Australia

Highlights Global oil demand will remain betwixt and between recovery and relapse through 3Q21, as stronger DM consumer spending and increasing mobility wrestles with persistent concerns over COVID-19-induced lockdowns in Latin America and Asia. These concerns will be allayed as vaccines become more widely distributed, and fears of renewed lockdowns – and their associated demand destruction – recede.  Going by US experience – which can be tracked on a weekly basis – as consumer spending rises in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions, fuel demand will follow suit (Chart of the Week). OPEC 2.0 likely will agree to return ~ 400k b/d monthly to the market over the course of the next year and a hal. For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl. These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, particularly re containment of COVID-19. Feature For every bit of good news related to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a cautionary note. Most prominently, reports of increasing demand for refined oil products like diesel fuel and gasoline in re-opening DM economies are almost immediately offset by fresh news of renewed lockdowns, re-infections in highly vaccinated populations, and fears a new mutant strain of the coronavirus will emerge (Chart 2).1 In this latter grouping, EM economies feature prominently, although Australia this week extended its lockdown following a flare-up in COVID-19 cases. Chart of the WeekUS Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens US Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens US Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens Chart 2COVID-19 Infection And Death Rates Keep Markets On Edge Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Our expectation on the demand side is unchanged from last month – 2021 oil demand will grow ~ 5.4mm b/d vs. 2020 levels, while 2022 and 2023 consumption will grow 4.1 and 1.6mm b/d, respectively (Chart 3). These estimates reflect the slowing of global GDP growth over the 2021-23 interval, which can be seen in the IMF's and World Bank's GDP estimates, which we use to drive our demand forecasts.2 Weekly data from the US seen in the Chart of the Week provide a hint of what can be expected as DM and EM economies re-open in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions. Demand for refined products – e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel – will recover, but at uneven rates over the next 2-3 years. The US EIA notes the recovery in diesel demand, which is included in "Distillates" in the chart above, has been faster and stronger than that of gasoline and jet fuel. This is largely because it reflects the lesser damage done to freight movement and activities like mining and manufacturing. The EIA expects 4Q21 US distillate demand to come in 100k b/d above 4Q19 levels at 4.2mm b/d, and to hit an all-time record of 4.3mm b/d next year. US gasoline demand is not expected to surpass 2019 levels this year or next, in the EIA's forecast. This is partly due to improved fuel efficiencies in automobiles – vehicle-miles travelled are expected to rise to ~ 9mm miles/day in the US, which will be slightly higher than 2019's level. Jet fuel demand in the US is expected to return to 2019 levels next year, coming in at 1.7mm b/d. Chart 3Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Quantifying Demand Risks We use the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases as the backdrop for modelling demand-destruction scenarios in this month’s oil balances (Chart 2). We consider different scenarios of potential demand destruction caused by the resurgence in the pandemic (Table 1). Last year, demand fell by 9% on average, which we take to be the extreme down move over an entire year. In our simulations, we do not expect demand to fall as drastically this time. Table 1Demand-Destruction Scenario Outcomes Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations We modelled two scenarios – a 5% drop in demand (our low-demand-destruction scenario) and an 8% drop in demand (our high-demand-destruction scenario). A demand drop of a maximum of 2% made nearly no difference to prices, and so, we did not include it in our analysis. In both cases, demand starts to fall by September and reaches its lowest point in October 2021. We adjusted changes to demand in the same proportion as changes in demand in 2020, before making estimates converge to our base-case by end-2022. The estimates of price series are noticeably distinct during the period of the simulation (Chart 4). Starting in 2023, the low-demand-destruction prices and base-case prices nearly converge, as do their inventory levels. Prices and inventory levels in the high-demand-destruction case remain lower than the base-case during the rest of the forecast sample. OPEC 2.0 and world oil supply were kept constant in these scenarios. World oil supply is calculated as the sum of OPEC 2.0 and Non-OPEC 2.0 supply. Non-OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into the US, and Non-OPEC 2.0, Ex-US countries. Examples of these suppliers are the UK, Canada, China, and Brazil. OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into Core-OPEC 2.0 and the cohort we call "The Other Guys," which cannot increase production. Core-OPEC 2.0 includes suppliers we believe have excess spare capacity and can inexpensively increase supply quickly. Chart 4Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios OPEC 2.0 Remains In Control We continue to expect the OPEC 2.0 producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to maintain its so-far-successful production policy, which has kept the level of supply below demand through most of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 5). This allowed OECD inventories to fall below their pre-COVID range, despite a 9% loss of global demand last year (Chart 6). We expect this discipline to continue and for OPEC 2.0 to continue restoring its market share (Table 2). Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand Chart 6...And Drove OECD Inventories Down ...And Drove OECD Inventories Down ...And Drove OECD Inventories Down Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Our expectation last week the KSA-UAE production-baseline impasse will be short-lived remains intact. We expect supply to be increased after this month at a rate of 400k b/d a month into 2022, per the deal most members of the coalition signed on to prior to the disagreement between the longtime GCC allies. This would, as the IEA notes, largely restore OPEC 2.0's spare capacity accumulated via production cutbacks during the pandemic of ~ 6-7mm b/d by the end of 2022 (Chart 7). It should be remembered that most of OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is held by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which includes the UAE. The UAE's official baseline production number (i.e., its October 2018 production level) likely will be increased to 3.65mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d, and its output in 2H21 and 2022 likely will be adjusted upwards. As one of the few OPEC 2.0 members that actually has invested in higher production and can increase output meaningfully, it would, like KSA, benefit from providing barrels out of this spare capacity.3 Chart 7OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Return Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations As we noted last week, we do not think this impasse was a harbinger of a breakdown in OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production-management strategy. In our view, this impasse was a preview of how negotiations among states with the capacity to raise production will agree to allocate supply in a market starved for capital in the future. This is particularly relevant as US shale producers continue to focus on providing competitive returns to their shareholders, which will limit supply growth to that which can be done profitably. We see the "price-taking cohort" – i.e., those producers outside OPEC 2.0 exemplified by the US shale-oil producers – remaining focused on maintaining competitive margins and shareholder priorities. This means maintaining and growing dividends, and returning capital to shareholders will have priority as the world transitions to a low-carbon business model (Chart 8).4 For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl on the back of higher prices lifting the year-to-date average so far, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl (Chart 9). These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, which, in turn, depend on the global success in containing and minimizing COVID-19 demand destruction, as we have shown above. Chart 8US Shale Producers Focus On Margins US Shale Producers Focus On Margins US Shale Producers Focus On Margins Chart 9Raising Our Forecast Slightly Raising Our Forecast Slightly Raising Our Forecast Slightly Investment Implications In our assessment of the risks to our views in last week's report, we noted one of the unintended consequences of the unplanned and uncoordinated rush to a so-called net-zero future will be an improvement in the competitive position of oil and gas. This is somewhat counterintuitive, but the logic goes like this: The accelerated phase-out of conventional hydrocarbon energy sources brought about policy, regulatory and legal imperatives already is reducing oil and gas capex allocations within the price-taking cohort exemplified by US shale-oil producers. This also will restrict capital flows to EM states with heavy resource endowments and little capital to develop them. Our strong-conviction call on oil, gas and base metals is premised on our view that renewables and their supporting grids cannot be developed and deployed quickly enough to make up for the energy that will be foregone as a result of these policies. Capex for the metals miners has been parsimonious, and brownfield projects continue to dominate. Greenfield projects can take more than a decade to develop, and there are few in the pipeline now as the world heads into its all-out renewables push. In a world where conventional energy production is being forced lower via legislation, regulation, shareholder and legal decisions, higher prices will ensue even if demand stays flat or falls: If supply is falling, market forces will lift oil and gas prices – and the equities of the firms producing them – higher. As for metals like copper and their producers, if supply is unable to keep up with demand, prices of the commodities and the equities of the firms producing them will be forced to go higher.5 This call underpins our long S&P GSCI and COMT ETF commodity recommendations, and our long MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) recommendation. We will look for opportunities to get long oil and gas producer exposure via ETFs as well, given our view on oil and metals spans the next 5-10 years.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US EIA expects growth in large-scale solar capacity will exceed the increase in wind generation for the first time ever in 2021-22. The EIA forecasts 33 GW of solar PV capacity will be added to the US grid this year and next, with small-scale solar PV increasing ~ 5 GW/yr. The EIA expects wind generation to increase 23 GW in 2021-22. The EIA attributed the slow-down in wind development to the expiration of a $0.025/kWH production tax credit at the end of 2020. Taken together, solar and wind generation will account for 15% of total US electricity output by the end of 2022, according to the EIA. Nuclear power will account for slightly less than 20% of US generation in 2021-22, while hydro will fall to less than 7% owing to severe drought in the western US. At the other end of the generation spectrum, coal will account for ~ 24% of generation this year, as it takes back incremental market share from natural gas, and ~ 22% of generation in 2022. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to trade above $215/MT in China, even as demand is expected to slow in 2H21. Supply additions from Brazil, which ships higher quality 65% Fe ore, have been slower than expected, which is supporting prices (Chart 10). Separately, the Chinese government's auction of refined copper earlier this month cleared the market at $10,500/MT, or ~ $4.76/lb. Spot copper has been trading on either side of $4.30/lb this month, which indicates the Chinese market remains well bid. Precious Metals: Bullish The 13-year record jump in the US Consumer Price Index reported this week for the month of June is bullish for gold, as it produced weaker real rates and sparked demand for inflation hedges. Fed Chair Powell continued to stick to the view that the recent rise in inflation is transitory. The Fed’s dovish outlook will support gold prices and likely will lead to a weaker US dollar, as it reduces the possibility that US interest rates will rise soon. A falling USD will further bolster gold prices (Chart 11). Chart 10 BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING Chart 11 Gold Prices Going Down Gold Prices Going Down     Footnotes 1     We highlighted this risk in last week's report, Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Two events – in the Seychelles and Chile, where the majority of the populations were inoculated – highlight re-infection risk. Re-infections in Indonesia along with lockdowns following the spread of the so-called COVID-19 Delta variant also are drawing attention. Please see Euro 2020 final in UK stokes fears of spread of Delta variant, published by The Straits Times on July 11, 2021. The news service notes that in addition to the threats super-spreader sporting events in Europe present, "The rapid spread of the Delta variant across Asia, Africa and Latin America is exposing crucial vaccine supply shortages for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations. Those two factors are also threatening the global economic recovery from the pandemic, Group of 20 finance ministers warned on Saturday." 2     Please see the recently published IMF World Economic Outlook Reports and the World Bank Global Economic Prospects. 3    If, as we suspect, KSA and the UAE are playing a long game – i.e., a 20-30-year game – this spare capacity will become more valuable as investment capex into oil production globally slows. Please see The $200 billion annual value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the global economy published by kapsarc.org on July 17, 2018. 4    Please see Bloomberg's interview with bp's CEO Bernard Looney at Banks Need ‘Radical Transparency,’ Citi Exec Says: Summit Update, which aired on July 13, 2021. In addition to focusing on margins and returns, the company – like its peers among the majors – also is aiming to reduce oil production by 20% by 2025 and 40% by 2030. 5    This turn of events is being dramatically played out in the coal markets, where the supply of metallurgical coals is falling as demand increases. Please see Coal Prices Hit Decade High Despite Efforts to Wean the World Off Carbon published by wsj.com on June 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. 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. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. 