the Fed – arrive at that conclusion. This would make steepening trades more attractive on a strategic, or medium-term, basis as the market realizes that the Fed is further behind the policy curve (i.e. the funds rate even further below a higher terminal rate) than previously envisioned. For now, we do not see the US Treasury curve flattening at the pace discounted in the Treasury forward curve over the next 3-6 months (Chart 14, top panel). However, this will be more of a carry trade by betting against the forwards over time. A bearish steepening of the Treasury curve with a swift upward move in the 10-year Treasury yield is less likely with bond investor/trader positioning already quite short (bottom two panels).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1      The term premium estimates shown here are derived from our own in-house framework. For those familiar with the various term premium estimates on the 10-year US Treasury yield produced by the Fed, our estimates are currently in line with those produced by the ACM model and the Kim & Wright model. 2     A fun US Taylor Rule calculator, which can be used to generate Taylor Rules under a variety of assumptions, is available on the Atlanta Fed’s website here. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary At last week’s press conference, Fed Chair Jay Powell signaled that rate hikes will begin next month. He also implied that the pace of hiking will be faster than the 25 bps per quarter seen during the 2015-18 tightening cycle. The market re-priced on the back of Powell’s comments and the overnight index swap curve is now discounting close to five rate hikes for 2022 (see Chart). Risk assets also sold off on the news and market-derived inflation expectations fell. Our sense is that tightening financial conditions and falling inflation expectations will limit the near-term pace of Fed tightening. We expect the Fed to deliver only three or four rate hikes this year. We also see a higher endpoint for tightening than the market, as we expect the fed funds rate to break above 2% before the end of the cycle. The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year Bottom Line: We expect a slower initial pace of rate hikes than the market, culminating in a higher endpoint for the fed funds rate. This suggests that investors should keep portfolio duration below benchmark and hold Treasury curve steepeners. Yet Another Hawkish Surprise Chart 1A Hawkish Market Reaction Fed Chair Jay Powell managed to surprise markets yet again last week by signaling that rate hikes are imminent and by suggesting that they will occur at a quicker pace than was previously thought. The financial market response was the textbook reaction to a hawkish Fed surprise: Risky assets sold off, short-maturity Treasury yields surged, and the yield curve flattened (Chart 1). What exactly did the Fed say to cause such a market move? Here is a summary of our most important takeaways from last week’s meeting. First, the Fed signaled that the first rate hike will occur at the next FOMC meeting in March. The post-meeting statement added a sentence saying that “it will soon be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate.” Then, Powell said in his press conference that he believes “the Committee is of a mind to raise the federal funds rate at the March meeting.”1 Powell also repeatedly noted that the economy is in a very different place than it was during the last Fed tightening cycle, which spanned from 2015 to 2018. Specifically, he said that the labor market is far stronger and inflation is much higher. He added that “these differences are likely to have important implications for the appropriate pace of policy adjustments.” Given that the Fed tightened at a pace of 25 bps per quarter during the 2015-18 cycle, Powell’s comments seem to suggest that the Fed will lift rates at a faster-than-quarterly pace this time around.2 That would mean at least five rate hikes this year, significantly more than the median FOMC projection of three rate hikes that was published in December (Chart 2). The front-end of the overnight index swap (OIS) curve shifted up following the meeting, and it is now consistent with 122 bps of tightening in 2022, a little less than five rate hikes. Notably, Chart 2 shows that the OIS curve still expects the funds rate to level-off at 1.75% starting in 2024. Chart 2The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year Finally, the Fed provided some details on its plans for reducing the size of its balance sheet.3 The plan follows the same roadmap as the last round of balance sheet runoff. The Fed will start running down its balance sheet sometime after rate hikes begin and it will shrink its balance sheet at a “predictable” pace via the passive runoff of securities. In other words, outright asset sales are highly unlikely. Importantly, Powell repeatedly stressed that he wants balance sheet runoff to occur “in the background”. That is, the Fed will respond to swings in the economic outlook with its interest rate policy and will simply let the balance sheet shrink at a steady pre-announced pace. In line with what we published two weeks ago, we expect balance sheet runoff to commence in May or June and to proceed at a faster pace than last time.4 Constraints On The Pace Of Hiking While Jay Powell’s comments undoubtedly suggest that the Fed intends to deliver between five and seven 25 basis point rate hikes this year, we think it’s more likely that we’ll see three or four. The reason is that the near-term pace of tightening will be constrained by two vital monetary policy inputs: financial conditions and inflation expectations. Financial Conditions This publication has often illustrated the relationship between monetary policy and financial conditions with our Fed Policy Loop (Chart 3). The Loop shows that hawkish monetary policy pivots tend to be followed by periods of tightening financial conditions, i.e. a stronger dollar, flatter yield curve, wider credit spreads and falling equity prices. Indeed, this is exactly the market reaction we’ve witnessed during the past week. The Loop also illustrates that tighter financial conditions then feed back into the market’s pricing of the near-term pace of tightening. It is as if financial markets are a regulator on the near-term pace of hikes. Financial conditions tighten when the expected near-term pace of hiking is too fast. This causes the expected pace to fall, which in turn leads to a renewed easing of financial conditions and then to another hawkish response from the Fed. The top panel of Chart 4 shows that the S&P 500 was performing well even when the market was priced for 75 bps of hiking during the next 12 months. But equities sold off as the bond market moved to price-in 100 bps and then 125 bps of near-term hiking. A similar pattern is observed in excess corporate bond returns (Chart 4, bottom panel). The pattern in Chart 4 suggests that the market is not comfortable with the pace of hiking that is currently priced into the yield curve. This could change, but if the risky asset selloff continues it will eventually lead to a decline in near-term rate hike expectations. Chart 3The Fed Policy Loop Chart 4Five Hikes Too Many Inflation Expectations Some may dispute the idea that the near-term pace of rate hikes will slow in response to a selloff in equity and credit markets. Why would the Fed care about the stock market when inflation is the highest it’s been in decades? It’s of course true that higher inflation means that the Fed will be less responsive to swings in financial conditions, though a large enough tightening would certainly get the committee’s attention. We also contend, however, that the inflation picture will look a lot different by the middle of this year. Against a backdrop of lower inflation and inflation expectations, the Fed will have more incentive to slow the pace of hiking in response to tighter financial conditions. On this point, let’s first look at inflation expectations (Chart 5). Short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain elevated, but they stopped rising once the Fed started its hawkish pivot. Further out the curve, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dipped in recent weeks and that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate – the most important indicator of long-term inflation expectations – is now below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target. Household inflation expectations are high and rising (Chart 5, bottom panel) but, much like short-maturity TIPS breakevens, they are highly sensitive to the realized inflation data. They will come down as inflation moderates in the second half of the year. We remain confident that inflation will come down in 2022, though it will probably stay above the Fed’s 2% target. First, core inflation tends to move toward trimmed mean inflation over time. With 12-month core PCE inflation at 4.85% and 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation at 3.05%, there is significant room for the core rate to fall (Chart 6). The divergence between core and trimmed mean inflation is attributable to the extremely high inflation rates we’re seeing in the core goods sector (Chart 6, panel 2). The pandemic forced consumers to shift consumption from services to goods, and the quick transition from the delta wave to the omicron wave has meant that a re-balancing back to services has not yet occurred. With the omicron wave peaking, it is likely that the re-balancing will take place this year. In fact, we already see some preliminary signs of peaking goods inflation from the ISM Manufacturing Survey’s Prices Paid component (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Is Inflation Finally Close To Peaking? Chart 5Inflation Expectations In our view, the case for persistently high inflation depends on services inflation accelerating to offset falling goods prices. To that point, we note that service sector inflation is tightly linked to wage growth. While wage growth remains strong, the Employment Cost Index did moderate its pace in 2021 Q4 compared to Q3 (Chart 7).5 Further wage deceleration is also possible this year if fading pandemic concerns spur more people to re-join the labor force. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.75 million workers – many of them in relatively low-paid service jobs – were not working in the second week of January due to pandemic-related reasons (Chart 8). This is a huge potential supply of labor that could come online this year, taking some of the sting out of wage growth.   Chart 8Omicron Weighs On Labor Supply Chart 7Is Wage Growth Close To Peaking?   All in all, the recent shift in market expectations from three-to-four 2022 rate hikes to five 2022 rate hikes has only served to tighten financial conditions and push down inflation expectations. In our view, this makes it less likely that the Fed will actually be able to deliver five or more rate hikes this year. Falling inflation in the back half of the year will give the Fed even less urgency. We expect to see only three or four Fed rate hikes this year. Investment Implications Chart 9Keep Duration Low And Own Steepeners As explained above, our view is that the Fed will lift rates three or four times this year, less than the five rate hikes that are currently discounted in the market. It’s also worth noting that we think the endpoint of the tightening cycle will occur at a higher funds rate than is currently discounted in the market. Chart 2 shows that the market is priced for the funds rate to level-off at 1.75% starting in 2024. Our sense is that interest rates will be above 2% when the cycle ends. Survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate agree with our assessment. The median respondent from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants thinks that interest rates will average 2% in the long run. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers thinks the long-run neutral rate is 2.25% and the median FOMC participant estimates a rate of 2.5% (Chart 9). A slower initial pace of rate hikes that lasts longer than markets expect and has a higher endpoint leads to two actionable investment ideas. First, we advocate keeping portfolio duration below benchmark. