BCA Indicators/Model

Executive Summary There’s Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS A survey of economic and financial market indicators suggests that we are not yet close to the end of the Fed’s tightening cycle. This argues for a continued flattening of the yield curve and one more push higher in bond yields before the end of the cyclical bond bear market. While headline inflation has rolled over, there is so far little indication of a slowdown in core price appreciation. We see core CPI reaching 3.6% during the next 12 months, driven by decelerating goods prices but sticky wage growth and services inflation. The TIPS market is discounting an overly sanguine view of headline inflation for the next 12 months, and there is value in owning TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Bottom Line: Investors should reduce portfolio duration to ‘below-benchmark’ and hold a position in 5-year/30-year Treasury curve flatteners. Investors should also overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and own 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flatteners. Feature US bond yields continued their ascent last week, spurred on by August’s surprisingly high core CPI print and the perception that the Fed will have to tighten policy even more quickly to bring inflation back down. Currently, the market is discounting that the Fed will lift the funds rate to 4.61% by April of next year and then bring it back down to 4.26% by the end of 2023 (Chart 1). Chart 1Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations This market-implied interest rate path would involve 225 bps of tightening at the next 5 FOMC meetings, or an average rate increase of +45 bps per meeting. With a 75 basis point rate increase looking like a lock for this week, market pricing is consistent with additional 50 basis point increases at the final two meetings of this year (November and December) and then two more 25 basis point rate hikes in Q1 2023. After that, the market anticipates that the tightening cycle will be over. Our view continues to be that the peak in the fed funds rate will occur later than April 2023 and that, while a pause in the Fed’s tightening cycle is likely at some point next year, inflation will be strong enough to preclude outright rate cuts. In terms of investment strategy, last week’s report presented empirical evidence showing that, on average, Treasury yields peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the cycle.1 In fact, in the seven Fed tightening cycles that we analyzed, the 10-year Treasury yield always peaked within a window spanning four months before the last rate hike and four months after (Table 1). This analysis suggests that even if the fed funds rate peaks in April, as is implied by the market, bond yields likely have one more leg higher before the end of the cyclical bear market. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears While we have been consistently highlighting that the market is not pricing-in a sufficiently high average fed funds rate for 2023, we have been recommending an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on the view that falling inflation could briefly send bond yields lower in the near term. The 10-year Treasury yield did fall back to 2.60% on August 1, but it then rebounded quickly and has continued to head higher since. With Treasury yields unlikely to re-test those depths anytime soon, we recommend shifting to a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration stance to play the final leg higher in bond yields before a US recession ends the cyclical bond bear market. The next section of this report surveys nine cyclical economic indicators and argues that the balance of evidence suggests that the fed funds rate’s peak will occur later than April 2023. Then, the final section of this report discusses our recommended TIPS investment strategy in light of last week’s CPI report and our outlook for inflation. Tracking The Tightening Cycle One of the most useful tools in our arsenal for assessing the state of the interest rate cycle is our Fed Monitor. The Fed Monitor is a composite of 47 economic and financial market variables that has been designed to output a positive value when the data recommend interest rate hikes and a negative value when rate cuts are required. Historically, the Monitor does a good job of lining up with the actual path of the fed funds rate (Chart 2). Chart 2Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required The Fed Monitor is currently down off its highs, but at 1.03 it is well above the zero line. Looking at past tightening cycles, we find that the Monitor has averaged 0.41 on the day of the last rate hike of a cycle, with a range of outcomes spanning -0.49 to +0.93. Notably, the +0.93 upper-end of that range occurred in 1995, a time when the Fed only delivered a modest amount of policy easing before pivoting back to tightening in 1999. The variables in our Fed Monitor can be grouped into three categories: (i) economic growth variables, (ii) inflation variables and (iii) financial market variables. Interestingly, we observe that the Economic Growth component of our Monitor has dipped into negative territory while the Inflation and Financial Conditions components continue to argue for tighter policy (Chart 2, bottom 3 panels). A negative Economic Growth component suggests that we are getting closer to the end of the tightening cycle, but the Fed will likely stay hawkish and tolerate an even deeper negative reading from Economic Growth as long as inflation remains high. In addition to our Fed Monitor, we have identified nine economic indicators (some included in the Fed Monitor