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 scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate 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. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Bond Market Performance: Government bonds in the developed economies are currently trapped in ranges, consolidating the sharp upward moves seen in the first quarter of 2021. This is only a pause in the broader cyclical uptrend, however, with central banks under increasing pressure to turn less dovish amid surging inflation and tightening labor markets. Oversold USTs: Technical indicators of yield/price momentum and investor sentiment/positioning suggest that US Treasuries are oversold. Working off this condition can take another 2-3 months, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation for Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) investment horizon. Feature Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regularly weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, June 15 where I will discuss the outlook for global fixed income markets in the second half of 2021. Following that, we will be jointly publishing our bi-annual Global Central Bank Monitor Chartbook with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, June 18th. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 29th. Best Regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Tale Of Two Quarters A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The performance of government bond markets in the developed world so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. In Q1, yields were rising steadily on the back of upside surprises in global growth and emerging signs of the biggest inflation upturn seen in nearly a generation. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index delivered a total return of -2.7% (hedged into US dollars) during the quarter, with no country escaping losses (Chart of the Week). The biggest declines were seen in the UK (-7.5%) the US (-4.3%), with the smallest losses occurring in Japan (-0.3%) and Italy (-0.7%). Chart 2Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Q2 has been a different story, however. Yields have retreated somewhat from the year-to-date peaks seen at the end of Q1, leading to positive returns so far in Q2 in the UK (+0.8), the US (+1.2%) and Australia (+1.1%). The laggards are the low yielding euro area markets, most notably Italy (-0.7%) and France (-0.9%), that have seen yields move higher on the back of accelerating European growth. The Q2 returns look very much like a carry-driven market, with higher-yielding markets outperforming lower-yielding ones. That trend can persist if the current backdrop of low market volatility persists (Chart 2), although this calm will eventually be broken by a shift towards less dovish monetary policies. Some countries will make that shift at a faster pace than others, leading to relative value opportunities for bond investors in the latter half of 2021. This week, we discuss one such opportunity – Australia versus the US. US Treasuries: Oversold & Trendless – For Now After reaching a 2021 intraday high of 1.77% back on March 30, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a narrow 15bp range between 1.55% and 1.70%. From a fundamental perspective, US yields are lacking direction because inflation expectations have already made a major upward adjustment to the more inflationary backdrop, but real yields have remained depressed by the continued dovish messaging from the Fed – for now - with regards to the timing of tapering or future rate hikes. From a technical perspective, however, the sideways pattern for US Treasury yields is also consistent for a market that trying to work off an oversold condition. Most of the technical indicators for the US Treasury market that we monitor regularly were at or close to the most bearish/oversold extremes seen since 2000 (Chart 3): Chart 3US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition The 10-year Treasury yield is 39bps above its 200-day moving average, but that gap was as high as 84bps on March 19; The 26-week total return of the 10-year Treasury is -4.7%, after reaching a low of -8.8% on March 19; The JP Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders shows some of the largest underweight duration positioning in the 19-year history of the series; The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is in the bottom half of the range that has prevailed since 2000; The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures is the only one of our indicators that is not signaling an oversold market, with a small net long position of +3% (scaled by open interest). The overall message of these indicators suggests that price momentum and positioning reached such a bearish extreme by mid-March that some pullback in Treasury yields was inevitable. However, a look back at past periods when Treasuries became heavily oversold since the turn of the century shows that the duration and magnitude of such a pullback is highly variable – anywhere from two months to ten months. The main determining factors are the trends in economic growth and inflation in the US, and the Fed’s expected policy response to both. To show this, we conducted a simple study, updating work we first presented in a 2018 report.1 We looked at “oversold episodes” since 2000, which began when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 50bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield subsequently converged back to its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the length of the episode (in days), and the change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were nine such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we rank the episodes by the number of days it took to complete each one, based on our simple moving average rule. We also show the change in both the 10-year Treasury yield and its 200-day moving average during each episode, to show how the convergence between the two unfolds. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold Treasury Market A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields To describe the US economic backdrop during each episode, we looked at the change in the ISM manufacturing index and core PCE inflation during those oversold periods. We also show changes in two important determinants of the level of Treasury yields: inflation expectations using 10-year TIPS breakeven rates, and Fed rate hike expectations using our 12-month Fed discounter which measures the expected change in interest rates - one year ahead - priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. At the bottom of the table, we show the average for all nine oversold episodes, as well as the averages for the episodes were the ISM was rising and where core PCE inflation was rising. Chart 4US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 There are a few messages gleaned from the results in Table 1: The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between February 2018 and December 2018, when 305 days passed before the 10-year yield fell back to its 200-day moving average; The shortest correction was between June 2007 and August 2007, where only 52 days elapsed; Treasury yields typically decline during oversold periods, with two notable exceptions: 2018 and 2013/14, which were also the two longest episodes; During all of the oversold periods, markets reduced the amount of expected Fed tightening by an average of 26bps. However, that was entirely concentrated in four of the nine episodes - including three of the four shortest episodes – and is typically associated with a decline in inflation expectations. Growth momentum appears to be a bigger factor than inflation momentum in determining the length of an oversold episode, with longer episodes typically occurring alongside a rising ISM index, and vice versa. The notable exception was the longest episode in 2018, where the ISM declined by six points, although the bulk of that decline occurred in a single month at the end of the period (November 2018). For the more visually oriented, we present the time series for all the data in Table 1, shaded for the oversold periods, in Chart 4 (for the 2003-2007 period), Chart 5 (2008-2012), Chart 6 (2013-2017) and Chart 7 (2018 to today). We’ve added one additional variable – our Fed Monitor, designed to signal the need for tighter or looser US monetary policy – in the bottom panel of each of those charts. Chart 5US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 Chart 6US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 Chart 7US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today What does this look back tell us about looking ahead? The current episode, at only 105 days old, is still 62 days “younger” than the average oversold period, and 76 days “younger” than the average period where core inflation was rising. This would put the end of the current episode sometime in August. The ISM is essentially unchanged over the current episode so far, making it difficult to draw conclusions based on growth momentum – although the longest episode in 2018 shows that yields can trade sideways for a long time, even in the absence of a big slowing of growth, if the Fed is in a rate hiking cycle. However, the current episode differs dramatically from others in this analysis on two critical fronts. Core inflation has surged 1.6 percentage points since the oversold period began in February, far more than any other episode, while the gap between a rapidly increasing Fed Monitor and a flat 12-month Fed Discounter is also unique among post-2000 oversold periods. In other words, the Treasury market is still vulnerable to a repricing of Fed tightening expectations, especially with positioning and sentiment measures like the Market Vane survey and net futures positioning not yet at fully bearish extremes. Bottom Line: The current oversold condition in the US Treasury market can take another 2-3 months to unwind, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist Update: No Case For A Hawkish Turn Yet Australia has been one of the top performing government bond markets within the developed economies, as discussed earlier. This performance has occurred even with strong acceleration of both Australian economic momentum and market-based inflation expectations (Chart 8). Despite our RBA Monitor flashing pressure on the RBA to tighten, and the Australian OIS curve already discounting 48bps of rate hikes over the next two years, Australian bond yields have remained very well behaved during the “calm” second quarter for global fixed income. Chart 8RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields Chart 9RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms The continued dovish messaging from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is the main reason for the solid Australia bond performance. The central bank is signaling no imminent shift in its combination of 0.1% nominal policy rates, deeply negative real rates, yield curve control on 3-year bonds and quantitative easing on longer-maturity bonds (Chart 9). Other central banks are starting to inch towards reining in the massive monetary accommodation of the past year. Could the RBA be next? In a Special Report published back in January of this year, we outlined a list of variables to watch to determine when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) could be expected to turn less dovish.2 This checklist would also inform our country allocation view on Australian government bonds, which has remained neutral. A quick update on the latest readings from the RBA Checklist shows little pressure on the RBA to begin preparing markets for tighter monetary policy. 1. The vaccination process goes quickly and smoothly We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia has weathered COVID-19 far better than most other Western countries in terms of actual cases and deaths, but the vaccine rollout Down Under has been underwhelming. Only 16% of the population has received at least one vaccine jab, while a mere 2% is fully vaccinated. These are numbers that are more comparable to pandemic-ravaged emerging market countries like India and Brazil where access to vaccines is an issue (Chart 10). Chart 10A Slow Vaccine Rollout Down Under A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The slow vaccine rollout is less worrisome in light of the Australian government having secured enough vaccine doses to inoculate the entire population, and with the domestic economy facing limited remaining COVID-19 restrictions. The issue has been distribution and that is now occurring at a quickening pace. Until a much greater share of the population is vaccinated, however, Australia will continue to maintain aggressive COVID-related international travel restrictions – the government just announced that borders will remain shut until mid-2022 - that will be a major drag on the economically-important tourism sector. 2. Private sector demand accelerates alongside fiscal stimulus (✔) We ARE placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia’s fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic was one of the largest in the developed world. The stimulus was heavily focused on wage subsidies and income support measures like the JobSeeker program, which expired back in March. As the expensive stimulus programs are unwound, it is critical that the domestic economy can stand on its own without support. On that front, the news is good. Australia’s economy grew by 1.8% during Q1/2021, lifting the level of real GDP above the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 11). Both consumer spending and business investment posted solid growth during the quarter, fueled by surging confidence with the NAB business outlook measure hitting a record high in May (bottom panel). As a sign that the domestic economy is benefitting from a return to pre-pandemic habits, Q1 saw a 15% increase in spending in hotels, cafes and restaurants. That strength looked to extend into the Q2, with retail sales rising 1.1% in April, suggesting that Australian domestic demand is enjoying strong upward momentum. Chart 11A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand Chart 12China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports 3. China reins in policy stimulus by less than expected We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, so Chinese demand is always an important contributor to Australian economic growth. This is why we included a China element in our RBA Checklist. Specifically, we deemed the outcome that would potentially turn the RBA more hawkish would be Chinese policymakers pulling back monetary and fiscal stimulus by less than expected in 2021 after the big policy support in 2020. The combined fiscal and credit impulse for China has already slowed by 9% of GDP since December 2020, signaling a meaningful cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of 2021 that should weigh on demand for imports from Australia (Chart 12). However, Chinese import demand has already been severely impacted because of worsening China-Australia political tensions, which has led Beijing to impose restrictions on Australian imports for a variety of products, include coal, wine, beef, barley and cotton. The result is that there has been no growth in Australian total exports to China over the past year – an outcome that was flattered by the surge in iron ore prices - which has weighed on overall Australian export growth. Given this weak starting point for Chinese demand for Australian goods, the sharp reduction in the China stimulus is, on the margin, a factor that will not force the RBA to turn less dovish sooner than expected. 