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is currently 1.96%, below the range of survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 9). History suggests that the 5-year/5-year yield will settle into the middle of the range of survey estimates as Fed tightening gets underway. The second investment conclusion is that investors should favor Treasury curve steepeners. Specifically, we advocate buying the 2-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. While the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened dramatically in recent weeks, we see this flattening taking a pause during the next few months (Chart 9, bottom panel). The pause will be driven by the market pricing-in a slower near-term pace of tightening at the front-end of the curve and a higher terminal fed funds rate at the long end. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Link for both the post-meeting statement and press conference transcript: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm 2  The Fed generally tightened at a pace of 25 bps per quarter during the 2015-18 cycle. However, it skipped one meeting in 2017 to announce balance sheet reduction plans and it kept rates unchanged between December 2015 and December 2016 in response to a weaker-than-expected economy.  3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20220126c.htm 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market”, dated January 18, 2022. 5 Please see Daily Insights, “US ECI Elevated, Softens On A Sequential Basis”, dated January 31, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights In the short term, the US stock market price will track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond price by 2.5 percent. We think that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. In the next few years, the structural bull market will continue, ending only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. But on a 5-year horizon, the blockchain will be the undoing of the US stock market – by undermining the vast profits that the US tech behemoths make from owning, controlling, and manipulating our data and the digital content that we create. In that sense, the blockchain will ultimately reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal trading watchlist: We add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Feature Chart of the WeekIf The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? Why has the stock market started 2022 on such a poor footing? Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 identify the main culprit. Through the past year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price on a one-for-one basis, while the broader S&P 500 shows a connection that is almost as good. Chart I-2The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... Chart I-3…The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price Therefore, as the 30-year T-bond price has taken a tumble, so have growth-heavy stock markets. Put simply, the ‘bond component’ of these stock markets has been dominating recent performance, overwhelming the ‘profits component’ which tends to move more glacially. It follows that the short-term direction of the stock market has been set – and will continue to be set – by the direction of the 30-year T-bond price. Stocks And Bonds Are Nearing A ‘Pinch Point’ The next few paragraphs are necessarily technical, but worth absorbing – as they are fundamental to understanding the stock market’s recent sell-off, as well as its future evolution. The duration of any investment quantifies how far into the future its cashflows lie, by averaging those cashflows into one theoretical future ‘lump sum’. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in the bond price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Crucially, the duration of the US stock market is the same as that of the 30-year T-bond, at around 25 years. Therefore, if all else were equal, the US stock market price should track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond prices by 2.5 percent. In the long run of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond generates a fixed income stream, whereas the stock market generates income that tracks profits. Allowing for this difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (profits expected in the year ahead) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant expresses the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead as a multiple of the profits in the year ahead – and thereby quantifies the expected structural growth in profits. We can ignore this constant if the structural growth in profits does not change. Nevertheless, remember this constant, as we will come back to it later when we discuss a putative ‘super bubble’. The ‘bond component’ of the stock market has been dominating recent performance. This model for the stock market seems simplistic. Yet it provides an excellent explanation for the market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart I-4), as well as through the past year in which, to repeat, the bond component has been the dominant driver. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits In the short term then, given the 25 year duration of the US stock market, every 10 bps rise in the 30-year T-bond yield will drag down the stock market by 2.5 percent. We can also deduce that the sell-off will be self-limiting and self-correcting, because at some ‘pinch point’ the bond market will assess that the deflationary impulse from financial instability will snuff out the recent inflationary impulse in the economy. Where is that pinch point? Our sense is that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) As is typical, the recent market setback has unleashed narratives of an almighty bubble starting to pop. Stealing the headlines is value investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO, who claims that “today in the US we are in the fourth super bubble of the last hundred years.” Is there any merit to Mr. Grantham’s claim? An investment is in a bubble if its price has completely broken free from its fundamentals. For example, in the dot com boom, the stock market did become a super bubble. But as we have just shown, the US stock market today is not that far removed from its fundamental components of the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. At first glance then, Mr. Grantham appears to be wrong (Chart of the Week). Still, if the underlying components – the 30-year T-bond and/or profits – were in a bubble, then the stock market would also be in a bubble. In this regard, isn’t the deeply negative real yield on long-dated bonds a sure sign of a bubble? The answer is, not necessarily. As we explained last week in Time To Get Real About Real Interest Rates, the deeply negative real yield on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) is premised on an expected rate of inflation that we should take with a huge dose of salt. Putting in a more realistic forward inflation rate, the real yield on long-dated bonds is positive, albeit just. What about profits – are they in a bubble? The US (and world) profit margin stands at an all-time high, around 20 percent greater than its post-GFC average (Chart I-5). But a 20 percent excess is not quite what we mean by a bubble. Chart I-5Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High There is one final way that Mr. Grantham could be right, and for this we must come back to the previously mentioned constant which quantifies the expected long-term growth in profits. If this expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. This is precisely what happened to the non-US stock market after the dot com bust, when the expected structural growth – and therefore the structural valuation – phase-shifted sharply lower (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). As a result, the non-US stock market also phase-shifted sharply lower from the previous relationship with its fundamentals (Chart I-8). Could the same ultimately happen to the US stock market? Chart I-6The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... Chart I-7...Could The Same Happen To ##br##US Stocks? Chart I-8Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals The answer is yes – and the main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. If the blockchain returned that ownership and control back to us, it would devastate the profits of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths that dominate the US stock market. If the expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. That said, the blockchain is a long-term risk to the stock market, likely to manifest itself on a 5-year horizon. Before we get there, in the next deflationary shock, the 30-year T-bond yield has the scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent increase in the ‘bond component’ of the US stock market. To conclude, the structural bull market will end only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. And then, the blockchain will reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Of note, the near 30 percent underperformance of Korea through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled previous major reversals in 2015, 2017 and 2019 (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long Korea versus the world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.  Chart I-9Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM CAD/SEK Could Reverse Bitcoin Near A First Support Level Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Corporate Bond Returns & Fed Tightening: Corporate bond performance varied considerably during the past four Fed tightening cycles. Our analysis of these periods suggests that valuations and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to monitor. Investment Grade Strategy: Given tight valuations, our analysis of past Fed tightening cycles suggests that it will make sense to downgrade our allocation to investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) once we are confident that the yield curve has shifted into a flatter regime. High-Yield Strategy: De-risking will also be warranted in the high-yield space as the yield curve flattens, but relative valuations dictate that investors should retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade corporates. Feature It is now apparent that the Federal Reserve intends to kick off the next rate hike cycle at the March FOMC meeting. This move has been strongly hinted at in recent Fed speeches and it will be telegraphed more officially when Jay Powell addresses the media tomorrow. In preparation for upcoming rate increases, last week’s report looked at Treasury returns during prior periods of Fed tightening.1 This week, we extend that analysis to the corporate bond market. Specifically, we consider the excess returns that were earned by both investment grade and high-yield corporates during the four most recent rate hike cycles.2 We conclude that a defensive posture toward credit risk will be warranted as Fed tightening gets underway. While we aren’t quite ready to downgrade our recommended allocation to corporate bonds today, we expect to do so within the next couple of months. Corporate Bond Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 presents excess returns for both the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index and the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Corporate Bond Index in each of the past four Fed tightening cycles. As was the case last week, we define each tightening cycle as spanning from the first rate hike until the last rate hike. We also exclude periods such as 1997 when the Fed only lifted rates once before reversing course. Table 1Corporate Bond Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles Our first preliminary conclusion is that (unlike with Treasury returns) there is not much commonality between the different cycles. For example, corporate excess returns were quite