and some not) that are particularly relevant for the Fed’s policy stance. In this week’s report, we look at the message these indicators were sending on the day of the last rate hike of seven past tightening cycles. The indicators are: The Sahm Rule: Economist Claudia Sahm has noted that a recession always occurs when the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate rises by more than 0.5% off its trailing 12-month low.2 We include the unemployment rate’s deviation from its 12-month low as a measure of labor market utilization. Employment Momentum: We look at the 6-month growth rate in nonfarm payrolls as a measure of momentum in the labor market. Inflation: We use 12-month core PCE as a measure of inflation that is most closely related to the Fed’s target. Inflation Momentum: To measure momentum in inflation we look at the difference between 3-month core PCE and 12-month core PCE. Labor Market Tightness: Using responses from the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Survey, we look at the number of people who describe jobs as “plentiful” minus the number who describe jobs as “hard to get”. Economic Growth: We use the ISM Manufacturing PMI as a simple measure of the trend in aggregate demand in the US economy. Housing: To assess trends in the housing market we look at the 12-month moving average in housing starts minus the 24-month moving average. Financial Conditions: We use the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index to assess whether financial conditions are accommodative or restrictive. The Yield Curve: We look at the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to ascertain whether the bond market perceives the monetary policy stance as accommodative or restrictive. Table 2A lists the nine indicators described above and shows their values on the day of the last rate hike of seven past tightening cycles. We also include the current reading from each indicator. Finally, we shade in red every cell that we deem consistent with the Fed stopping its tightening cycle. To make this determination we compare the value on the day of the last rate hike to the median value witnessed on the day of the last hike across all seven tightening cycles. We don’t use median values for the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index or the Treasury slope. Rather, we say that an inverted yield curve and a Financial Conditions reading above 100 are both consistent with the end of rate hikes. Table 2AEconomic Indicators At The End Of Fed Tightening Cycles One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears The last column of Table 2A simply adds up the number of red cells in each row. As of today, we see that only 2 out of nine indicators are consistent with the end of the tightening cycle. The end of a tightening cycle has never occurred with less than four indicators flashing red. Table 2B takes a slightly more sophisticated approach to the same exercise. Rather than simply comparing above or below the median, we rank each indicator as a percentile relative to its value on the day of the last rate hike across seven different tightening cycles. We then combine those percentile ranks with an equal weighting to get an “End of Tightening Score”. Larger values are consistent with a greater likelihood that the tightening cycle will end and lower values are consistent with a lower likelihood. Currently, the End of Tightening Score stands at 28%, lower than on the day of the last rate hike in all of the cycles we analyzed. Table 2BEconomic Indicators At The End Of Fed Tightening Cycles: Percentile Ranks One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears As is the case with our Fed Monitor, the closest End of Tightening Score to today’s occurred in 1995. One key difference between 1995 and today is that core inflation was running much closer to target in 1995. This gave the Fed scope to fine tune its policy stance without risking its inflation fighting credibility. That flexibility is not available to the Fed in today’s high inflation environment. Bottom Line: A survey of economic and financial market indicators suggests that we are not yet close to the end of the Fed’s tightening cycle. This argues for a continued flattening of the yield curve and one more push higher in bond yields before the end of the cyclical bond bear market. Investors should set portfolio duration to ‘below benchmark’ and maintain a position in 5-year/30-year Treasury curve flatteners.3 The TIPS Market Is Too Complacent August’s month-over-month core CPI print came in well above expectations at +0.57%, sending bond yields higher and risk assets lower last week. Zooming out, while falling gasoline prices appear to have shifted the trend in headline inflation, there is so far little evidence of a meaningful move down in core or trimmed mean measures of CPI (Chart 3). Chart 3No Slowdown In Core CPI No Slowdown In Core CPI No Slowdown In Core CPI Chart 4Core CPI Forecast Core CPI Forecast Core CPI Forecast In a recent Special Report, we went through the five major components of CPI (energy, food, shelter, goods and services) and came up with 12-month forecasts for both core and headline inflation.4  For core inflation, we forecast that it will fall to 3.6% during the next 12 months (Chart 4). The main driver of the drop will be a return of goods inflation to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4, panel 3). We anticipate only a minor pullback in shelter inflation (Chart 4, panel 2) and that services inflation will remain elevated, driven by strong wage growth (Chart 4, bottom panel). Recently, we have seen some evidence that home prices and rents on new leases are decelerating, no doubt