4. Inflation, both realized and expected, returns to the RBA’s 2-3% target We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australian inflation remains well below the RBA’s 2-3% target range, with the headline CPI and the less volatile trimmed mean CPI both expanding at only a 1.1% annual rate in Q1/2021 (Chart 13). The RBA is forecasting a brief boost to both measures in Q2, before settling back below 2% to the end of 2022. Chart 13No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation Chart 14Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing The RBA’s message on the inflation outlook has been very consistent. A sustainable move of realized inflation back to the 2-3% target range – that would prompt a normalization of monetary policy – cannot occur without a significant tightening of labor markets that drives wage growth back to 3% from the Q1/2021 reading of 1.5%. The RBA currently does not expect that outcome to occur before 2024. The RBA believes that the full employment NAIRU is between 4-4.5%, well below the OECD’s latest estimate of 5.4%. Given the sharp drop in Australian unemployment already seen over the past few quarters, there is the potential for an upside surprise in the wage data that could lead the RBA to change its policy bias. The central bank would need to see a few quarters of such wage surprises, however, before altering its forward guidance on the timing of future rate hikes. 5. House price inflation begins to accelerate We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Given Australia’s past history with periods of surging home values, signs that housing markets were overheating could prompt the RBA to consider tighten monetary policy. The annual growth of median house prices has dipped from +8% in Q1 2020 to +4% in Q4 2020, despite robust housing demand as evidenced by the 40% growth in building approvals. At the same time, housing valuations have become less stretched with the ratio of median home prices to median household incomes falling -9% from the 2017 peak according to data from the OECD (Chart 14). The RBA remains sensitive to the potential financial stability risks from overvalued housing. The latest trends in the house price data, however, suggest that the central bank does not yet to have the use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to cool off an overheated housing market. Chart 15Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) In sum, the majority of items in our RBA Checklist are signaling no immediate pressure on the central bank to tighten policy. The first 25bp rate hike is not discounted in the Australian OIS curve until April 2023, a little ahead of RBA guidance but still consistent with a very dovish policy bias. The inflation data, in our view, will be the critical factor that could prompt the markets to pull forward expected monetary tightening, leading to a surge in Australian bond yields. With the RBA already expecting a surge in inflation in the Q2/2020 data, the central bank would likely want to see at least a couple of more quarterly inflation prints – both for the CPI and wage price index - before signaling a more hawkish policy shift. Thus, the RBA will likely stay dovish over the latter half of 2021 Therefore, we are moving to an overweight recommended stance on Australian government bonds on a tactical (0-6 months) basis. In our model bond portfolio on pages 16-17, we are “funding” that shift to an above-benchmark weighting in Australia out of US Treasury exposure. Given our view that the Fed will soon begin to signal a 2022 taper of its asset purchases, relative policy dovishness should lead Australian government bonds to outperform US Treasuries in the latter half of this year. In addition, Australian bonds have a lower yield beta to changes in US Treasury yields, relative to the high beta to changes in non-US developed market yields (Chart 15), making allocations out of the US into Australia attractive from a risk management perspective in a global bond portfolio. Bottom Line: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical investment horizon.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20, 2018. 2 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The Fed: The Fed will formally discuss tapering plans over the course of this summer and fall and announce the slowing of asset purchases before the end of 2021. Its labor market objectives will also be achieved in time to lift rates in 2022. Non-US Developed Markets: The central banks outside the US most likely to deliver tapering and/or outright rate hikes over the next 1-2 years are those facing housing bubbles – the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The ECB will do nothing on rates while adjusting asset purchase programs to preserve the size of its balance sheet, while the Reserve Bank of Australia will also sit on their hands for longer. Bond Strategy Recommendations: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US-only and global fixed income portfolios. Global bond investors should also favor exposure in markets where central banks will be more dovish than expected (core Europe, Australia), while limiting exposure to markets where hawkish surprises are more likely (the US, Canada, New Zealand). Feature The recovery from the 2020 COVID recession is now well underway and many investors are getting antsy about when central bankers might respond by removing monetary policy accommodation. Some central banks appear more eager than others. Both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, for instance, have already started to reduce their rates of bond buying. Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve is only just now starting to talk about the timing of its own tapering. This Special Report lays out a timeline for what central bank actions we should expect during the next two years. The first section focuses exclusively on the US Federal Reserve and the second section incorporates likely announcements from other central banks. Based on a comparison of our expected central bank timeline with current market prices, we conclude that investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US-only and global fixed income portfolios. Global bond investors should also favor government bonds in countries where central banks are likely to be less hawkish than markets expect (core Europe, Australia) versus bonds from countries where hawkish surprises are more likely (US, Canada, New Zealand and, potentially, the UK and Sweden).   The Federal Reserve’s Timeline Chart 1 shows our anticipated timeline for when the Federal Reserve will make specific policy announcements between now and the start of 2024. Chart 1The Federal Reserve’s Timeline A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years First, over the course of this summer, the Fed will initiate discussions about when to taper its asset purchases. Then, asset purchase tapering will be announced at the December 2021 FOMC meeting with purchases set to decline as of the beginning of 2022. We expect that net Fed purchases will fall to zero by the end of Q3 2022. That is, by that time the Fed will no longer be adding to its securities holdings. Rather, it will keep the size of its balance sheet constant. Then, with its balance sheet no longer growing, the Fed will begin the process of lifting interest rates. We expect the first rate hike to occur at the December 2022 FOMC meeting. Finally, some time after the fed funds rate is well above the zero bound, the Fed will try to reduce the size of its securities portfolio. How do we arrive at this timeline? Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years We start with the Fed’s forward guidance about the timing of the first rate hike (Table 1). The Fed has told us that it will lift rates off the zero bound once (i) PCE inflation is above 2%, (ii) the labor market is at “maximum employment” and (iii) inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time. The first item on the Fed’s liftoff checklist has already been met and the third item logically follows from the other two. That is, if inflation is above 2% and the labor market is at “maximum employment” then the Fed will certainly expect inflation to remain high. This means that the second item on the Fed’s checklist is the most critical for assessing the timing of liftoff. In assessing the US labor market’s progress toward “maximum employment” we first have to define what “maximum employment” means. Based on the Fed’s communications, we infer that “maximum employment” means an unemployment rate between 3.5% and 4.5% - a range consistent with the Fed’s NAIRU estimates – and a labor force participation rate that has recovered back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2). Table 2 presents the average monthly growth in nonfarm payrolls that is required to reach that definition of maximum employment by specific future dates. For example, we calculate that average monthly payroll growth of 698k to 830k will cause the labor market to reach maximum employment by the end of this year. Average monthly payroll growth of 412k to 493k is required to hit the Fed’s target by the end of 2022. Chart 2Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach Maximum Employment By The Given Date A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years The most recent issue of the Bank Credit Analyst posits several reasons why US employment growth will pick up steam in the coming months.1 We agree with this view and note that indicators of labor demand such as job openings, the NFIB “jobs hard to get” survey and the Conference Board’s “jobs plentiful” survey also point to accelerating employment gains.2 All told, we think that average monthly payroll growth of 412k to 493k is eminently achievable (Chart 3). This means that the Fed will hit its three liftoff criteria in time to hike rates before the end of 2022. Chart 3Max Employment By The End of 2022 Max Employment By The End of 2022 Max Employment By The End of 2022 Working backwards from the expected liftoff date, the Fed has said that it needs to see “substantial progress” toward the criteria listed in Table 1 before it will taper its pace of asset purchases. The definition of “substantial progress” remains somewhat unclear, but a few recent Fed communications provide some clues. First, Fed Chair Jay Powell said that he wants to see a “string of months” like the strong March employment report before it will be appropriate to reduce the pace of asset purchases. The question of how many months constitutes a “string” remains unclear, but it certainly seems plausible that we could see two or three more strong employment reports over the course of the summer. Other Fed Governors appear to agree with this timeline. Governor Randal Quarles: If my expectations about economic growth, employment, and inflation over the coming months are borne out, however, and especially if they come in stronger than I expect, then, as noted in the minutes of the last FOMC meeting, it will become important for the FOMC to begin discussing our plans to adjust the pace of asset purchases at upcoming meetings.3 Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida: I myself think that the pace of labor market improvement will pick up. […] It may well be the time that – there will come a time in upcoming meetings we’ll be at the point where we can begin to discuss scaling back the pace of asset purchases …4 Fed Governor Christopher Waller: The May and June jobs report[s] may reveal that April was an outlier, but we need to see that first before we start thinking about adjusting our policy stance.5 Our takeaway from these comments is that two or three more strong employment reports, say 500k or higher, would be sufficient for the Fed to more formally discuss tapering plans. Further, several Fed Governors seem to agree with our forecast that nonfarm payroll growth will accelerate in the coming months. With that in mind, it seems reasonable to expect that the Fed will discuss tapering plans over the course of the summer and fall, and that it will have seen sufficient labor market gains to announce a formal plan before the end of this year. Assuming that a tapering announcement occurs before the end of this year and that asset purchases actually start declining as of Jan 1st 2022, we estimate that the tapering process will conclude by the end of Q3 2022. That is, the Fed will hold the size of its balance sheet constant as of that date. Chart 4Balance Sheet Growth Will End Before The First Rate Hike Balance Sheet Growth Will End Before The First Rate Hike Balance Sheet Growth Will End Before The First Rate Hike At the very least, the Fed will certainly bring its net purchases to zero before it lifts rates. This is because it would be incoherent for the Fed to be tightening policy through its interest rate actions while it eases policy with its balance sheet strategy. Indeed, this is the roadmap that the Fed followed leading up to the 2015 rate hike cycle (Chart 4). Finally, we note that the Fed will try to reduce the size of its balance sheet only after the process of rate hikes is well underway. This will be consistent with the last tightening cycle when the Fed waited until the funds rate was 1.5% before it pared the size of its securities portfolio (Chart 4). We also want to stress that the Fed will only try to reduce the size of its balance sheet. In fact, we doubt that this process will get very far. The main reason for our skepticism is that there is an ongoing structural issue in the Treasury market where the supply of securities keeps growing while stricter regulations make it more costly for primary dealers to intermediate trades.6 In this environment, there are strong odds that Treasury market liquidity will evaporate whenever there is a significant shock to financial markets. When that happens, the Fed will be forced to support Treasury market liquidity through large-scale purchases, as was the case during last March’s market turmoil (Chart 5). In essence, the likelihood of future shocks that will necessitate Fed intervention in the Treasury market makes it unlikely that the Fed will make much progress reducing the size of its balance sheet. Chart 5Fed Had To Support Treasury Market In March 2020 Fed Had To Support Treasury Market In March 2020 Fed Had To Support Treasury Market In March 2020 Market Expectations And Investment Implications We can get a sense of how our Fed timeline compares to consensus expectations by looking at the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers (Tables 3A & 3B). Respondents to these surveys expect tapering to start in early 2022, in line with our expectations, though they