strong during the 2015-18 cycle and very weak during the 1999-2000 cycle. In other words, it’s even more important to examine each cycle individually to get a sense of how we should position in the corporate bond market today. The 2015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target rate by 225 bps. Investment grade corporate bond returns were quite strong during this period (Chart 1A), and there is one major reason why. The start of the tightening cycle happened to coincide with the peak of a default cycle. As a result, corporate spreads were elevated when hiking began and they tightened rapidly throughout 2016 and 2017 (Chart 1A, panel 3). Spread tightening in 2016 and 2017 was helped along by an accommodative policy environment, as evidenced by the fact that the yield curve remained steep (3/10 slope > 50 bps) during those years (Chart 1A, panel 4). It’s notable that returns turned negative in 2018, only after the average index spread moved below 100 bps and the Treasury slope moved below 50 bps. In other words, corporate bond returns were strong early in the cycle but turned negative once value evaporated and the monetary backdrop became less accommodative. High-Yield returns show a similar pattern to investment grade (Chart 1B). Spreads started out very wide in early-2016 and tightened rapidly until monetary conditions turned more restrictive in 2018. Our Default-Adjusted Spread is an additional valuation tool for high-yield bonds (Chart 1B, panel 4). This is calculated as the average index spread less the actual default losses that were experienced during the subsequent 12 months. Our research has shown that high-yield bonds usually outperform Treasuries during 12 month periods in which the Default-Adjusted Spread is above 100 bps (see the Appendix of this report for more details). In this case, the Default-Adjusted Spread was an extremely high 258 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle and it didn’t dip below 100 bps until after rate hikes ended. Chart 1A2015-2018 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 1B2015-2018 Cycle: High-Yield   The 2004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were close to zero during this cycle (Chart 2A). Unlike in 2015, corporate spreads started out at tight levels (below 100 bps), though the accommodative monetary environment – as evidenced by the steep yield curve – allowed them to tighten somewhat during the first year of Fed hiking. However, spreads then reverted closer to 100 bps in 2005 as the yield curve flattened to below 50 bps (Chart 2A, panel 4) and the policy backdrop turned more restrictive. Junk bonds performed extremely well during the 2004-06 cycle (Chart 2B), and once again this is due to very attractive starting valuations. The average High-Yield Index spread was 384 bps on the day of the first hike in 2004, compensation that turned out to be astoundingly high when you consider that monthly default events were in the low single digits throughout the entire period (Chart 2B, bottom panel). As was the case in the 2015-18 cycle, our Default-Adjusted Spread measure never dipped below 100 bps. In fact, it troughed at 145 bps in early 2005 (Chart 2B, panel 4). Chart 2A2004-2006 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 2B2004-2006 Cycle: High-Yield The 1999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5%. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were poor during this period (Chart 3A), the combination of relatively low starting spreads and a very flat yield curve that even inverted in early 2000 (Chart 3A, panels 3 & 4). High-yield excess returns were even worse than for investment grade (Chart 3B). While, at the onset of Fed tightening, junk spreads were quite elevated in absolute terms (Chart 3B, panel 3), they turned out to be too low compared to the magnitude of default losses that occurred throughout 1999 and 2000 (Chart 3B, bottom panel). Our Default-Adjusted Spread measure started the cycle below 100 bps and then dipped into negative territory in early 2000 (Chart 3B, panel 4). Chart 3A1999-2000 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 3B1999-2000 Cycle: High-Yield The 1994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995. This cycle coincided with modestly positive excess returns for investment grade corporates (Chart 4A). The average index spread began the cycle at the extraordinarily tight level of 67 bps (Chart 4A, panel 3). However, unappealing valuations were counteracted by the accommodative monetary environment, as evidenced by a yield curve slope that didn’t dip below 50 bps until the Fed was almost done hiking (Chart 4A, panel 4).    Junk returns were also modestly positive during this period (Chart 4B). Spreads started the cycle at attractive levels (Chart 4B, panel 3) and the default rate was on the downswing (Chart 4B, bottom panel). Junk spreads, however, were mostly rangebound during the period of Fed tightening. Chart 4A1994-1995 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 4B1994-1995 Cycle: High-Yield Investment Implications Investment Grade Our analysis of past cycles reveals that valuation and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to consider when assessing the potential for investment grade corporate bond excess returns during a Fed tightening cycle. The 2015-18 period of strong investment grade returns coincided with elevated spreads and a yield curve slope that stayed above 50 bps for the first two years of tightening. In contrast, the 1999-2000 period of negative corporate returns was driven by expensive starting valuations and a very flat curve. Today, investment grade corporate bond valuations are about as expensive as they’ve ever been. The average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) is currently 100 bps, the index OAS has been tighter than this level 40% of the time since 1995 (Chart 5). This does not appear terrible at first blush, but we must also consider that the risk characteristics of the index have changed during the past few decades. Specifically, the index’s average credit rating is lower, and its average duration is higher. If we adjust the index to maintain a constant credit rating through time, we see that the spread falls from its 40th percentile to its 28th percentile (Chart 5, panel 2). If we then adjust for the changing duration of the index by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread instead of the OAS, we see the spread fall to its 7th percentile since 1995 (Chart 5, bottom panel).3 As for the yield curve, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently very close to 50 bps – the threshold that roughly represents the transition from an accommodative monetary environment to a more neutral one (Chart 6). Given expensive starting valuations, our inclination is to reduce our investment grade corporate bond exposure once we are confident that the 3/10 slope will remain below 50 bps for the remainder of the cycle. We think we are close to reaching that point, but we aren’t quite there yet. Our estimates based on a range of plausible scenarios for Fed tightening suggest that the 3/10 slope will permanently move below 50 bps in the coming months, by July at the very latest. When that occurs, we will reduce our recommended corporate bond exposure from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Chart 6Watch The Treasury Slope Chart 5IG Valuation High-Yield The valuation picture for high-yield is somewhat more pleasant than for investment grade. The OAS differential between the high-yield and investment grade indexes is fairly tight, at its 15th percentile since 1995 (Chart 7). However, this differential rises to the 36th percentile when we adjust for the duration differences of the indexes by using the 12-month breakeven spread. Chart 7HY Valuation Applying our Default-Adjusted Spread methodology to today’s junk market, we estimate that the Default-Adjusted Spread will come in above the crucial 100 bps threshold as long as the default rate is 3.5% or lower during the next 12 months (Chart 7, bottom panel). This seems quite likely given the current strong state of corporate balance sheets.4 All that said, the evidence from past cycles suggests that a more defensive posture toward high-yield corporates will also be warranted once we are confident that the 3/10 slope has permanently moved below 50 bps. However, relative valuation dictates that we should still retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade even as we get more defensive overall. Our next move will likely be to downgrade high-yield from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Some Thoughts On Credit Investment Strategy The above analysis of corporate bond performance shows that it is generally weaker once the yield curve has flattened into a range of 0 – 50 bps. However, that move alone doesn’t guarantee negative excess corporate bond returns. In fact, it is quite plausible that the slope could remain within a 0 – 50 bps range for a long time even as the Fed tightens, and that corporate bonds could still deliver small positive excess returns versus Treasuries. However, we must acknowledge that the risks of Fed overtightening, curve inversion and economic recession increase as the yield curve flattens. We must also acknowledge that current valuations suggest that future excess returns will be small, even if they are positive. For example, if we assume that the average investment grade OAS can’t tighten very much from current levels, then the best we can expect is 100 bps per year of excess return. Meanwhile, 100 bps of spread widening – much less than you would expect in a default cycle – would lead to losses of roughly 850 bps. In other words, it will be profitable to exit investment grade corporate bond positions today as long as the next bout of 100 bps of spread widening occurs within the next 8.5 years (Table 2). The risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a more defensive credit allocation. Table 2The Risk/Reward Trade-off In Corporate Bonds Interestingly, Table 2 shows that the risk/reward math is more favorable for junk bonds. Depending on our default loss assumptions, the 8.5 years we calculated for investment grade falls to a range of 1.8 to 3 years for high-yield. Bottom Line: Tight valuations and low expected returns suggest that investors should be more cautious on credit risk this cycle. In our view, it is advisable to reduce credit risk allocation earlier than usual this cycle in order to ensure that you aren’t invested during the next big selloff. Appendix Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market”, dated January 18, 2022. 2 We define excess returns as the excess returns earned by the corporate bond index relative to a duration-matched position in US Treasuries. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread can be thought of as the spread widening required for the index to break even with duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. It can be approximated as OAS divided by duration. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights The bond market assumes that when recent inflation has been high, it will be higher than average for the next ten years. Yet the reality is the exact opposite. High inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. This means that the ex-post real yield delivered by 10-year T-bonds will turn out to be much higher than the negative ex-ante real yield that 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are now offering. Long-term investors should overweight 10-year T-bonds versus 10-year TIPS. Underweight (or outright short) US TIPS. Underweight commodities, and especially underweight those commodities that have not yet corrected. Fractal trading watchlist: the US dollar, alternative energy, biotech, nickel versus silver, and an update on semiconductors. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Real Yield Turns Out To Be Higher Than Expected Real interest rates are negative. Or are they? Given that real interest rates form the foundation of most asset prices, getting this question right is of paramount importance. Over the short term, yes, real interest rates are negative. Policy interest rates in the major developed economies are unlikely to rise quickly from their current near-zero levels. So, they will remain below the rate of inflation. But what about over the longer term, say ten years – are long-term real interest rates truly negative? The Real Bond Yield Is The Mirror Image Of Backward-Looking Inflation The negative US real 10-year bond yield of -0.7 percent comprises the nominal yield of 1.8 percent minus an expected inflation rate of 2.5 percent. This means that the negativity of the real bond yield hinges on the expectation for inflation over the next ten years. Therein lies the big problem. Many people believe that the bond market’s expected 10-year inflation rate is an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. Specifically, in the pandemic era, the bond market has derived its expected 10-year inflation rate from the historic six month (annualized) inflation rate, which it assumes will gradually converge to a long-term rate of just below 2 percent during the first four years, then stay there for the remaining six years2 (Figure I-1). We recommend that readers replicate this simple calculation for themselves to shatter any illusion that there is anything forward-looking about the bond market’s inflation expectation! (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Expected 10-Year Inflation Is Just Based On The Last 6 Months Of Inflation! The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like now or in early-2008, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words, the bond market extrapolates the last six months of inflation into the next ten years. This observation leads to an immediate investment conclusion. The US six-month inflation rate has already peaked. As it cools, it will also cool the expected 10-year inflation rate, thereby putting upward pressure on the mirror image Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) real yield. It follows that investors should underweight (or outright short) US 10-year TIPS (Chart I-3). Chart I-3As Inflation Cools, TIPS Will Underperform The Real Bond Yield Is Based On A False Expectation There is a more fundamental issue at stake. The market assumes that when recent inflation has been low, it will be lower than average for the next ten years. And when recent inflation has been high, it will be higher than average for the next ten years. Yet the reality is the exact opposite. Low inflation is followed by higher than average inflation, and high inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. The price level is lower than the 2012 expectation of where it would stand in 2022! Another way of putting this is that the market assumes that any breakout of the consumer price index (CPI) will be amplified over the following ten years (Chart I-4). Yet the reality is that any breakout of the price level tends to trend-revert over the following ten years. This means that after the CPI’s decline in late 2008, the market massively underestimated where the price level would be ten years later. But earlier in 2008, when the CPI had surged, the market massively overestimated where the price level would be ten years later. Chart I-4The Market Exaggerates Any Deviations In The CPI Into The Distant Future Today in 2022, the price level seems to be uncomfortably high. But the remarkable thing is that it is still lower than the 2012 expectation of where it would stand in 2022! (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Market Overestimates Where The Price Level Will Stand 10 Years Ahead The crucial point is that after surges in the price level, realised 10-year inflation turns out to be at least 1 percent lower than the bond market’s expectation (Chart I-6). This means that the ex-post real yield delivered by 10-year T-bonds turns out to be at least 1 percent higher than the ex-ante real yield that 10-year TIPS offered at the start of the ten year period (Chart of the Week). Chart I-6Actual Inflation Turns Out To Be Lower Than Expected It follows that after the current surge in the price level, the (actual) real yield that will be delivered by 10-year T-bonds over the next ten years will not be the -0.7 percent indicated by the TIPS 10-year real yield. Instead, if history is any guide, it will be at least +0.3 percent. Therefore, in answer to our original question, the real long-term interest rate is almost certainly not negative. Of course, the obvious comeback is that ‘this time is different’. But we really wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Many people thought this time is different during the price level surge in early 2008 as well as the lows in late 2008 and early 2020. But those times were not different. And our bet is that this time isn’t any different either. This means that the real yield on T-bonds will turn out to be much higher than that on TIPS. Long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus TIPS. Commodities Are Vulnerable A final important observation relates to commodities. Commodity prices have been tightly tracking the 6-month inflation rate, but which way does the causality run in this tight relationship? At first glance, it might seem that the causality runs from commodity prices to the inflation rate. Yet on further consideration, this cannot be right. It is not the commodity price level that drives the overall inflation rate, it is the commodity inflation rate that drives the overall inflation rate. And in the past year, overall inflation has decoupled (upwards) from commodity inflation (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inflation Is Tracking ##br##Commodity Prices... Chart I-8...But Inflation Should Be Tracking Commodity Inflation Therefore, the causality in the tight relationship between the 6-month inflation rate and commodity prices must run from backward-looking inflation to commodity prices. And the likely explanation is that investors are bidding up commodity prices as a hedge against the backward-looking inflation which they are incorrectly extrapolating into the future. Low inflation is followed by higher than average inflation, and high inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. It follows that as 6-month inflation cools, so will commodity prices. The investment conclusion is to underweight commodities, and especially to underweight those commodities that have not yet corrected. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s observations relate to the US dollar, alternative energy, biotech, nickel versus silver, and an update on semiconductors. The US dollar reached a point of fragility in early December, from which it experienced a classic short-term countertrend sell-off. As such, the countertrend sell-off is mostly done. Alternative energy versus old energy is approaching a major buying point. Biotech versus the market is very close to a major buying point. Nickel versus silver is very close to a major selling point. Semiconductors versus technology was on our sell watchlist last week, and has now hit its point of maximum fragility (Chart I-9). Therefore, the recommended trade is to short semiconductors versus broad technology, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent. Chart 9Semiconductors Are Due A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2 Inflation is based on the PCE deflator. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Dear Client, Next week there will be no regular strategy report. Instead, we will hold our quarterly webcast which will discuss the outlook for the European economy and assets in 2022. I look forward to this interaction. Best regards, Mathieu Savary   Highlights European and global yields have considerable upside over the coming year, even if inflation peaks in 2022. The post-World War II experience is instructive: massive war-time fiscal and monetary stimulus allowed for an upward re-estimation of the neutral rate as trend nominal growth improved. A similar development is likely to result in an improvement in nominal growth and the neutral rate compared to the post-GFC decade. China and a financial accident outside the US constitute the greatest risks this year to higher yields. European stocks and value stocks will benefit from this rise in yields. Cyclicals in general and industrials in particular are the European sectors most levered to higher yields. Overweight these assets. Defensives will underperform meaningfully if yields rise further. Long Sweden and the Netherlands / Short Switzerland is an appealing trade to bet on higher yields, especially if inflation peaks in 2022. Feature Last week, US Treasury yields finally reached levels that prevailed before the pandemic started. In Europe, German 10-year yields flirted with the symbolic 0% level, rising to their highest reading since May 2019. With the Fed preparing to increase interest rates in March, and global inflation remaining perky, do yields already reflect all the bearish bond news or will they continue to climb higher on a cyclical basis? Moreover, what would be the implications for equity prices of higher yields? BCA expects yields to rise further, for which German Bunds will not be an exception. This process will continue to generate volatility in stock prices, but ultimately, higher equities will prevail. Increasing yields will help European stocks and are strongly associated with an outperformance of cyclical equities. What’s Moving Yields Up? Not all yield increases are created equal. A breakdown of yields helps us understand what investors are pricing in for the future. In the US, the upside in 10-year yields mostly reflects the increase in 5-year yields. This maturity has moved back to levels that prevailed prior to the pandemic, while the 5-year/5-year forward yield remains below its spring 2021 peak (Chart 1, top panel). Moreover, these shifts mirror higher real interest rates, which are rising across maturities, while inflation expectations have been declining in recent weeks or have been flat since mid-2021 on a 5-year/5-year forward basis (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). This breakdown confirms investors are driving yields higher because they expect more Fed tightening. However, this upgraded view of the Fed’s policy path is limited to the next few years, and long-term policy expectations approximated by the forward rates are not rising as much. In other words, markets do not expect that the Fed will be able to push up interest rates on a long-term basis. In Germany, the breakdown of the most recent shift in yield paints a different picture (Chart 2). As in the US, real yields, not inflation expectations, drove the latest bond selloff. This points toward pricing in an eventual policy tightening in Europe. However, unlike what is happening in the US, 5-year/5-year forward rates are the main force driving yields higher; investors are therefore expecting the ECB to have to follow the Fed later on. Chart 1Near-Term Tightening Is Driving Treasurys Chart 2longer-Term Tightening Is Driving Bunds Can the Yield Upside Continue? While BCA’s target for the 10-year Treasury yield in 2022 stands at 2.25% and the Bund yield at 0.25%, the coming two to three years should witness significantly higher yields. The period after World War II offers an interesting historical equivalent. During the War, government spending as a share of GDP exploded, lifting US gross federal debt from 52% of GDP at the dawn of the conflict to 114% at the end of 1945. However, the Fed kept a lid on interest rates during this period to help finance the war effort. T-Bill rates were pegged at 3/8th of a percent and the Fed also capped T-Bond yields at 2.5%. Chart 3The Post WWII Experience As a consequence of this policy effort, the Fed balance sheet increased significantly and continued to do so after the war (Chart 3). The stimulative fiscal and monetary policy, as well as the capacity constraints associated with shifting production from military goods to consumer and capital goods, contributed to an inflation spike to 20% in March 1947. Moreover, the Korean War boosted government spending between 