a response to high and rising mortgage rates. That said, we don’t anticipate much pass through from those trends into shelter inflation during the next 12 months. First, home price appreciation leads shelter CPI by 18 months (Chart 5A). This means that we shouldn’t expect falling home prices to meaningfully impact shelter inflation until the end of 2023. Second, rental growth on new leases as measured by Zillow and Apartment List has clearly decelerated, but it is still running much hotter than shelter CPI (Chart 5B). Given the limited historical track record, it’s very difficult to say how much (if any) of the recent deceleration in rental growth will ultimately pass through to the CPI. Chart 5AHome Prices & Shelter CPI Home Prices & Shelter CPI Home Prices & Shelter CPI Chart 5BDecelerating Rents Decelerating Rents Decelerating Rents In our research, we have found that measures of labor market utilization are the most important variables to include in any model of shelter inflation. For ease of forecasting, the model shown in Chart 4 and in the top panel of Chart 6 uses the unemployment rate as its measure of labor market tightness. This model works well, but it arguably understates shelter inflation because it doesn’t include a variable capturing wage growth. If we replace the unemployment rate in our model with the more comprehensive aggregate weekly payrolls measure, then we get a much tighter fit and a model that does a better job explaining the recent surge in shelter CPI (Chart 6, bottom panel).5 All in all, we conclude that our expectation that shelter inflation will fall from 6.3% to 4.7% during the next 12 months may wind up being a tad optimistic. When we combine our forecast for 3.6% core inflation with two scenarios for the oil price – a benign one based on what is priced into the futures curve and another based on the forecasts of our commodity strategists – we get an expected range of 2.1% to 4.7% for headline CPI during the next 12 months (Chart 7). According to our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing, if 12-month headline CPI comes in above the current 1-year CPI swap rate then TIPS will outperform nominal Treasuries during the 12-month investment horizon.6 Chart 6Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Chart 7There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS At present, the 1-year CPI swap rate is 2.76%, near the bottom of our expected range of outcomes for 12-month headline CPI. It seems to us that a lot of things will have to go right for inflation to come in below market expectations during the next year. For this reason, we think it makes sense for investors to overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Chart 8Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Additionally, we see a lot of value in owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (Chart 8). The 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates are both currently 2.38%, meaning that the 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven slope is at zero. Higher-than-expected inflation during the next 12 months will put more pressure on the front-end of the breakeven curve than the long end, flattening the curve. Further, logic dictates that an inverted inflation curve is more consistent with an environment where the Fed is fighting above-target inflation than a positively sloped one. There will come a time when it makes sense for the inflation curve to move back into positive territory, but that won’t be until the Fed has brought inflation down much closer to its target. Bottom Line: The inflation outlook priced into markets for the next 12 months is too benign. Investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and own TIPS breakeven inflation curve flatteners.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles”, dated September 13, 2022. 2  https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ES_THP_Sahm_web_20190506.pdf 3  For more details on this curve trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022. 5  Aggregate weekly payrolls = nonfarm employment x average weekly hours x average hourly earnings 6   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy increased somewhat in August, but the risks of a US recession over the coming year remain quite elevated. We continue to recommend that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio. The disinflationary impulse from the July US CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices. It is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. The OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, but it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023. This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted, and that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Investors believe that the rate hike path priced into the OIS curve would not be recessionary, because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation. From the perspective of market participants, this would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. We agree that the odds of a recession will decline if headline inflation does fall below 4% over the coming year, but it is not yet clear that this will occur. And if it does, the resulting improvement in real wages would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put heavy pressure on equity multiples. This underscores that stock prices face risks in both a recessionary and non-recessionary environment. There are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term, even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. Stay neutral for now, but look for opportunities to short the dollar beyond