generally see it taking longer for net purchases to fall to zero. Respondents also expect a later Fed liftoff date than we do and don’t see the Fed trying to reduce the size of its balance sheet until well after rate hikes have begun. Table 3ASurvey of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years Table 3BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years But more important for investors than survey results is what is currently priced into the yield curve. In that regard, the overnight index swap curve is priced for Fed liftoff in February 2023 and a total of 75 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 6). We expect rate hikes to start earlier and proceed more quickly than that, and therefore recommend running below-benchmark duration in US bond portfolios. Chart 6Market Rate Expectations Market Rate Expectations Market Rate Expectations The Timelines For Other Central Banks Policymakers outside the US are facing many of the same issues that the Fed is – rapidly recovering economies coming out of the pandemic, inflation overshoots, and surging asset prices. However, not every central bank will respond at the same time, or same pace, as the Fed. In Charts 7a and 7b, we show additional timelines for two of the most important non-Fed central banks: the European Central Bank (ECB) and the BoE. We see the likely dates and policy decisions playing out as follows. Chart 7AThe ECB’s Timeline A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years Chart 7BThe Bank Of England’s Timeline A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years European Central Bank For the ECB, the timing of its upcoming inflation strategy review is the most critical element. That report is due to be delivered in the latter half of this year, most likely in September or October (no firm release date has been announced by the ECB). It is highly unlikely that any meaningful policy changes will be implemented before that strategic review is completed. Some ECB officials have hinted that a move to a Fed-like interpretation of the ECB inflation target, tolerating overshoots of the target to make up for past undershoots, could result from the strategy review. The more likely option will be a move to an inflation target range, perhaps a 1-3% tolerance band, that offers more policy flexibility than the current target of just below 2%. This will potentially “move the goalposts” for the ECB in a way that will make monetary tightening even less likely compared to previous cycles. Looking at past ECB tightening episodes dating back to the central bank’s inception in 1998, it is clear that a majority of countries within the euro area must be seeing inflation that is high enough, with unemployment low enough, before any policy tightening can take place. Chart 8 illustrates this point, by showing “breadth” measures for unemployment and inflation across the euro area.7 Chart 8The ECB Usually Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based The ECB Usually Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based The ECB Usually Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based Specifically, the chart shows the percentage of euro area countries with an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of full employment (second panel), the percentage of euro area countries with headline inflation higher than one year earlier (third panel) and the percentage of euro area countries with headline inflation above the ECB’s 2% target (bottom panel). We compare those breadth measures to the actual path of policy interest rates and the size of the ECB’s balance sheet (top panel). The conclusion from the chart is that the euro area is still a long way from having the sort of broad-based rise in inflation or fall in unemployment necessary to trigger a reduction in the size of its balance sheet or actual interest rate hikes. Chart 9The ECB Is Under No Pressure To Tighten Pre-Emptively The ECB Is Under No Pressure To Tighten Pre-Emptively The ECB Is Under No Pressure To Tighten Pre-Emptively Nonetheless, our expectation is that the ECB will want to begin preparing the markets for the end of the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) - which has been buying government bonds since March 2020 in a less constrained fashion than previous asset purchase programs - shortly after the inflation strategy review is concluded. Much of the euro area economy is already showing signs of rapid recovery from pandemic induced lockdowns, amid an accelerating pace of vaccinations. On top of that, the Next Generation European Union (NGEU) recovery fund is set to begin distributing funds in the final quarter of 2021, providing a meaningful lift to government investment and expected growth in 2022. It will be difficult for the ECB to justify the need for an “emergency” program like the PEPP to continue against such a growth backdrop, especially with euro area inflation no longer at the depressed levels seen in 2020. We expect the ECB to begin preparing the market for the end of PEPP heading into the December 2021 ECB policy meeting, when it will be announced that the program will not be renewed when it expires in March 2022 (Chart 9). As always for such major policy announcements, the ECB will wish to do so when there is a new set of economic forecasts used to justify any changes. This is why December – the first meeting after the strategic review is completed that will also have new forecasts – is the earliest realistic date for an announcement on the PEPP. The communication around the PEPP announcement will need to be delicate, as the PEPP has significantly increased the ECB’s footprint in European bond markets. The share of government bonds owned by the ECB has increased by anywhere from five to ten percentage points since the PEPP began (Chart 10). We expect the ECB will be forced to expand its existing Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) to make up for the eventual disappearance of the PEPP. This means that the PEPP will be effectively “rolled into” the PSPP, to limit the damage from a likely post-PEPP surge in bond yields in the more fragile markets like Italy, Spain and even Greece – especially with the euro now trading close to pre-2008 highs on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 11). Chart 10The PEPP Can Expire, But Cannot Disappear A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years Chart 11ECB Must Avoid A 'PEPP Taper Tantrum' ECB Must Avoid A 'PEPP Taper Tantrum' ECB Must Avoid A 'PEPP Taper Tantrum' There is a chance that the ECB will want to avoid any “PEPP taper tantrum” in Peripheral European yields (and spreads versus Germany) by making an announcement on PEPP expiry and PSPP expansion at the same meeting. If that happens, we suspect it would happen in December of this year rather than sometime in the first quarter of 2022. Beyond that, the ECB will likely seek to keep financial conditions as accommodative as possible by keeping policy interest rates unchanged well into 2023, with an actual rate hike not likely until mid-2024 at the earliest. The ECB could deliver a more modest form of “tightening” before then by letting some of the cheap bank funding programs (TLTROs) expire. Although we suspect that even those programs will need to be renewed, perhaps at less attractive financing terms, to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions in the euro area banking system. Bank Of England Chart 12BoE Forecasts Are Conservative BoE Forecasts Are Conservative BoE Forecasts Are Conservative Having already announced a tapering of the pace of its bond buying in early May, the BoE is likely to continue along that path over the next year. We expect the BoE, like the ECB, to make any future taper announcements when new sets of economic forecasts are published in Monetary Policy Reports. Thus, the next taper announcements are expected in August 2021, November 2021 and February 2022, with a full tapering down to zero net purchases (new buying only replacing maturing bonds) by May 2022 at the latest. The first rate hike will occur between 6-12 months after the end of tapering, possibly as early as November 2022 but, more likely in our view, sometime closer to mid-2023. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 12). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. The BoE has been one of the least active central banks in the developed world since the 2008 financial crisis. The BoE main policy rate, the Bank Rate, has been no higher than 0.75% since then, even with the BoE threatening to lift rates to higher levels many times under the leadership of former Governor Mark Carney when inflation was overshooting the bank’s 2% target. Of course, the Brexit uncertainty since mid-2016 effectively tied the hands of the central bank and prevented any possible policy tightening. Now that Brexit has actually happened, however, the BoE has more flexibility to respond to developments with UK economic growth and inflation, as needed. A possible path for the UK Cash Rate was laid out in a recent speech by BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) member Gertjan Vlieghe.8 He triggered a selloff across the Gilt market with his comment that a BoE rate hike could occur as early as Q2 2022 – with the Bank Rate rising to 1.25% from the current 0.1% by 2024 - under more optimistic scenarios for UK growth and employment. His base case, however, was that the coming uptick in UK inflation will prove to be temporary, but that a move towards full employment will make the first hike more likely toward the end of 2022 with modest rate increases in 2023 and 2024 that will take the Bank Rate to 0.75% (Chart 13). Chart 13Gilts Are Vulnerable To A Hawkish Surprise Gilts Are Vulnerable To A Hawkish Surprise Gilts Are Vulnerable To A Hawkish Surprise Vlighe’s base case scenario on growth and interest rates is in line with the BoE’s current forecasts that call for spare capacity in the UK economy to be fully eliminated by mid-2022, with rate hikes to begin in mid-2023. That is broadly in line with our projected BoE timeline and with current pricing in the UK OIS curve, although we see risks tilted towards faster growth and inflation – and the BoE moving more aggressively than projected – over the next 12-18 months. Other Major Developed Market Central Banks Looking beyond the “Big Three” of the Fed, ECB and BoE, central bank timelines have become increasingly dependent on a single factor – the strength of domestic housing markets. House prices are booming in Canada, New Zealand and Sweden, with valuation measures like the ratio of median house prices to median incomes soaring to historical extremes according to the OECD (Chart 14). House prices are also climbing fast in the US and UK, but the valuation measures have not surpassed the peaks seen during the mid-2000s housing bubble. The housing boom has already motivated some central banks to respond by turning less dovish sooner than expected, even with unemployment rates still above pre-pandemic peaks (Chart 15).9 The BoC noted that soaring Canadian housing values motivated the taper announcement in April. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has come under political pressure over the growing unaffordability of New Zealand homes, with the government changing the central bank’s remit earlier this year to force the RBNZ to explicitly consider house price inflation when setting monetary policy. Chart 14Surging House Prices Can Turn Doves Into Hawks Surging House Prices Can Turn Doves Into Hawks Surging House Prices Can Turn Doves Into Hawks Chart 15These CBs Could Turn More Hawkish Before Reaching Full Employment These CBs Could Turn More Hawkish Before Reaching Full Employment These CBs Could Turn More Hawkish Before Reaching Full Employment We expect more tapering announcements from the BoC over the latter half of 2021, with a first rate hike likely sometime in the first quarter of 2022. We see the RBNZ moving aggressively, as well, tapering over the remainder of 2021 before lifting rates by the spring of 2022 at the latest. Sweden’s Riksbank will be the next central bank to turn more hawkish because of surging home values, although they will lag the pace of the BoC and RBNZ with Sweden only now beginning to emerge from lockdowns associated with a third wave of COVID-19 cases. Importantly, Australia – a country that has dealt with house price surges in the past – has seen house price valuations retreat over the past few years, even with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) slashing policy rates to historic lows. The RBA also introduced yield curve control in 2020 to anchor the level of short-term bond yields, while also engaging in outright bond purchases to mitigate the rise in longer-term bond yields. With Australian inflation still remaining well below target in a year of rising global inflation, and with subdued labor costs likely to keep price pressures moderate over the next 12-18 months, we expect the RBA to move very slowly on both tapering and rate hikes. Finally, for completeness, we should note that we do not expect any policy changes from the Bank of Japan (BoJ) over the next two years, with inflation likely to remain far below the central bank’s 2% target. Non-US Investment Implications In Table 4, we show the timing of the first rate hike (i.e. “liftoff”), and the subsequent amount of total rate hikes to the end of 2024, as currently discounted in the OIS curves of the eight countries discussed in this report. We rank the countries in the table in order of liftoff dates, starting with the closest to today. Table 4The “Pecking Order” Of Central Bank Rate Hikes A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years The RBNZ is expected to hike first in May 2022, followed by the BoC (September 2022), the Fed (February 2023), the RBA (April 2023), the Riksbank (May 2023), the BoE (May 2023), the ECB (June 2023) and the BoJ (October 2025). The cumulative amount of rate hikes discounted to the end of 2024 rank similarly: more rate increases are expected in New Zealand (167bps), Canada (150bps), the US (137bps) and Australia (113bps); while fewer rate increases are expected in the Sweden (63bps), the UK (61bps), the euro area (31bps) and Japan (7bps). According to our various central bank timelines discussed in this report, we see the risks of a rate hike coming sooner than discounted by markets in the US, Canada and New Zealand. We see central banks moving slower than markets expect in the euro area and Australia, while we see Sweden and UK priced in line with our base case views (although we see risks tilted towards a more hawkish turn faster than expected in the latter two). The story is the same in terms of cumulative rate hikes discounted in OIS curves, with markets not pricing in enough rate hikes in New Zealand, Canada and the US – and, possibly, Sweden and the UK – while pricing too many hikes in Australia and the euro area. This leads us to recommend the following country allocations in a global government bond portfolio: Underweight the US, Canada and New Zealand Overweight Australia and core Europe (and Japan) Neutral Sweden and the UK, but with a bias to downgrade. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst June 2021 Monthly Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 27, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20210526b.htm 4 https://ca.news.yahoo.com/federal-reserve-vice-chair-richard-clarida-yahoo-finance-transcript-may-2021-173007192.html 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20210513a.htm 6 For a longer discussion of Treasury market liquidity issues please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup 2: Shocked And Awed”, dated July 28, 2020. 7 For more details, please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, “ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells”, dated May 19, 2021. 8 The full speech can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2021/may/gertjan-vlieghe-speech-hosted-by-the-department-of-economics-and-the-ipr 9 For more details on the global housing boom, see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers”, dated May 28, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights House prices are rising rapidly across the developed markets, in response to the extraordinary monetary and fiscal policy stimulus implemented to fight the pandemic. Evidence points to the house price surge being driven by monetary policy that has left real interest rates far below equilibrium levels. Supply factors are a secondary cause of the house price boom. Financial stability risks stemming from rising house prices are less acute than the pre-2008 experience, as overall household leverage has grown more slowly during the pandemic and global banks are better capitalized. Rapidly rising house prices are forcing some central banks to turn less accommodative earlier than expected. The recent hawkish turns by the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand may be canaries in the coal mine for other central banks – perhaps even the Fed – if house prices and household leverage start rising together. Feature The COVID-19 pandemic led to the sharpest economic recession since World War II, alongside an enormous rise in unemployment. Consensus expectations call for the output gap to be closed (or mostly closed) in most advanced economies by the end of this year, but it remains an open question how quickly these economies will be able to return to full employment amid potentially permanent shifts in demand for office space and goods sold at physical, “brick and mortar” retail locations. Despite this sizeable and swift economic shock, house price appreciation accelerated last year in the developed world. Chart 1 highlights that US house prices rose at an 18% annualized pace in the second half of 2020, whereas they accelerated at a high-single digit pace in developed markets ex-US (on a GDP-weighted basis). This, in conjunction with a sharp rise in the household sector credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart 2), has unnerved some investors while raising questions about the implications for monetary policy. Chart 1House Prices Are Surging Around The World House Prices Are Surging Around The World House Prices Are Surging Around The World Chart 2Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Before we discuss the investment implications of the global housing boom, however, we must first accurately determine the reasons why it is happening. The Work-From-Home Effect: Less Than Meets The Eye When analyzing the surprising behavior of the housing market last year, the working-from-home effect brought upon by the pandemic emerges as an obvious factor potentially explaining house price gains. Last year, following recommended or mandatory stay-at-home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to work-from-home arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay-at-home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by work-from-home arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved. Several prominent corporations in the US have subsequently made some work-from-home options permanent, or even allowed employees to work from offices in a different city than they did prior to the pandemic. Newfound work-from-home options have undoubtedly created new demand for housing, and thus explained the surge in house prices seen over the past year in the minds of some investors. However, in our view, evidence from the US, the UK, and France suggests that the work-from-home effect better explains differences in price gains across housing types and within large metropolitan areas, rather than aggregate or national-level changes in house prices. Chart 3 provides some quantification of the impact of work-from-home policies by plotting US resident migration patterns by city. This data has been compiled by CBRE, and the impact of COVID is shown as the change in net move-ins from 2019 to 2020 per 1000 people. This helps control for the underlying migration pattern that existed in US cities prior to the pandemic. Chart 3Work From Home Policies Have Impacted Migration Trends… Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers The chart highlights that the negative migration impact from COVID has been mostly concentrated in New York City and the three most populous cities on the West Coast (by metro area): Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. And yet, Chart 4 highlights that house price inflation in these four cities has accelerated to a double-digit pace, only modestly below the national average. Chart 4...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains ...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains ...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains The house price indexes shown in Chart 4 represent aggregate, metro area trends, and clearly some regions within these metro areas have experienced house price deceleration or outright deflation versus gains in areas outside the urban core. But Chart 5 highlights that house prices have declined in Manhattan basically in line with the change in net move-ins as a share of the population, underscoring that double-digit metro area-wide house price gains appear to be vastly disproportionate to changes in net migration. Similarly, Chart 6 highlights that rents decelerated in the US over the past year but remained in positive territory and grew at a 3.5% annualized rate from February to April. Chart 5In Manhattan, House Prices Have Tracked Net Migration Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Chart 6Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Evidence from Paris and London also suggests that a work-from-home effect is insufficient to explain broad house price gains. Panel 1 of Chart 7 highlights that house prices in France have accelerated significantly, but that apartment prices have decelerated only fractionally in lockstep. Panel 2 shows that the acceleration in house prices does reflect a work-from-home effect, as prices have risen faster in inner Parisian suburbs. Panel 3, however, highlights that Parisian apartment prices, the dominant property type in the urban core, have decelerated modestly. Chart 8 highlights that house price gains have not even decelerated in greater London; they have been merely been modestly outstripped by gains in Outer South East (outside of the Outer Metropolitan Area). Chart 7In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling Chart 8In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating     The Policy Effect: The Fundamental Driver Of The Housing Market Despite the broader location flexibility that work-from-home policies now provide to potential homeowners, it seems inconceivable that the housing market would have responded in the manner that it has over the past year given the size of the economic shock brought on by the pandemic without significant support from policy. Above-the-line fiscal measures to the pandemic have totaled in the double-digits in advanced economies (Chart 9), and monetary policy has contributed to easier financial conditions via rate cuts, asset purchases, and sizeable programs to support financial market liquidity. Chart 9There Has Been A Massive Fiscal Policy Response To The Crisis Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers In fact, Charts 10-13 present compelling evidence that fiscal and monetary policy have been the core drivers of significant house price gains over the past year. Charts 10 and 11 plot the above-the-line fiscal response of advanced economies against the year-over-year growth rate in house prices as well as its acceleration (the change in the year-over-year growth rate). The charts show a clearly positive relationship, with a stronger link between the pandemic fiscal response and the acceleration in house prices. Chart 10Differences In Last Year’s Fiscal Response… June 2021 June 2021 Chart 11…Help Explain Differences In House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021 Chart 12Pre-Pandemic Differences In The Monetary Policy Stance… June 2021 June 2021 Chart 13…Do An Even Better Job Of Explaining 2020 House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021   Charts 12 and 13 highlight the even stronger link between house prices and the pre-pandemic monetary policy stance in advanced economies, defined as the difference between each country’s 2-year government bond yield and its Taylor Rule-implied policy interest rate as of Q4 2019. We construct each country’s Taylor Rule using the original specification, with core consumer price inflation, a 2% inflation target, and real potential GDP growth as the definition of the real equilibrium interest rate. The charts make it clear that easy monetary policy strongly explains house price gains in 2020, particularly the year-over-year percent change rather than its acceleration. This makes sense, given that monetary policy was already quite easy in many countries at the onset of the pandemic – meaning that changes were less pronounced than they would have been had interest rates been higher. The explanation that emerges from Charts 10-13 is that historic fiscal easing, combined with an easy starting point for monetary policy – that became even easier last year – enabled demand from work-from-home policies to manifest during an extremely severe recession. We agree that work-from-home policies have shifted the geographic preferences of some home buyers and likely provided a new source of net demand from renters in urban cores purchasing homes in outlying areas. But we strongly doubt that the net effect of work-from-home policies in the midst of an extreme shock to economic activity would have caused the rise in house prices that we have observed, certainly not to this level, without major support from policy. This underscores that policy, and not the work-from-home effect, has and will likely remain the core driver of the global housing market. The Supply Effect: Mostly A Red Herring Chart 14Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment One perennial question that emerges when analyzing the housing market, particularly in markets with outsized house price gains, is the impact of constrained supply. It is frequently argued that constrained supply is squeezing prices higher in many markets, and that the appropriate policy solution to extreme house price gains is to enable widespread housing construction – not to raise interest rates. We do not rule out the potential impact of constrained supply in certain cities or regional housing markets, and we have highlighted in previous research that a positive relationship does exist between population density in urban regions and median house price-to-income ratios.1 But as a broad explanation for supercharged house price gains, the supply argument appears to fall flat. Chart 14 presents the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies, the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1), and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or have seen a flat trend (panel 2). If scarce housing supply was the core driver of outsized house price gains, then we would expect to see stronger gains in the countries shown in panel 1 and smaller gains in the countries shown in panel 2. In fact, mostly the opposite is true: Charts 15 and 16 highlight that the relationship between the level of these indexes today relative to their 1997 or 2005 levels is positively related to the magnitude of house price gains last year, suggesting that housing market supply has generally been responding to demand over the past decade. The US and possibly New Zealand stand as possible exceptions to the trend, suggesting that relatively scarce supply may be boosting prices even further in these markets beyond what fiscal and monetary policy would suggest. Chart 15Countries That Have Seen A Stronger Pace Of Residential Investment… June 2021 June 2021 Chart 16…Have Experienced Stronger House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021   Chart 17Is This Not Enough Supply, Or Too Much Demand? Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers As a final point about the inclination of investors to gravitate towards supply-side arguments related to the housing market, Chart 17 presents a simple thought experiment. The chart shows a simple housing supply-demand curve diagram, in a scenario where the demand curve for housing has shifted out more than the supply curve has (thus raising house prices). Is this a scenario in which supply is too tight? Or is it a case in which demand is too strong? In our view, the tight supply answer is reasonable in circumstances where the increase in demand is normal or otherwise sustainable. But Charts 10-13 clearly showed that housing demand is being boosted by easy policy, which in the case of some countries has occurred for years: interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium, and this has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging (Chart 18). As such, in our view, investors should be more inclined to view the global housing market as generally being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. This Is Not 2007/08 … Yet We highlighted in Chart 2 above that the household sector debt-to-GDP ratio increased sharply last year, which has raised some questions about debt sustainability among investors. For the most part, the rise in this ratio actually reflects denominator effects (namely a sharp contraction in nominal GDP) rather than a huge surge in household debt. Chart 19 shows BIS data for the annual growth in total household debt in developed economies was roughly stable last year, at least until Q3 (the most recent datapoint available from the BIS). Chart 18Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Chart 19Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Chart 20US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth But Chart 19 shows the recent trend in total household debt, which masks diverging mortgage and non-mortgage debt trends. In the US, euro area, Canada, and Sweden, household mortgage debt has accelerated to varying degrees, underscoring that households have likely paid down non-mortgage debt with some of the savings that they have accumulated from a significant reduction in spending on services. Chart 20 shows this effect directly in the case of the US; mortgage debt growth accelerated by roughly 1.5 percentage points in the second