1950 and 1953, resulting in another inflation spike to 9.5% in 1951. The Fed’s cap on yields ended after the March 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord. It was followed by the beginning of a multi-decade uptrend in bond yields, which culminated in 1981 with T-Bond yields above 15% following the inflationary surge of the 1970s. Nonetheless, the yield increase from 2.5% in 1951 to 4% at the end of the 1950s happened after the inflation peak of the Korean War. This original inflection reflected economic vigor and a normalization of the neutral rate after the trauma of the Great Depression. The current situation is not dissimilar. The neutral rate and the market-based estimates of the terminal rate of interest are still very low in the US and in Europe (Chart 4). However, the vast amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy has jolted a recovery. It has also caused a massive wealth transfer to households and the private sector in general that is likely to increase consumption permanently. As a result, growth in the coming decade will be stronger than it was in the past decade, in both the US and Europe. This process will allow the neutral rate to rise over time, which in turn will lift the terminal rate of interest and yields. In this context, even if inflation were to cool in 2022 because some of the supply constraints that marked 2021 dissipate, yields may continue to rise and do so for the remainder of the decade. This is also true in Europe where the household savings rate still towers near 19% of disposable income and may fall by 6% to reach its pre-pandemic levels, as the US experience presages (Chart 5). Chart 4Terminal Rates Proxies Are Too Low Chart 5European Savings Rate Has Downside A simple modeling exercise confirms that yields will have greater upside over the coming year. Conceptually, yields are anchored by policy rates and the terminal rate, which is somewhere above the neutral rate of interest. One of the key determinants of the nominal neutral rate is the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. While the market cannot know precisely where that growth rate stands, recent experience influences the perception of market participants. Thus, a long-term moving average of nominal GDP growth constitutes a rough proxy of this measure and will relate to investors’ assessment of the neutral rate and the terminal interest rates. Chart 6Bond Yields Are Too Low, Especially If Trend Nominal Growth Picks Up Using this approach reveals two important bearish forces for bonds. Even after accounting for the slow growth rate of both the US and Eurozone economies over the past ten years, as well as extraordinarily low policy rates, T-Notes and Bunds yields are too low (Chart 6). More importantly, if nominal GDP growth is higher this decade than next, this alone will push up the equilibrium level of yields in Advanced Economies. The upside in yields is not without risks. China is still going through a deflationary shock whereby growth is slowing. As China eases policy, Chinese yields will continue to fall, bucking the global trend (Chart 7). In recent years, Chinese yields have rarely diverged from global yields. If Chinese growth plummets from here, the divergence will not be resolved via higher Chinese yields. However, Chinese authorities do not want growth to collapse. Reports from the State Council suggest an acceleration of the implementation of major spending projects under the 14th Five-year plan and that the credit impulse is trying to bottom. Nonetheless, China remains a risk to monitor closely. The second major risk stems from the intertwined nature of the global financial system. The US economy is able to withstand higher Treasury yields, but is the rest of the world? As Chart 8 highlights, US private debt-servicing costs are low today, as a result of minimal interest rates and the decline in debt loads after the GFC. The same is not true for the G-10 outside the US, let alone EM economies. These differences suggest that the US will be much more resilient to rising yields than the rest of the world. A major financial accident outside the US would prompt a wave of risk aversion that would decrease yields around the world. Chart 7An Unusual Divergence Chart 8Will The Rest Of The World Withstand Higher US Yields? Bottom Line: Global yields have much greater upside for the years ahead, even if inflation slows in 2022. While BCA targets 2.25% and 0.25% for, respectively, Treasurys and Bund yields this year, the multi-year upside is much greater as neutral rates are re-adjusted upward. The change will not move in a straight line, but the trend will not be friendly for bondholders. In the near-term, the main culprits preventing higher yields are a further slowdown in China as well as a financial accident outside the US. Investment Implications The most obvious investment implication is that investors should use any pullback in yields to sell duration. As a corollary, investors should maintain an overweight stance on equities relative to bonds. The equity risk premium, especially in Europe, remains elevated, and European dividend yields stand near record highs compared to Bund yields (Chart 9). Moreover, when yields rise because of a higher neutral rate, this also means that the expected long-term growth rate of earnings is firming, which negates some of the adverse impacts on valuations of higher discount rates. Nonetheless, if inflation does not stabilize, the increase in yields could become much more painful for stocks, as the negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields would reassert itself—a possibility we described five weeks ago. A rising neutral rate and terminal rate are also associated with an outperformance of European stocks compared to the US and an outperformance of value stocks over growth stocks in Europe (Chart 10). These relationships reflect the greater procyclicality of European equities and value stocks. Chart 9A Valuation Cushion For Stocks Chart 10Higher Terminal Rates Favor Europe And Value Finally, we looked at the performance of European sectors based on the trend in yields. Table 1 highlights that industrials are the great winner when yields rise, which is a testament to their pro-cyclicality. They beat the market on 3-month, 6-month and 12-month horizons by 1.6%, 2.9% and 5.8%, respectively. The regularity of their benchmark-beating performance is extremely high. When yields rise, financials also see a marked improvement of their relative returns compared to their historical average returns. Surprisingly, so do European tech firms, which reflect the more hardware focus of European tech compared to the US. Table 1Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance Table 2 repeats the same exercise, but, this time, we control for the slope of the yield curve, focusing on periods when the yield curve is positively sloped. Again, industrials are the star sector, but other cyclicals such as materials and consumer discretionary also stand out. European tech remains dominated by its cyclical properties, while the outperformance of financials becomes more marked. Table 2Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Postive Yield Curve Slope As A Control Variable Table 3 looks at the behavior of sectors when yields rise and when the Euro Area PMI Manufacturing improves, which is a scenario we expect for most of 2022 once the winter passes. Industrials win more clearly than materials or consumer discretionary. The European tech sector continues to generate a very strong outperformance, while the excess return of financials firms up as well. This scenario also shows a particularly steep underperformance for all the defensive sectors. Table 3Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Improving Manufacturing PMI As A Control Variable Table 4 completes the picture, focusing on rising yields when core CPI decelerates, another development we foresee in 2022. Once again, industrials stand out as a result of the extent and regularity of their outperformance. However, under this controlling variable, the performance of materials and consumer discretionary stocks deteriorates significantly. Financials also see a large downgrade to their relative performance. Tech performs best under these circumstances. Here, staples suffer the worst fate, closely followed by utilities and healthcare. Table 4Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Falling Core CPI As A Control Variable Based on these observations, the highest likelihood scenario is that European cyclicals will outperform defensive equities significantly this year after a period of consolidation since last spring. A more targeted approach would be to overweight industrials and tech at the expense of staples and utilities. Geographically, investors should buy a basket of Swedish (overweight industrials) and Dutch stocks (overweight tech), while selling Swiss stocks (overweight healthcare).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Special Report

Highlights We introduce a novel concept called the ‘wealth impulse’, which describes the counterintuitive relationship between wealth and economic growth. To the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, the impact comes not from the level of wealth or from the change in wealth, but from the change in the increase in wealth – which we define as the wealth impulse. The global wealth impulse has entered a downcycle, which tends to last 1-2 years. Previous downcycles in the wealth impulse in 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2018-19 all coincided with US economic growth falling to, or remaining at, below-trend. A similar pattern could emerge through 2022-23. Previous downcycles in the wealth impulse also coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. This supports our view that while the long bond yield could rise by a further 40-50 bps, the recent spike in yields is simply a tactical countertrend move within a broader structural downtrend, which remains intact. Fractal trading watchlist: Bitcoin, the euro, EUR/CZK, semiconductors, and Polish 10-year bonds. Feature Feature ChartThe 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The post-pandemic synchronized boom in global house prices and global stock markets has caused an unprecedented windfall in household wealth. Albeit, it is a windfall that is highly concentrated in the top fraction of the world’s households. Many commentators claim that this unprecedented wealth windfall will boost economic growth in 2022-23 through the so-called ‘wealth effect’. However, these claims belie a basic misunderstanding about how wealth impacts economic growth. In this short Special Report, we introduce a novel concept called the ‘wealth impulse’, which describes the true relationship between wealth and economic growth. Using this concept of the wealth impulse we explain why, somewhat counterintuitively, wealth will be a headwind rather than a tailwind to growth in 2022-23 (Chart I-1). It Is The ‘Impulse’ Of Wealth That Drives Growth, And The Impulse Has Peaked In accounting terms, wealth is a stock. By contrast, GDP is a change in a stock, or flow, meaning that GDP growth is a change in a flow. It follows that, to the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, it must also come from the change in the flow of wealth: in other words, not from the level of wealth and not from the change in wealth, but from the change in the increase in wealth. We define this as the ‘wealth impulse’ (Charts 1-2-Chart 1-5) Chart I-2The Level Of Real Estate Wealth Has Surged… Chart I-3…But The Impulse Is Fading Chart I-4The Level Of Stock Market Wealth Has Surged… Chart I-5...But The Impulse Is Fading To be clear, your stock of wealth will also generate a flow through dividends, rents, and interest income. And the higher the level of your wealth, the larger this flow will be – Bill Gate’s flow is much larger than Joe Sixpack’s flow. But given that these income flows are dwarfed by the capital gains flows, they will play second fiddle for all-important spending growth. If all of this sounds somewhat convoluted, let’s