the coming few months. Jumping The Gun On Goldilocks The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy over the coming six to nine months increased somewhat in August. The July CPI report presented some evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation (Chart I-1), and we saw more resilient manufacturing production in the US – even after excluding the automotive sector – than many manufacturing indicators have been indicating (Chart I-2). In addition, the regional Fed manufacturing index in the especially manufacturing-sensitive state of Pennsylvania surprised significantly to the upside in July, although this was at least somewhat offset by a collapse in the New York and Dallas Fed’s general business conditions indexes (Chart I-3). Chart I-1There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US Chart I-2US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested Against the backdrop of significant recessionary risks, and a debate about whether negative growth in the first half of the year already constitutes a recession in the US, these developments have been positive. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is pointing to positive (albeit below-trend) growth of 1.4% in Q3, which is consistent with consensus forecasts. The Atlanta Fed’s model is also forecasting the strongest real consumption growth since Q4 2021 (Chart I-4). Equity investors responded to incrementally lower recession odds and a slower pace of inflation by bidding up the S&P 500 from roughly 3800 at the beginning of July to over 4200 in August. Chart I-3Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Chart I-4The Atlanta Fed GDPNow Model Is Pointing To Positive Growth And Resilient Consumption In Q3 September 2022 September 2022   However, several other developments over the past month continue to highlight that the risks of a US recession over the coming year are quite elevated, which supports our recommendation that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio: The August flash PMIs were fairly negative, especially for the services sector. The August flash S&P Global manufacturing PMI rose in Germany, but it fell in the US, France, and the UK. Services PMIs declined significantly in all four countries, especially in the US where survey participants noted that “hikes in interest rates and inflation dampened customer spending as disposable incomes were squeezed.” Survey respondents also noted that “new orders contracted at the steepest pace for over two years, as companies highlighted greater client hesitancy in placing new work.” Chart I-5The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator dropped for a fifth month in a row in July, which has always been associated with a US recession (based on the indicator’s current construction). Chart I-5 highlights that the indicator’s market-based and real economy components are both very weak, and that the Conference Board’s coincident indicator has now fallen below its 12-month moving average. While the Philly Fed manufacturing index picked up in July, the new orders component of the regional Fed manufacturing PMIs broadly sank further into contractionary territory (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Atlanta Fed model shown in Chart I-4 is pointing to a second quarter of negative growth from real residential investment, a component of GDP that reliably peaks in advance of economic contractions.1 Job openings are now pointing to a potential rise in unemployment. The relationship between job openings and unemployment is currently subject to heavy debate, as discussed in a recent report by my colleague Ryan Swift.2 However, abstracting from a theoretical discussion about movements along or shifts in the Beveridge curve, investors should note that the empirical record is fairly clear – Chart I-7 highlights that falling job vacancies occurred alongside a significant rise in the level of unemployment during the last two recessions. We acknowledge that the relationship has seen some deviations since 2018/2019, so this may highlight that a larger decline in job openings will be required for unemployment to trend higher. A 10% rise in the level of unemployment relative to its 12-month moving average has always been associated with a recession, implying that a sustained decline in job openings to 10M or lower would represent a likely recessionary signal – even if that recession proves to be a mild one (see Section 2 of this month’s report). Chart I-7Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Table I-1 highlights that the disinflationary impulse from the July CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices (particularly gasoline and fuel oil). Outside of the clear impact that falling fuel prices had on airline fares, there is not yet compelling evidence that core inflation is decelerating due to easing supply-side and pandemic-related effects, or due to slowing demand. As we will discuss below, it is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. Table I-1The Disinflationary Impulse From The July CPI Report Is Less Compelling Than It Seems September 2022 September 2022 Inflation And The Fed As we discuss in Section 2 of our report, recessions occur because monetary policy becomes tight, a significant non-policy shock to aggregate demand or supply occurs, or some combination of both develops. We do not believe that monetary policy is currently restrictive on its own (Chart I-8), and we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable. But when combined with the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply (Chart I-9), and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels, it is clear that the