half of the year, whereas consumer credit growth (made up of student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and other revolving credit) decelerated significantly. This aligns with data showing that US households have used some of their savings windfall to pay down their credit card balances. This changing mix within household debt - less higher-interest-rate consumer credit, more lower-interest-rate collateralized mortgage debt – could, on the margin, help mitigate financial stability risks from the housing boom by moderating overall debt service burdens. The starting point for the latter matters, though, in accurately assessing the risks from rising house prices and increased mortgage debt, particularly in countries where household debt levels are already high. According to data from the BIS, the US already has one of the lowest household debt service ratios (7.6%) among the developed economies (Chart 21).2 This compares favorably to the double-digit debt service ratios in the “higher-risk” countries like Canada (12.6%), Sweden (12.1%) and Norway (16.2%). On top of that, US commercial banks have become far more prudent with mortgage loan underwriting standards since the 2008 financial crisis. The New York Fed’s Household Debt and Credit report shows that an increasing majority of mortgage lending made by US banks since the 2008 crisis has been to those with very high FICO credit scores (Chart 22). This is in sharp contrast to the steady lending to “subprime” borrowers with poor credit scores that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgage originations as of Q1 2021 was 788, compared to 707 in Q4 2006 at the peak of the mid-2000s US housing boom. Chart 21Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Chart 22US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending   US bank balance sheets are also now less directly exposed to a fall in housing values. Residential loans now represent only 10% of the assets on US bank balance sheets, compared to 20% at the peak of the last housing bubble (Chart 23). This puts the US in the “lower-risk” group of countries in Europe, the UK and Japan where mortgages are less than 20% of bank balance sheets. This compares favorably to the “higher risk” group of countries where residential loans are a far larger share of bank assets (Chart 24), like Canada (32%), New Zealand (49%), Sweden (45%) and Australia (40%). Chart 23Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Chart 24Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here   Like nature, however, the financial ecosystem abhors a vacuum. “Non-bank” mortgage lenders have filled the void from traditional US banks reducing their lending to lower-quality borrowers, and they now represent around two-thirds of all US mortgage origination, a big leap from the 20% origination share in 2007. Non-bank lenders have also taken on growing shares of new mortgage origination in other countries like the UK, Canada and Australia. Chart 25Global Banks Can Withstand A Housing Shock Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Non-bank lenders do not take deposits and typically fund themselves via shorter-term borrowings, which raises the potential for future instability if credit markets seize up. These lenders also, on average, service mortgages with a higher probability of default, so they are exposed to greater credit losses when house prices decline. However, the risk of a full-blown 2008-style commercial banking crisis, with individual depositors’ funds at risk from a bank failure, are reduced with a greater share of riskier mortgage lending conducted by non-bank entities. This is especially true with global commercial banks far better capitalized today, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios (Chart 25), thanks to regulatory changes made after the Global Financial Crisis. Net-net, we conclude that the overall financial stability implications of the current surge in house prices in the developed economies are relatively modest on average. The acceleration in mortgage growth has occurred alongside reductions in non-mortgage growth, at a time when banks are better able to withstand a shock from any sustained future downturn in house prices. However, if house prices continue to accelerate and new homebuyers are forced to take on ever increasing amounts of mortgage debt, financial stability issues could intensify in some countries. Services spending will recover in a vaccinated post-COVID world, as economies reopen and consumer confidence improves, which will likely end the trend of falling non-residential consumer debt offsetting rising mortgage debt in countries like the US and Canada. Overall levels of household debt could begin to rise again relative to incomes, building up future financial stability risks when central banks begin to normalize pandemic-related monetary policies – a process that has already started in some countries because of the housing boom. The Monetary Policy Implications Of Surging House Prices Rapidly appreciating house prices are becoming an area of concern for policymakers in countries like Canada and New Zealand, where the affordability of housing is becoming a political, as well as an economic, issue. In the case of New Zealand, the government has actually altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs. The Bank of Canada announced in April that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases and signaled that its decision was based, at least in small part, on signs of speculative behavior in Canada’s housing market. Macroprudential measures like limiting loan-to-value ratios of new mortgage loans are a policy option that governments in those countries have already implemented to try and cool off housing demand. Yet while such measures can help alleviate demand-supply mismatches in certain cities and regions, the efficacy of such measures in sustainably slowing the ascent of house prices on a national scale is unclear. In the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, researchers estimated that, for a broad group of countries, the implementation of a new macro-prudential measure designed to cool loan demand reduced national household debt/GDP ratios by a mere one percentage point, on average, over a period encompassing four years.3 If macroprudential measures are that ineffective in sustainably reducing demand for mortgage loans, then the burden of slowing house price appreciation will have to fall on the more blunt instruments of monetary policy. Importantly, surging house price inflation is not likely to give a boost to realized inflation measures – an important issue given the current backdrop of rapidly rising realized inflation rates in many countries. Housing costs do represent a significant portion of consumer price indices in many developed countries, ranging from 19% in New Zealand to 33% in the US (Chart 26), with the euro area being the outlier with housing having a mere 2% weighting in the headline inflation index. Chart 26A Limited Impact On Actual Inflation From Housing June 2021 June 2021 Yet those so-called “housing” categories overwhelmingly measure only housing rental costs and not actual house prices. This is an important distinction because rents – which are often imputed measures like in the US and not even actual rental costs - are rising at a far slower pace than actual house prices in most countries, so the housing contribution to realized inflation is relatively modest. So the good news is that booming house prices will not worsen the acceleration of realized global inflation that has concerned investors and policymakers in 2021. Yet that does not mean that central bankers will not be forced to tighten policy to cool off red-hot housing demand that is clearly being fueled by persistently negative real interest rates. In Chart 27 and Chart 28, we show both nominal and real policy interest rates for the “lower risk” and “higher risk” country groupings that we described earlier. The real policy rates are nominal policy rates versus realized headline CPI inflation. The dotted lines in the charts represent the future path of rates discounted by markets. Specifically, the projection for nominal rates is taken from overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves, while the projection for real rates is calculated by subtracting the discounted path of inflation expectations extracted from CPI swap forwards. Chart 27Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Chart 28Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble   There are two key takeaways from these charts: Real policy interest rates are at or very close to the most deeply negative levels seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Markets are discounting that real rates will be at or below 0% for most of the next decade. Admittedly, there is room for debate over what the equilibrium level of real interest rates (a.k.a. “r-star”) should be in the coming years. However, we deem it a major stretch to believe that real rates need to be persistently low or negative for the next ten years to support even trend growth across the developed economies. In our view, the current boom in housing demand and mortgage borrowing provides clear evidence that negative real rates are below equilibrium and, thus, are stimulating credit demand. Thus, the only way for a central bank to cool off housing demand will be to raise both nominal and, more importantly, real interest rates. Canada and New Zealand will be the “canaries in the coal mine” among developed market central banks for such a move. According to the latest Bank of Canada Financial Stability Review, nearly 22% of Canadian mortgages are highly levered, with a loan-to-value ratio greater than 450%, a greater share of such mortgages than during the 2016/17 housing boom (Chart 29). Canadian house prices have risen to such an extent that home prices in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are among the most expensive in North America.4  Stunningly, a recent Bloomberg Nanos opinion poll revealed that nearly 50% of Canadians would support Bank of Canada rate hikes to cool off the red-hot housing market (Chart 30). The central bank will be unable to resist the pressure to use monetary policy to slam on the brakes of the housing market – investors should expect more tapering and, eventually, rate hikes from the Bank of Canada over at least the next couple of years. Chart 29Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Chart 3050% Of Canadians Want A Rate Hike To Cool Housing June 2021 June 2021   In New Zealand, worsening housing affordability has reached a point where a 20% down payment on the median national house price is equal to 223% of median disposable income (Chart 31). This is forcing more first-time home buyers to take on levels of mortgage debt that the RBNZ deems highly risky (top panel). Like the Bank of Canada, the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank follows their newly-revised remit to try and cool off housing demand in New Zealand. Who is next? Housing values, measured by the ratio of median national house prices to median national household incomes, are rising in the US and UK but are still below the peaks of the mid-2000s housing bubble (Chart 32). Meanwhile, housing is becoming more expensive across the euro area, but not in a consistent manner, with valuations in Germany and Spain having increased far more than in France or Italy. Housing valuations have actually improved in Australia over the past couple of years on a price-to-income basis. The most likely candidates for a housing-related hawkish turn are in Scandinavia, with housing valuations in Sweden and Norway closing in on Canada/New Zealand levels. Chart 31New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable Chart 32Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher   Investment Conclusions The current acceleration in global house prices is an inevitable outcome of the extraordinary monetary and fiscal easing implemented during the pandemic. Higher realized inflation is pushing real rates deeper into negative territory in many countries, fueling the demand for housing. Central banks in countries with more stretched housing valuations will be forced to turn more hawkish sooner than expected, leading to tapering and, eventually, rate hikes to cool housing demand. This has negative implications for government bond markets in countries where housing is more expensive and real yields remain too low, like Canada, New Zealand and Sweden (Chart 33). Investors should limit exposure to government bonds in those markets over the next 6-12 months. Chart 33Negative Real Yields & Expensive Housing Valuations – An Unsustainable Mix June 2021 June 2021 Bond markets in countries where house prices are not rising rapidly enough to force policymakers to turn more hawkish more quickly – like core Europe, Australia and even Japan - are likely to be relative outperformers. The US and UK are “cuspy” bond markets, as housing valuations are becoming more expensive in those two countries but the Fed and Bank of England are not facing the same domestic political pressure to use monetary policy tools to fight the growing unaffordability of housing. That could change, though, if overall household leverage begins to rise alongside house price inflation as the US and UK economies emerge from the pandemic. Current pricing in OIS curves shows that markets expect the RBNZ and Bank of Canada to begin hiking rates in May 2022 and September 2022, respectively (Table 1). This is well ahead of expectations for “liftoff” from other developed markets central banks, including the Fed in April 2023. The cumulative amount of rate hikes following liftoff to the end of 2024 is highest in Canada, New Zealand, the US and Australia. Those are also countries with currencies that are trading at or above the purchasing power parity levels derived from our currency strategists’ valuation models. This highlights the difficult choice that central bankers facing housing bubbles must confront, as the rate hikes that will help cool off housing demand will lead to currency appreciation that could impact other parts of their economies like exports and manufacturing. Table 1Hawkish Central Banks Must Live With Currency Strength Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers Tracking the second-round economic consequences of eventual monetary policy actions to control excessive house price inflation, particularly in “higher risk” countries, is likely to be the subject of future Bank Credit Analyst / Global Fixed Income Strategy reports. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Importantly, the BIS debt service ratios include the payment of both principal and interest, thus making it a true measure of debt service costs that includes repayment of borrowed funds – a critical issue in countries with high loan-to-value ratios for home mortgages. 3 Please see page 46 of Chapter 2 of the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, which can be found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-financial-stability-report-april-2021 4 “Vancouver, Toronto and Hamilton are the least affordable cities in North America: report”, CBC News, May 20, 2021