illuminate the concept with a simple example. Say that your starting wealth of $1000 increased by $100 in 2020, and by another $100 in 2021. In this case, you have effectively gained a constant additional ‘capital gain’ flow to your income flow. Let’s say you spent a constant tenth of these capital gain flows. What would be the growth in your spending? The counterintuitive answer is zero. As there is no change in these capital gain flows, the wealth impulse would be zero, and there would be no growth in your spending: it would be $10 in 2020 and $10 in 2021. To get economic growth from the wealth effect, the increase in your wealth in 2021 would have to be greater than the $100 increase in 2020. Let’s say the increase was $150. In this case, the wealth impulse would be 50 percent and your spending would grow from $10 to $15.1 Now let’s say that after this $150 increase in 2021, your wealth increased by $200 in 2022. Given that the 2022 increase was greater than the 2021 increase, the wealth impulse would be positive, and your spending would grow. But what about the rate of growth? The counterintuitive answer is that economic growth would slow, because the wealth impulse has declined to 33 percent (200/150) in 2022 from 50 percent (150/100) in 2021. To the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, it must come from the change in the increase in wealth, which we define as the ‘wealth impulse’. Finally, let’s say that your wealth increased by a further $150 in 2023. In this case, the wealth impulse would turn negative, to -25 percent (150/200). The counterintuitive thing is that, despite an increase in wealth, your spending would contract. In fact, this is precisely what is happening in the real world. The wealth impulse peaked in the second half of 2021, and has entered a downcycle. Significantly, downcycles in the wealth impulse tend to last 1-2 years, and end up in deeply negative territory. Hence, contrary to what the commentators are claiming, the ‘wealth effect’ tailwind to growth is already fading, and is highly likely to become a headwind through 2022-23. Creating A Composite Wealth Impulse By far the largest component of household wealth is real estate, meaning the value of our homes. Significantly, through the past decade, global real estate prices have become highly synchronized and correlated. Hence, we can derive a real estate wealth impulse from a reliable monthly US house price index, such as the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. One rejoinder is that real estate wealth should be measured net of the mortgage debt that is owed on our homes. However, as the wealth impulse is a change of a change in wealth, and the mortgage debt changes very slowly, it does not really matter whether we calculate the impulse from gross or net real estate wealth. Either way, the impulse is fading. The wealth impulse peaked in the second half of 2021, and has entered a downcycle. The other significant component of household wealth comes from the exposure to equities. Hence, we can derive an equity wealth impulse using a broad equity index such as the MSCI All Country World. Significantly, the equity wealth impulse also peaked in 2021 and has already fallen to zero. We can then create a ‘composite’ wealth impulse which combines real estate and equities in the three to one proportion that households hold these two main assets. Unsurprisingly, this composite wealth impulse is also fading fast (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Composite Wealth Impulse Has Peaked One final issue relates to the periodicity of calculating the wealth impulse. All the analysis so far has related to the 1-year impulse: that is, the 1-year change in the 1-year increase in wealth. This periodicity should match the time that it takes for wealth changes to impact household behaviour. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, the optimal periodicity is indeed around a year – especially as we also assess the change in our incomes and taxes over a year. But what if households react faster to the change in their wealth? We can address this by looking at the 6-month wealth impulse: that is, the 6-month change in the 6-month increase in wealth. These 6-month impulses for both real estate wealth and composite wealth are already deeply in negative territory (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The 6-Month Real Estate Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative Chart I-8The 6-Month Composite Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative What Does A Wealth Impulse Downcycle Mean? There are several drivers of economic growth and the wealth impulse is a marginal player amongst these drivers. Still, while the wealth impulse may not be the overarching cause of growth, it does have the potential to amplify the growth cycle in either direction.  Downcycles in the wealth impulse have coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. In this regard, it is notable that in the post-GFC era, upcycles in the wealth impulse have coincided with accelerations in US economic growth. Whereas downcycles in the wealth impulse through 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2018-19 have all coincided with growth falling to, or remaining at, below-trend. A similar pattern could emerge through 2022-23, in stark contrast to what many commentators are predicting (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Fading Or Sub-Par Growth Unsurprisingly, the post-GFC downcycles in the wealth impulse have also coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. This supports our view that while the long bond yield could rise by a further 40-50 bps, the recent spike in yields is simply a tactical countertrend move. The broader structural downtrend in the long bond yield remains intact (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Down-Legs In The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Fractal Trading Watchlist From this week, we are pleased to introduce a new section: a fractal trading ‘watchlist’, which will highlight investments that are approaching, but not yet at, points of fractal fragility that presage upcoming turning points. This will help to prepare future trades. In the starting watchlist, we highlight potential upcoming buying opportunities for bitcoin, the trade-weighted euro, and EUR/CZK, and an upcoming selling opportunity for semiconductors versus technology. Catching our eye this week though is the very aggressive sell-off in Polish government bonds relative to their peers. Inflation has surged everywhere, including in Poland, but the inflation rate in Poland remains below that in the US. This means that the massive underperformance of Polish bonds seems overdone, confirmed by an extremely fragile 260-day fractal structure (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Underperformance Of Polish Bonds Is Overdone Accordingly, the recommended trade would be to overweight Polish 10-year bonds versus US 10-year T-bond (or German 10-year bunds), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent. Fractal Trading Watch List   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  In practice, your income flow might also rise slightly. Assuming a yield of 2 percent on your $1000 initial wealth, and a 10 percent growth rate, your income flows would evolve from $20 to $22 (in 2020) to $24.2 (in 2021), equalling a $2.2 rise in 2021. But these would be dwarfed by the capital gain flows of $100 and $150, equalling a $50 rise in 2021. Admittedly, the propensity to spend income flows is higher than the propensity to spend capital gain flows, but assuming we spend half our income flow versus a tenth of our capital gain flow, the increase in the capital gain flow would still drive the growth in spending ($5 versus $1.1). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - ##br##Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights 2022 Key Views & Allocations: Translating our 2022 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions to begin the year. Target a moderate level of overall portfolio risk, maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, make developed market government bond country allocations based on relative expected central bank hawkishness (underweight the US, UK and Canada; overweight Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan), and be selective on allocations to global spread product (overweight high-yield with a bias toward Europe over the US, neutral global investment grade, underweight emerging market hard currency debt). Specific Allocation Changes: Much of the current positioning in our model bond portfolio already reflects our 2022 investment themes. The only significant changes we make to begin the year are reducing emerging market USD-denominated corporate bond exposure to underweight, and shifting some high-yield corporate bond exposure from the US to Europe. Feature In our last report of 2021, we published our 2022 Key Views, outlining the themes and investment implications of the 2022 BCA Outlook for global fixed income markets. In this report, our first of the new year, we translate those views into more specific recommendations and allocations within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that another year of expected above-trend global growth, even after the risks to start the year from the Omicron variant, will further absorb spare capacity across the developed economies. Realized inflation will slow from the elevated readings of 2021, but will remain high enough to force central banks – led by the US Federal Reserve – to incrementally remove highly accommodative monetary policies put in place during the pandemic. The backdrop for global bond markets will turn far less friendly as a result, with higher bond yields (led by US Treasuries), flatter yield curves and much weaker returns on spread products that have benefited from easy monetary policies like investment grade corporate debt and emerging market (EM) hard currency debt. Against this challenging backdrop for overall fixed income returns, bond investors will need to focus more on relative exposures between countries, sectors and credit ratings to generate outperformance versus benchmarks. Our recommended portfolio allocations to begin 2022 reflect that shift (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months A Review Of The Model Bond Portfolio Performance In 2021 Chart 12021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year Before we begin our discussion of the model bond portfolio for 2022, we will take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2021. Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a small negative total return (hedged into US dollars) of -0.51%, but this still outperformed its custom benchmark index by +36bps (Chart 1).1 It was a very challenging year for global fixed income markets, in aggregate, with significant swings in bond yields (i.e. US Treasuries were up in Q1, down in Q2/Q3, up then down in Q4) and credit spreads (US high-yield spreads fell in H1/2021 and were rangebound in H2/2021, while EM hard currency spreads were stable in H1/2021 before steadily widening during the rest of the year). Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +27bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +9bps (Table 2). The bulk of that government bond outperformance occurred during the first quarter of the year when global bond yields surged higher as COVID-19 vaccines began to be distributed and economic optimism improved in response – trends that benefited the below-benchmark duration tilt within the portfolio. The credit market outperformance was more evenly spread out during the final nine months of the year. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2021 Overall Return Attribution In terms of specific country exposures on government debt (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) generated virtually all of the full-year outperformance of the government bond portion of the portfolio (+38bps versus the benchmark). The biggest underperformer was the UK (-9bps), concentrated at the very end of the year as Gilt yields declined on the back of the Omicron surge, to the detriment of our underweight stance. All other country allocations provided little excess return, in aggregate, over the full year in 2021 – although there was significant variance of those returns during the year. Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains were seen in US high-yield (+19bps) where we remained overweight throughout 2021. The largest drag on performance came from UK investment grade corporates (-9bps), although this all came in Q1/2021 where we maintained an overweight stance at the time and spreads widened. Other spread product sectors delivered little in the way of excess return, although that should not be a surprise as we maintained a neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates – which have a combined 18% weighting within the model bond portfolio custom benchmark index – throughout 2021. In the end, our recommended portfolio tilts during 2021 were generally on the right side of the market, with our overweights outperforming in an overall down year for bond returns (Chart 4). The numbers would have been even better without the drag on performance in the fourth quarter (-17bps for the entire portfolio). That came entirely from our two biggest government bond underweights – US Treasuries and UK Gilts – which saw significant bond yield declines in response to the emergence of the Omicron variant. (the detailed breakdown of the Q4/2021 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23). Importantly, the surge in bond yields seen in the first week of 2022 has already resulted in a full recovery of that Q4/2021 underperformance, providing a good start to the new year for our model portfolio. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views 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: BELOW BENCHMARK As we concluded in our 2022 Key Views report, longer-maturity government bond yields are now too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment seen in many countries. While we expect inflation to come down this year from the very rapid pace of 2021, it will not be by enough to force central banks off the path towards rate hikes that already began at the end of last year in places like the UK and New Zealand. The Fed is now signaling that multiple US rate hikes are likely in 2022, while even some European Central Bank (ECB) officials are expressing concern over very high European inflation. Longer maturity bond yields remain too low, in our view, because investors are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. (Chart 5). An upward adjustment of global interest rate expectations is likely this year as central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE) deliver on expected rate hikes, with more tightening necessary beyond 2022. This will be the primary driver of the rise in global bond yields that we expect this year - an outcome that has already begun in the first week of 2022. Chart 5Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing​​​​​​ Chart 6Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure​​​​​​ We ended 2021 with a model bond portfolio duration that was -0.65 years below that of the custom performance benchmark (Chart 6). We feel comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, to begin the new year. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT THE EURO AREA (CORE & PERIPHERY), JAPAN & AUSTRALIA; UNDERWEIGHT THE US, UK & CANADA Our country allocation decisions within our model bond portfolio entering 2022 are based on a simple framework. We are overweighting countries where central banks are less likely to raise rates this year, and vice versa. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2022 to occur in the US, as markets are still not priced for the cumulative tightening that the Fed will likely deliver over the next couple of years. Markets are also underpricing how much the Bank of England and Bank of Canada will need to raise rates over the full tightening cycle, even with multiple hikes discounted for 2022. We see the necessary upward repricing of post-2022 rate expectations in all three of those countries – the US, UK and Canada – justifying underweight allocations in our model portfolio. Chart 7Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 The opposite is true in core Europe and Australia. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are discounting multiple rate hikes this year from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and even an ECB rate hike later in 2022. As we discussed in our Key Views report, there is still not enough evidence pointing to rapid wage growth in Australia or Europe that would force the RBA and ECB to turn more hawkish than their current forward guidance which calls for no rate hikes in 2022. While both central banks may talk about the possibility that monetary policy will need to be tightened, we expect the actual rate hikes to occur in 2023 and not 2022. Thus, both markets justify overweight allocations in our model bond portfolio. We are also maintaining an overweight to Japanese government bonds, as Japanese inflation remains far too low – even in an environment of high energy prices and global supply chain disruption – for the Bank of Japan to contemplate any tightening of monetary policy. The country allocations within the model portfolio as of the end of 2021 all fit with the above analysis, thus we see no major changes that need to be made to begin 2022 (Chart 7).2 The only significant move made was to slightly bump up the size of the overweights in Italy and Spain, to be funded by the reduction in EM corporate bond exposure (as we discuss below). We continue to see a positive case for owning Peripheral European government bonds for the relatively high yields within Europe, with the ECB maintaining an overall dovish policy stance in 2022 even as it scales back the size of its bond buying activity starting in March. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN A NEUTRAL OVERALL ALLOCATION TO GLOBAL LINKERS Chart 8Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Inflation-linked bonds have been a necessary part of bond investors' portfolios since the lows in global inflation breakeven spreads were seen in mid-2020. Now, with inflation expectations at or above central bank inflation targets in most developed market countries, and with realized inflation likely to subside from current levels this year, the backdrop no longer justifies structural overweights to linkers across all countries. We are sticking with our end-2021 overall neutral allocation to global inflation-linked bonds, focusing more on country allocations based on our inflation breakeven valuation indicators, as discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 8). This means maintaining a neutral stance on US TIPS and linkers (vs. nominal government bonds) in Canada, Australia and Japan. We are also staying with underweight positions in linkers (vs. nominals) in the UK, Germany, France and Italy where breakevens appear too high based on our indicators. Spread Product Allocation: MAINTAIN A SMALL OVERWEIGHT TO GLOBAL SPREAD PRODUCT FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN & US HIGH-YIELD CORPORATES, WHILE UNDERWEIGHTING EM CREDIT Chart 9Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Our expectation of above-trend global growth in 2022, with still relatively high inflation (compared to pre-pandemic levels), should be positive for spread products like corporate bonds that benefit from strong nominal economic (and revenue) growth. However, the less accommodative global monetary policy backdrop we also expect is a potential negative for credit market performance - specially as rate hikes put upward pressure on deeply negative real interest rates, most notably in the US (Chart 9). Thus, we are entering 2022 with a cautious, but still positive, overall position on spread product in our model bond portfolio. We are focusing more on credit valuation, however - both in absolute terms and between countries and sectors – to try and generate outperformance for the credit portion of the portfolio. We are maintaining a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and UK given the tight spread valuations in those markets. We prefer to focus our corporate credit exposure on overweights to high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, but with a marginal preference for European junk bonds over US equivalents as we discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 10). Within EM USD-denominated credit, we remain cautious entering 2022 given the poor fundamental backdrop for EM credit: slowing momentum of Chinese economic growth and global commodity prices, a firmer US dollar, and a less-accommodative global monetary policy backdrop (Chart 11). Thus, an underweight stance on EM credit is appropriate within the portfolio to start the year. Chart 10Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Chart 11Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight​​​​​​   Finally, we are entering 2022 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that we maintained during the latter half of 2021, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Based on our outlook for 2022, we are immediately making two marginal changes to the spread product allocations to the model bond portfolio: Reducing the size of our US high-yield overweight and using the proceeds to increase the size of the European high-yield overweight Reducing our EM USD-denominated corporate bond allocation to underweight from neutral, and placing the proceeds into Italian and Spanish government bonds (hedged into USD) to limit the reduction in the portfolio yield from the EM downgrade. The above moves will lower our overall credit overweight versus government bonds from 5% to 4%, all coming from the EM to Italy/Spain switch (Chart 12). Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATE The changes made to our spread product allocations had no material impact on the estimated tracking error of the model portfolio – the relative volatility versus that of the benchmark. The tracking error is 78bps, still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps but above the lows seen in early 2021 (Chart 13). That higher tracking error is likely related to our underweight stance on US Treasuries, given the rise in bond volatility evident in measures like the MOVE index (bottom panel). Nonetheless, a moderate level of portfolio risk is reasonable given the combination of solid global economic growth, but with tighter global monetary policy, that we expect in 2022. Chart 13Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels​​​​​​ Chart 14Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights​​​​​​ The overweights to US high-yield, European high-yield and Italian government bonds all contribute to the model bond portfolio having a yield that begins 2022 modestly higher (+14bps) than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the changes to our model portfolio allocations, which can be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio during the first half of 2022. 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 Omicron related economic weakness is visible in some major economies (euro area, Canada), but the US stays resiliently strong and the US labor market continues to tighten. China is a growth laggard, but this will lead to policymakers providing more macro stimulus (credit, monetary, fiscal) starting in Q2/2022. Inflation pressures from supply chain disruption remain stubbornly strong and realized global inflation rates stay elevated for longer. Developed market central banks continue dialing back pandemic-era monetary policy accommodation, led by Fed tapering and a June 2022 liftoff of the funds rate. There is a mild initial bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with additional widening of US inflation breakevens in Q1/2022, leading to bear flattening in Q2 in the run-up to liftoff – the net effect is a parallel shift higher in the entire yield curve. The VIX index stays near current levels at 20, both the US dollar and oil prices are broadly unchanged and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.25%. Hawkish Fed The Omicron wave is short-lived with limited impact on global growth, which remains well above trend. Global inflation only declines moderately from current elevated levels, both from persistent supply squeezes and faster wage growth. China loosens monetary/credit policies and announces new fiscal stimulus in late Q1/2022 – a positive surprise for global growth expectations. Developed economy central banks turn even more hawkish. Fed liftoff is in March, with another hike in June. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens as US inflation breakevens reach their cyclical peak. The VIX index climbs to 25, the US dollar depreciates by -3% (pulled in opposing directions by strong global growth but relatively higher US interest rates), oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.5%. Pessimistic Scenario The Omicron wave persists in many major countries (including the US) and leads to extended lockdowns and weaker consumer spending. Global growth momentum slows sharply. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration passes much smaller US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist and are made worse by Omicron, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed economy central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to economic weakness. The Fed goes for a slower taper that still ends in June, but liftoff is delayed until at least September. The US Treasury curve bull steepens modestly as the front end prices out 2022 hikes. US inflation breakevens remain sticky due to persistent realized inflation. The VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% on a safe haven bid, oil prices fall -10% 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. 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 +54bps in the Base Case and +31bps in the Hawkish Fed scenario, but is projected to underperform by -9bps in the Pessimistic scenario. Importantly, there is virtually no expected excess return from the credit side of model bond portfolio in the Hawkish Fed scenario, even with strong global growth. A faster-than-expected pace of Fed rate hikes in the first half of 2022 would be a clear signal to downgrade exposure to the riskier parts of the fixed income universe like US high-yield. Although in that Hawkish Fed scenario, greater-than-expected China stimulus and a weaker US dollar would also represent signals to begin adding back emerging market credit exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      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. 2     We also made very slight adjustments within the US, Japan, Germany and France allocations to refine our allocations across the various maturity buckets while keeping the overall portfolio duration unchanged entering 2022. Appendix Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Chart 1Stick With Steepeners The new year promises to be one of Fed tightening. The minutes from the December FOMC meeting reinforced the notion that rate hikes will begin as early as March and the market is now priced for 85 bps of rate increases (between 3 and 4 hikes) by the end of 2022. The long-end of the curve has responded to the hawkishness with the 10-year Treasury yield moving above its previous post-pandemic high of 1.74%. Just as interesting, however, is that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has only just climbed back to the lower-end of the range of neutral fed funds rate estimates (Chart 1). This has implications for our preferred yield curve positioning. With the 5-year/5-year forward yield still below our target, it makes sense to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. A shift from steepeners to flatteners will be warranted once the 5-year/5-year is more consistent with survey estimates of the neutral rate. For now, we recommend keeping portfolio duration low and owning 2/10 Treasury curve steepeners (long 2-year, short cash/10 barbell). Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in December and by 162 bps in 2021. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked down to its 6th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). This indicates that corporate bonds remain expensive, despite the Fed’s pivot toward tightening. The slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator for our corporate bond call. We are very comfortable holding corporate bonds when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, but our work suggests that returns to credit risk take a significant step down once the slope flattens into a range of 0 bps to 50 bps.1 The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope recently bounced off the 50 bps level and it currently sits at 59 bps. However, our fair value estimates for the 3/10 slope suggest that it won’t stay above 50 bps for long (bottom panel). The three scenarios we consider all suggest that the 3/10 slope will break below 50 bps within the next six months.2 We will turn more defensive on corporate bonds once that occurs. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 216 bps in December and by 669 bps in 2021. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 54 bps on the month, ending the year at 283 bps. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – also fell back to 3.3% (Chart 3). The odds are good that defaults will come in below 3.3% in 2021, which should coincide with the outperformance of high-yield bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries. For context, the high-yield default rate came in at 1.8% for the 12 months ending in November and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.3 Specifically, we noted that the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). We recommend that investors favor high-yield over investment grade corporate bonds. While, as noted on page 3, we will turn more defensive on credit risk (including high-yield) once the 3/10 Treasury slope moves sustainably below 50 bps, we will likely retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade based on relative valuations.      MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in December but lagged by 69 bps in 2021. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 6 bps on the month, evenly split between 3 bps of option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightening and a 3 bps drop in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021, despite the back-up in yields.4 The robust pace of home price appreciation has been an important factor boosting refis, as homeowners have been increasingly incentivized to tap the equity in their homes. With no indication that cash-out refi activity is about to slow, we expect refinancings to remain stubbornly high in 2022. This will put upward pressure on MBS spreads. We recommend an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel). Government-Related: Overweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in December and by 68 bps in 2021. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 216 bps in December but lagged by 10 bps in 2021. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps on the month and by 41 bps in 2021. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 37 bps in December but beat duration-matched Treasuries by 368 bps in 2021. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 1 bp in December and were flat versus Treasuries on the year. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 2 bps in December and by 20 bps in 2021. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 109 bps in December. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 16 bps (Chart 5). Both EM indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.5  Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Philippines, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Maximum  Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in December and by 416 bps in 2021 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuations.6 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 19% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 25% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in December but reversed some of that flattening in the first week of January. All in all, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened 2 bps since the end of November, bringing it to 89 bps. As noted on the front page of this report, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is rising but it is still only at the low-end of survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. This argues for continuing to hold curve steepeners in the near term. It will make sense to shift into flatteners once the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises to the middle of the range of survey estimates. We also observe that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is extremely high, both in absolute terms and relative to our model’s fair value (Chart 7). This signals that a 2/10 curve steepening position (long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell) is incredibly cheap. Indeed, the 2/10 slope has already flattened to below the levels that were witnessed on the last two Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004 (panel 4) and the Fed has still not raised rates off the zero bound. A trade long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell looks attractive in this environment. However, we note that the 2/5 Treasury slope has also flattened to below levels seen on the prior two Fed liftoff dates (bottom panel). In other words, the 2/5 slope also has room to steepen. For that reason, we prefer to focus our long positions on the 2-year Treasury note rather than the 5-year. We recommend buying the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched cash/10 barbell. We also advise investors to own a position long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell. This latter position offers a very attractive duration-neutral yield advantage of 20 bps. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 85 basis points in December and by 830 bps in 2021. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell by 2 bps. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.52% and 3.17%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps on the month. It currently sits at 2.19%, somewhat below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. All three trades will profit from falling short-maturity inflation expectations. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December and by 31 bps in 2021. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 4 bps in December and by 17 bps in 2021. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed Treasuries by 9 bps in December and by 103 bps in 2021. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth is starting to rebound, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in December and by 180 bps in 2021. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 17 bps in December and by 80 bps in 2021. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 42 bps in December and by 513 bps in 2021 (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain relatively high, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in December and by 70 bps in 2021. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet.   Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of December 31st, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of December 31st, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -58 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 58 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  We consider three scenarios for the fed funds rate. (1) March liftoff, 100 bps per year hike pace, 2.08% terminal rate. (2) March liftoff, 75 bps per year hike pace, 2.08% terminal rate. (3) March liftoff, 75 bps per year hike pace, 2.33% terminal rate. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 14, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021.