odds of a recession over the coming 12-18 months remain elevated. Chart I-8Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Chart I-9But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid Many investors do not appear to fully appreciate the fact that the Fed will continue to tighten policy until it sees clear and unequivocal signs that inflation is easing. Importantly, the minutes of the July FOMC meeting highlighted that this is likely to be true even if unambiguous signs of easing supply-side and pandemic-related inflation present themselves. During the July meeting, FOMC participants noted that “though some inflation reduction might come through improving global supply chains or drops in the prices of fuel and other commodities, some of the heavy lifting would also have to come by imposing higher borrowing costs on households and businesses”. They also emphasized that “a slowing in aggregate demand would play an important role in reducing inflation pressures”. The upshot is that the Fed was aware before the July CPI report that energy-related inflation might fall, but also understood that they would still have to tighten enough to slow aggregate demand to reduce underlying inflationary pressures. It is true that investors are pricing in additional rate hikes from the Fed, but there are two caveats for investors to consider. The first is that while the OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023 (Chart I-10). This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted. Second, and more importantly, investors appear to be making the assumption that the rate hikes already built into the OIS curve will not be recessionary. Investors are making this assumption because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation (Chart I-11), which would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. Chart I-10A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted Chart I-11Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation We agree with investors that the odds of a recession will decline significantly, ceteris paribus, if headline inflation does drop below 4% over the coming year. But we noted above that it is not yet clear that this will occur. In addition, we disagree with investors that this would result in a reduction in short-term interest rates, because this belief is based on the view that monetary policy is currently in restrictive territory even without the negative impact of sharply lower real wages. Absent the negative real wage effect, our view is that monetary policy would still be stimulative at current interest rates, which is why we believe that the 2023 portion of the OIS curve is too dovish in a non-recessionary scenario. The Outlook for Stocks The equity market rally that began in early July has been based on the assumption that significant supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is now a fait accompli. If it is, then the odds of a recession over the coming year are indeed meaningfully lower, and the risk to corporate profits is less than feared. We noted above that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply lower odds of a US recession. But even in a scenario in which the odds of recession do come in significantly, stocks still face risks from a significant rise in real bond yields. Chart I-12Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Investors have been focused on very elevated inflation as the driver of both rising inflation expectations and rising real bond yields, and have assumed that a meaningful slowdown in inflation (as forecast by short-term measures of inflation expectations) implies that the Fed funds rate will return to the Fed’s estimate of neutral. This belief, along with a lower projected Fed funds rate in 2024 than 2023 in the FOMC’s participant forecasts, is the basis for the 2023 “pivot” currently priced into the OIS curve. Given that the Fed funds rate has already reached the Fed’s neutral rate estimate, there is a meaningful chance that this estimate will be revised upwards by the Fed or challenged by investors if economic activity improves in response to a decline in inflation and a corresponding rise in real wages. Such a scenario would highlight to investors that the Fed’s estimate of neutral is likely too low, which would imply a significant increase in real 10-year TIPS yields (which are currently 160 basis points below their pre-2008 average). Chart I-12 highlights the impact that a rise in real long-maturity bond yields could have on equities, even in a non-recessionary scenario where 12-month forward earnings per share grows 8% over the coming year. A rise in 10-year TIPS yields to 1.5% by the middle of 2023 would cause a 16% contraction in the 12-month forward P/E ratio and a 10% decline in stock prices, assuming an unchanged 12-month forward equity risk premium (ERP). It is possible that the ERP could decline in a rising bond yield scenario. Chart I-13 highlights that the ERP is indeed negatively correlated with real bond yields (in part due to the methods that we use to calculate it). The counterpoint is that there are a number of risks that equity investors should be compensated for today that did not exist in the late 1990s or early 2000s, especially the risks of populist policies in many advanced economies and major geopolitical events (as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine recently highlighted). Chart I-14 illustrates that, since 1960, a long-term version of the equity risk premium, calculated using trailing earnings and our adaptive expectations proxy to deflate long-maturity bond yields, has been fairly well explained by the Misery Index (the sum of the unemployment and