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan – Province Of China Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China's high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT –  the other markets remain close to records.  Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Continue Tightening In Copper Expected Continue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Aluminum Remains Tight Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Brent Prices Going Up Brent Prices Going Up Chart 10 US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid     Footnotes 1     Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2     Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3    Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4    Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera.  5    We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights House prices are rising rapidly across the developed markets, in response to the extraordinary monetary and fiscal policy stimulus implemented to fight the pandemic. Evidence points to the house price surge being driven by monetary policy that has left real interest rates far below equilibrium levels. Supply factors are a secondary cause of the house price boom. Financial stability risks stemming from rising house prices are less acute than the pre-2008 experience, as overall household leverage has grown more slowly during the pandemic and global banks are better capitalized. Rapidly rising house prices are forcing some central banks to turn less accommodative earlier than expected. The recent hawkish turns by the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand may be canaries in the coal mine for other central banks – perhaps even the Fed – if house prices and household leverage start rising together. Feature The COVID-19 pandemic led to the sharpest economic recession since World War II, alongside an enormous rise in unemployment. Consensus expectations call for the output gap to be closed (or mostly closed) in most advanced economies by the end of this year, but it remains an open question how quickly these economies will be able to return to full employment amid potentially permanent shifts in demand for office space and goods sold at physical, “brick and mortar” retail locations. Despite this sizeable and swift economic shock, house price appreciation accelerated last year in the developed world. Chart II-1 highlights that US house prices rose at an 18% annualized pace in the second half of 2020, whereas they accelerated at a high-single digit pace in developed markets ex-US (on a GDP-weighted basis). This, in conjunction with a sharp rise in the household sector credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart II-2), has unnerved some investors while raising questions about the implications for monetary policy. Chart II-1House Prices Are Surging Around The World House Prices Are Surging Around The World House Prices Are Surging Around The World Chart II-2Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Before we discuss the investment implications of the global housing boom, however, we must first accurately determine the reasons why it is happening. The Work-From-Home Effect: Less Than Meets The Eye When analyzing the surprising behavior of the housing market last year, the working-from-home effect brought upon by the pandemic emerges as an obvious factor potentially explaining house price gains. Last year, following recommended or mandatory stay-at-home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to work-from-home arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay-at-home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by work-from-home arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved. Several prominent corporations in the US have subsequently made some work-from-home options permanent, or even allowed employees to work from offices in a different city than they did prior to the pandemic. Newfound work-from-home options have undoubtedly created new demand for housing, and thus explained the surge in house prices seen over the past year in the minds of some investors. However, in our view, evidence from the US, the UK, and France suggests that the work-from-home effect better explains differences in price gains across housing types and within large metropolitan areas, rather than aggregate or national-level changes in house prices. Chart II-3 provides some quantification of the impact of work-from-home policies by plotting US resident migration patterns by city. This data has been compiled by CBRE, and the impact of COVID is shown as the change in net move-ins from 2019 to 2020 per 1000 people. This helps control for the underlying migration pattern that existed in US cities prior to the pandemic. Chart II-3Work From Home Policies Have Impacted Migration Trends… June 2021 June 2021 The chart highlights that the negative migration impact from COVID has been mostly concentrated in New York City and the three most populous cities on the West Coast (by metro area): Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. And yet, Chart II-4 highlights that house price inflation in these four cities has accelerated to a double-digit pace, only modestly below the national average. Chart II-4...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains ...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains ...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains The house price indexes shown in Chart II-4 represent aggregate, metro area trends, and clearly some regions within these metro areas have experienced house price deceleration or outright deflation versus gains in areas outside the urban core. But Chart II-5 highlights that house prices have declined in Manhattan basically in line with the change in net move-ins as a share of the population, underscoring that double-digit metro area-wide house price gains appear to be vastly disproportionate to changes in net migration. Similarly, Chart II-6 highlights that rents decelerated in the US over the past year but remained in positive territory and grew at a 3.5% annualized rate from February to April. Chart II-5In Manhattan, House Prices Have Tracked Net Migration June 2021 June 2021 Chart II-6Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Evidence from Paris and London also suggests that a work-from-home effect is insufficient to explain broad house price gains. Panel 1 of Chart II-7 highlights that house prices in France have accelerated significantly, but that apartment prices have decelerated only fractionally in lockstep. Panel 2 shows that the acceleration in house prices does reflect a work-from-home effect, as prices have risen faster in inner Parisian suburbs. Panel 3, however, highlights that Parisian apartment prices, the dominant property type in the urban core, have decelerated modestly. Chart II-8 highlights that house price gains have not even decelerated in greater London; they have been merely been modestly outstripped by gains in Outer South East (outside of the Outer Metropolitan Area). Chart II-7In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling Chart II-8In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating     The Policy Effect: The Fundamental Driver Of The Housing Market Despite the broader location flexibility that work-from-home policies now provide to potential homeowners, it seems inconceivable that the housing market would have responded in the manner that it has over the past year given the size of the economic shock brought on by the pandemic without significant support from policy. Above-the-line fiscal measures to the pandemic have totaled in the double-digits in advanced economies (Chart II-9), and monetary policy has contributed to easier financial conditions via rate cuts, asset purchases, and sizeable programs to support financial market liquidity. Chart II-9There Has Been A Massive Fiscal Policy Response To The Crisis June 2021 June 2021 In fact, Charts II-10-II-13 present compelling evidence that fiscal and monetary policy have been the core drivers of significant house price gains over the past year. Charts II-10 and II-11 plot the above-the-line fiscal response of advanced economies against the year-over-year growth rate in house prices as well as its acceleration (the change in the year-over-year growth rate). The charts show a clearly positive relationship, with a stronger link between the pandemic fiscal response and the acceleration in house prices. Chart II-10Differences In Last Year’s Fiscal Response… June 2021 June 2021 Chart II-11…Help Explain Differences In House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021 Chart II-12Pre-Pandemic Differences In The Monetary Policy Stance… June 2021 June 2021 Chart II-13…Do An Even Better Job Of Explaining 2020 House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021   Charts II-12 and II-13 highlight the even stronger link between house prices and the pre-pandemic monetary policy stance in advanced economies, defined as the difference between each country’s 2-year government bond yield and its Taylor Rule-implied policy interest rate as of Q4 2019. We construct each country’s Taylor Rule using the original specification, with core consumer price inflation, a 2% inflation target, and real potential GDP growth as the definition of the real equilibrium interest rate. The charts make it clear that easy monetary policy strongly explains house price gains in 2020, particularly the year-over-year percent change rather than its acceleration. This makes sense, given that monetary policy was already quite easy in many countries at the onset of the pandemic – meaning that changes were less pronounced than they would have been had interest rates been higher. The explanation that emerges from Charts II-10-II-13 is that historic fiscal easing, combined with an easy starting point for monetary policy – that became even easier last year – enabled demand from work-from-home policies to manifest during an extremely severe recession. We agree that work-from-home policies have shifted the geographic preferences of some home buyers and likely provided a new source of net demand from renters in urban cores purchasing homes in outlying areas. But we strongly doubt that the net effect of work-from-home policies in the midst of an extreme shock to economic activity would have caused the rise in house prices that we have observed, certainly not to this level, without major support from policy. This underscores that policy, and not the work-from-home effect, has and will likely remain the core driver of the global housing market. The Supply Effect: Mostly A Red Herring Chart II-14Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment One perennial question that emerges when analyzing the housing market, particularly in markets with outsized house price gains, is the impact of constrained supply. It is frequently argued that constrained supply is squeezing prices higher in many markets, and that the appropriate policy solution to extreme house price gains is to enable widespread housing construction – not to raise interest rates. We do not rule out the potential impact of constrained supply in certain cities or regional housing markets, and we have highlighted in previous research that a positive relationship does exist between population density in urban regions and median house price-to-income ratios.1 But as a broad explanation for supercharged house price gains, the supply argument appears to fall flat. Chart II-14 presents the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies, the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1), and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or have seen a flat trend (panel 2). If scarce housing supply was the core driver of outsized house price gains, then we would expect to see stronger gains in the countries shown in panel 1 and smaller gains in the countries shown in panel 2. In fact, mostly the opposite is true: Charts II-15 and II-16 highlight that the relationship between the level of these indexes today relative to their 1997 or 2005 levels is positively related to the magnitude of house price gains last year, suggesting that housing market supply has generally been responding to demand over the past decade. The US and possibly New Zealand stand as possible exceptions to the trend, suggesting that relatively scarce supply may be boosting prices even further in these markets beyond what fiscal and monetary policy would suggest. Chart II-15Countries That Have Seen A Stronger Pace Of Residential Investment… June 2021 June 2021 Chart II-16…Have Experienced Stronger House Price Gains June 2021 June 2021   Chart II-17Is This Not Enough Supply, Or Too Much Demand? June 2021 June 2021 As a final point about the inclination of investors to gravitate towards supply-side arguments related to the housing market, Chart II-17 presents a simple thought experiment. The chart shows a simple housing supply-demand curve diagram, in a scenario where the demand curve for housing has shifted out more than the supply curve has (thus raising house prices). Is this a scenario in which supply is too tight? Or is it a case in which demand is too strong? In our view, the tight supply answer is reasonable in circumstances where the increase in demand is normal or otherwise sustainable. But Charts II-10-II-13 clearly showed that housing demand is being boosted by easy policy, which in the case of some countries has occurred for years: interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium, and this has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging (Chart II-18). As such, in our view, investors should be more inclined to view the global housing market as generally being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. This Is Not 2007/08 … Yet We highlighted in Chart II-2 above that the household sector debt-to-GDP ratio increased sharply last year, which has raised some questions about debt sustainability among investors. For the most part, the rise in this ratio actually reflects denominator effects (namely a sharp contraction in nominal GDP) rather than a huge surge in household debt. Chart II-19 shows BIS data for the annual growth in total household debt in developed economies was roughly stable last year, at least until Q3 (the most recent datapoint available from the BIS). Chart II-18Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Household Leveraging Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Chart II-19Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Chart II-20US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth But Chart II-19 shows the recent trend in total household debt, which masks diverging mortgage and non-mortgage debt trends. In the US, euro area, Canada, and Sweden, household mortgage debt has accelerated to varying degrees, underscoring that households have likely paid down non-mortgage debt with some of the savings that they have accumulated from a significant reduction in spending on services. Chart II-20 shows this effect directly in the case of the US; mortgage debt growth accelerated by roughly 1.5 percentage points in the second half of