headline inflation rates). However, the chart also shows that the ERP has been structurally higher over the past decade than the Misery Index would have predicted. It is unclear if this is due to a riskier environment or the negative ERP/real yield correlation that we noted. Chart I-13The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed Chart I-14A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks The conclusion is that investors do not yet appear to have a basis to bet on a declining ERP in a rising bond yield environment, underscoring that even a non-recessionary scenario poses a risk to stock prices. It is worth noting that this second risk facing stocks has essentially been caused by the Fed because of its maintenance of a very low neutral rate estimate that we feel is no longer economically justified. Bond Market Prospects Chart I-15Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Over the past few months, the Bank Credit Analyst service has continued to recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance even as we recommended reducing equity exposure. The recent rise in the 10-year Treasury yield back to 3% has validated that view (Chart I-15), and reinforces our view that there is significant upside risk to long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary scenario. Our expectation that the Fed will raise interest rates to a higher level over the next year than the OIS curve is currently discounting also argues for a modestly short stance, based on BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework. The “Golden Rule” states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. As we detail in Section 2 of our report, the Fed has always cut interest rates in response to a recession in the post-WWII environment, so we would certainly recommend a long duration stance if a recession emerges. But given our view that a recession is still a risk rather than a likely event, we feel that a modestly short duration stance is currently appropriate. Chart I-16US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle As noted above in our discussion of the risks facing stock prices in a non-recessionary scenario, falling inflation that is not associated with a recession will ironically be a bearish signal for long-maturity bonds, because it means that the Fed will have greater capacity to raise interest rates without ending the recovery. The short end of the yield curve could be flat or move modestly lower in response to a significant easing in inflation, but the long end of the curve would be at serious risk of moving higher. We are thus very likely to recommend a short duration stance in response to solid evidence of true supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, assuming it emerges outside of the context of a recession. Within the credit space, the rise in US corporate bond spreads since the start of the year has meaningfully improved the value of investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds (Chart I-16), but not so much that it justifies a positive stance towards these assets relative to government bonds given the risks facing the US economy. We continue to recommend an underweight stance towards investment-grade and a neutral stance towards speculative-grade within a fixed-income portfolio. The Outlook For Energy Prices Chart I-17The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The likely path of commodity prices, particularly that of oil, is an extremely important determinant of whether the US is likely to experience a recession over the coming year. We are among those who have downplayed the significance of oil price shocks in driving contractions in economic output over the past two decades,3 but the current situation is unique given the role that very elevated inflation has played in driving real wages lower. In a recent Strategy Report from our Commodity & Energy Strategy service, my colleague Robert P. Ryan underscored the impact that the European Union’s embargo of Russian oil will likely have on the energy market. If fully implemented, ~ 2.3mm barrels/day of seaborne imports of Russian crude oil will be excluded from EU markets by year-end. EU, UK and US shipping insurance and reinsurance sanctions are also scheduled to be implemented in December, which means that “surplus” Russian oil production cannot be fully reoriented to other countries. Chart I-17 presents the likely impact on Russia’s crude oil output, namely a ~ 2mm barrels/day decline in oil output by the end of next year – nearly equal to the amount of oil set to be embargoed. Our base case view remains that supply and demand in the oil market will remain relatively balanced going into the winter, but the removal from the market of Russian oil production because of the various EU embargoes – even if it is offset by the return of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports on the back of a deal with the US – will ultimately push crude oil prices higher and inventories lower (Chart I-18). The price impact of this event could happen earlier than the immediate supply/demand balance would suggest, if investors have not fully priced in the extent of the decline in Russian oil production that our commodity team is forecasting. Our commodity team’s forecast serves as an important reminder that the economic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may not be fully behind us. It also highlights that the recent disinflation observed in the US, which was mostly driven by lower energy prices in July, may not be sustained. Chart I-19 highlights what could happen to US gasoline prices based on the path for oil shown in Chart I-18, and how that forecast is sharply