the year, whereas consumer credit growth (made up of student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and other revolving credit) decelerated significantly. This aligns with data showing that US households have used some of their savings windfall to pay down their credit card balances. This changing mix within household debt - less higher-interest-rate consumer credit, more lower-interest-rate collateralized mortgage debt – could, on the margin, help mitigate financial stability risks from the housing boom by moderating overall debt service burdens. The starting point for the latter matters, though, in accurately assessing the risks from rising house prices and increased mortgage debt, particularly in countries where household debt levels are already high. According to data from the BIS, the US already has one of the lowest household debt service ratios (7.6%) among the developed economies (Chart II-21).2 This compares favorably to the double-digit debt service ratios in the “higher-risk” countries like Canada (12.6%), Sweden (12.1%) and Norway (16.2%). On top of that, US commercial banks have become far more prudent with mortgage loan underwriting standards since the 2008 financial crisis. The New York Fed’s Household Debt and Credit report shows that an increasing majority of mortgage lending made by US banks since the 2008 crisis has been to those with very high FICO credit scores (Chart II-22). This is in sharp contrast to the steady lending to “subprime” borrowers with poor credit scores that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgage originations as of Q1 2021 was 788, compared to 707 in Q4 2006 at the peak of the mid-2000s US housing boom. Chart II-21Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Chart II-22US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending   US bank balance sheets are also now less directly exposed to a fall in housing values. Residential loans now represent only 10% of the assets on US bank balance sheets, compared to 20% at the peak of the last housing bubble (Chart II-23). This puts the US in the “lower-risk” group of countries in Europe, the UK and Japan where mortgages are less than 20% of bank balance sheets. This compares favorably to the “higher risk” group of countries where residential loans are a far larger share of bank assets (Chart II-24), like Canada (32%), New Zealand (49%), Sweden (45%) and Australia (40%). Chart II-23Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Chart II-24Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here   Like nature, however, the financial ecosystem abhors a vacuum. “Non-bank” mortgage lenders have filled the void from traditional US banks reducing their lending to lower-quality borrowers, and they now represent around two-thirds of all US mortgage origination, a big leap from the 20% origination share in 2007. Non-bank lenders have also taken on growing shares of new mortgage origination in other countries like the UK, Canada and Australia. Chart II-25Global Banks Can Withstand A Housing Shock June 2021 June 2021 Non-bank lenders do not take deposits and typically fund themselves via shorter-term borrowings, which raises the potential for future instability if credit markets seize up. These lenders also, on average, service mortgages with a higher probability of default, so they are exposed to greater credit losses when house prices decline. However, the risk of a full-blown 2008-style commercial banking crisis, with individual depositors’ funds at risk from a bank failure, are reduced with a greater share of riskier mortgage lending conducted by non-bank entities. This is especially true with global commercial banks far better capitalized today, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios (Chart II-25), thanks to regulatory changes made after the Global Financial Crisis. Net-net, we conclude that the overall financial stability implications of the current surge in house prices in the developed economies are relatively modest on average. The acceleration in mortgage growth has occurred alongside reductions in non-mortgage growth, at a time when banks are better able to withstand a shock from any sustained future downturn in house prices. However, if house prices continue to accelerate and new homebuyers are forced to take on ever increasing amounts of mortgage debt, financial stability issues could intensify in some countries. Services spending will recover in a vaccinated post-COVID world, as economies reopen and consumer confidence improves, which will likely end the trend of falling non-residential consumer debt offsetting rising mortgage debt in countries like the US and Canada. Overall levels of household debt could begin to rise again relative to incomes, building up future financial stability risks when central banks begin to normalize pandemic-related monetary policies – a process that has already started in some countries because of the housing boom. The Monetary Policy Implications Of Surging House Prices Rapidly appreciating house prices are becoming an area of concern for policymakers in countries like Canada and New Zealand, where the affordability of housing is becoming a political, as well as an economic, issue. In the case of New Zealand, the government has actually altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs. The Bank of Canada announced in April that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases and signaled that its decision was based, at least in small part, on signs of speculative behavior in Canada’s housing market. Macroprudential measures like limiting loan-to-value ratios of new mortgage loans are a policy option that governments in those countries have already implemented to try and cool off housing demand. Yet while such measures can help alleviate demand-supply mismatches in certain cities and regions, the efficacy of such measures in sustainably slowing the ascent of house prices on a national scale is unclear. In the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, researchers estimated that, for a broad group of countries, the implementation of a new macro-prudential measure designed to cool loan demand reduced national household debt/GDP ratios by a mere one percentage point, on average, over a period encompassing four years.3 If macroprudential measures are that ineffective in sustainably reducing demand for mortgage loans, then the burden of slowing house price appreciation will have to fall on the more blunt instruments of monetary policy. Importantly, surging house price inflation is not likely to give a boost to realized inflation measures – an important issue given the current backdrop of rapidly rising realized inflation rates in many countries. Housing costs do represent a significant portion of consumer price indices in many developed countries, ranging from 19% in New Zealand to 33% in the US (Chart II-26), with the euro area being the outlier with housing having a mere 2% weighting in the headline inflation index. Chart II-26A Limited Impact On Actual Inflation From Housing June 2021 June 2021 Yet those so-called “housing” categories overwhelmingly measure only housing rental costs and not actual house prices. This is an important distinction because rents – which are often imputed measures like in the US and not even actual rental costs - are rising at a far slower pace than actual house prices in most countries, so the housing contribution to realized inflation is relatively modest. So the good news is that booming house prices will not worsen the acceleration of realized global inflation that has concerned investors and policymakers in 2021. Yet that does not mean that central bankers will not be forced to tighten policy to cool off red-hot housing demand that is clearly being fueled by persistently negative real interest rates. In Chart II-27 and Chart II-28, we show both nominal and real policy interest rates for the “lower risk” and “higher risk” country groupings that we described earlier. The real policy rates are nominal policy rates versus realized headline CPI inflation. The dotted lines in the charts represent the future path of rates discounted by markets. Specifically, the projection for nominal rates is taken from overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves, while the projection for real rates is calculated by subtracting the discounted path of inflation expectations extracted from CPI swap forwards. Chart II-27Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Chart II-28Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble   There are two key takeaways from these charts: Real policy interest rates are at or very close to the most deeply negative levels seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Markets are discounting that real rates will be at or below 0% for most of the next decade. Admittedly, there is room for debate over what the equilibrium level of real interest rates (a.k.a. “r-star”) should be in the coming years. However, we deem it a major stretch to believe that real rates need to be persistently low or negative for the next ten years to support even trend growth across the developed economies. In our view, the current boom in housing demand and mortgage borrowing provides clear evidence that negative real rates are below equilibrium and, thus, are stimulating credit demand. Thus, the only way for a central bank to cool off housing demand will be to raise both nominal and, more importantly, real interest rates. Canada and New Zealand will be the “canaries in the coal mine” among developed market central banks for such a move. According to the latest Bank of Canada Financial Stability Review, nearly 22% of Canadian mortgages are highly levered, with a loan-to-value ratio greater than 450%, a greater share of such mortgages than during the 2016/17 housing boom (Chart II-29). Canadian house prices have risen to such an extent that home prices in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are among the most expensive in North America.4  Stunningly, a recent Bloomberg Nanos opinion poll revealed that nearly 50% of Canadians would support Bank of Canada rate hikes to cool off the red-hot housing market (Chart II-30). The central bank will be unable to resist the pressure to use monetary policy to slam on the brakes of the housing market – investors should expect more tapering and, eventually, rate hikes from the Bank of Canada over at least the next couple of years. Chart II-29Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Chart II-3050% Of Canadians Want A Rate Hike To Cool Housing June 2021 June 2021   In New Zealand, worsening housing affordability has reached a point where a 20% down payment on the median national house price is equal to 223% of median disposable income (Chart II-31). This is forcing more first-time home buyers to take on levels of mortgage debt that the RBNZ deems highly risky (top panel). Like the Bank of Canada, the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank follows their newly-revised remit to try and cool off housing demand in New Zealand. Who is next? Housing values, measured by the ratio of median national house prices to median national household incomes, are rising in the US and UK but are still below the peaks of the mid-2000s housing bubble (Chart II-32). Meanwhile, housing is becoming more expensive across the euro area, but not in a consistent manner, with valuations in Germany and Spain having increased far more than in France or Italy. Housing valuations have actually improved in Australia over the past couple of years on a price-to-income basis. The most likely candidates for a housing-related hawkish turn are in Scandinavia, with housing valuations in Sweden and Norway closing in on Canada/New Zealand levels. Chart II-31New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable Chart II-32Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher   Investment Conclusions The current acceleration in global house prices is an inevitable outcome of the extraordinary monetary and fiscal easing implemented during the pandemic. Higher realized inflation is pushing real rates deeper into negative territory in many countries, fueling the demand for housing. Central banks in countries with more stretched housing valuations will be forced to turn more hawkish sooner than expected, leading to tapering and, eventually, rate hikes to cool housing demand. This has negative implications for government bond markets in countries where housing is more expensive and real yields remain too low, like Canada, New Zealand and Sweden (Chart II-33). Investors should limit exposure to government bonds in those markets over the next 6-12 months. Chart II-33Negative Real Yields & Expensive Housing Valuations – An Unsustainable Mix June 2021 June 2021 Bond markets in countries where house prices are not rising rapidly enough to force policymakers to turn more hawkish more quickly – like core Europe, Australia and even Japan - are likely to be relative outperformers. The US and UK are “cuspy” bond markets, as housing valuations are becoming more expensive in those two countries but the Fed and Bank of England are not facing the same domestic political pressure to use monetary policy tools to fight the growing unaffordability of housing. That could change, though, if overall household leverage begins to rise alongside house price inflation as the US and UK economies emerge from the pandemic. Current pricing in OIS curves shows that markets expect the RBNZ and Bank of Canada to begin hiking rates in May 2022 and September 2022, respectively (Table II-1). This is well ahead of expectations for “liftoff” from other developed markets central banks, including the Fed in April 2023. The cumulative amount of rate hikes following liftoff to the end of 2024 is highest in Canada, New Zealand, the US and Australia. Those are also countries with currencies that are trading at or above the purchasing power parity levels derived from our currency strategists’ valuation models. This highlights the difficult choice that central bankers facing housing bubbles must confront, as the rate hikes that will help cool off housing demand will lead to currency appreciation that could impact other parts of their economies like exports and manufacturing. Table II-1Hawkish Central Banks Must Live With Currency Strength June 2021 June 2021 Tracking the second-round economic consequences of eventual monetary policy actions to control excessive house price inflation, particularly in “higher risk” countries, is likely to be the subject of future Bank Credit Analyst / Global Fixed Income Strategy reports. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Importantly, the BIS debt service ratios include the payment of both principal and interest, thus making it a true measure of debt service costs that includes repayment of borrowed funds – a critical issue in countries with high loan-to-value ratios for home mortgages. 3 Please see page 46 of Chapter 2 of the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, which can be found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-finan… 4 “Vancouver, Toronto and Hamilton are the least affordable cities in North America: report”, CBC News, May 20, 2021