at odds with the current gasoline futures curve. Chart I-20 highlights that US gasoline stocks are currently below their 5-year average; the last time this occurred was in Q1 2021, which was an environment of rising gasoline prices to levels that were higher than what would usually be implied by crude oil prices. Chart I-18Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Chart I-19Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Chart I-20Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices The upshot is that our commodity team expects oil prices to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, under the assumption that the EU’s embargo against Russian oil moves forward as announced. This poses a clear threat to imminent supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, and underscores the risks to a Goldilocks economic outcome over the coming few months. The Dollar: Value, Technical Conditions, And The Cycle Chart I-21The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The US dollar moved higher over the past month, after first retreating from its mid-July high for the year. We tempered our view about the likelihood of a falling dollar over the near term in last month’s report, but from a bigger picture perspective we have been surprised by the degree of dollar strength this year. The US dollar is a reliably countercyclical currency, so clearly some of the dollar’s strength has been the result of weakness in risky asset prices (Chart I-21). But the bottom panel of Chart I-21 highlights that the broad trade-weighted dollar has performed even better over the past year than returns to the S&P 500 would have implied, underscoring that the magnitude of the dollar’s strength has been atypical. The last two times that the US dollar performed substantially better than the trend in risky assets would have implied were in 2012 and 2015, years in which euro area breakup risk was a driving force in markets. Alongside the fact that EURUSD has fallen below parity and USDEUR has outperformed even more than the broad trade-weighted dollar has, “excess” dollar returns point strongly to Europe’s energy woes in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as the key driver of outsized broad dollar strength. Chart I-22 highlights that European natural gas prices have exceeded the level that we had forecasted would occur in a complete cutoff scenario, meaning that Europe’s energy crunch is likely happening now, rather than in the winter. However, even considering the negative economic outlook facing the euro area, there are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. First, Chart I-23 highlights that EURUSD has undershot what the trend in relative real interest rates would suggest, which has historically led changes in the euro. This implies that the euro has declined partly because of the introduction of a sizeable risk premium, which may dissipate after the winter. Chart I-22The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch Chart I-23EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest Second, Chart I-24 highlights that the US dollar is extremely overbought and is technically extended to a point that has historically been associated with reversals in the broad dollar trend. Finally, Chart I-25 highlights that the US dollar is extraordinarily expensive based on our valuation models, underscoring that an eventual decline in the dollar may be quite severe. We agree that valuation is not usually an effective market timing tool, but investors should place a greater weight on valuation measures as they are stretched further. Based either on our models or a more traditional PPP approach, the degree of US dollar overvaluation is extreme – arguing for a bearish bias on a 6-12 month timeline barring an unambiguous move towards recession in the US. Chart I-24US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought Chart I-25The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive         Investment Conclusions Considering the economic developments over the past month and the reaction of financial markets, the takeaway for investors seems clear. Market participants have eagerly shifted towards the Goldilocks economic and financial market outcome, based on (so far) incomplete evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation that has predominantly been driven by declining energy prices. Given significant potential upside risks to oil and US gasoline prices over the coming few months, investors should wait for more durable signs of significant disinflation before downgrading the odds of a US recession over the coming year. We would certainly recommend cutting global equity exposure to underweight were we to determine that the US is likely to experience an imminent recession, but the avoidance of a recession does not necessarily suggest that an overweight stance is warranted. Sharply lower inflation would reduce the odds of a recession, but it would also raise real wages and would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put meaningful pressure on equity multiples. Barring a decline in the equity risk premium, US stocks could face a loss on the order of 10% over the coming year in such a scenario (even under the assumption of positive earnings growth), reinforcing our view that a neutral stance towards global equities is currently appropriate. In addition to a neutral global asset allocation stance, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional equity position and a neutral stance towards cyclicals versus defensives, although we do recommend a modest overweight towards value stocks given our view that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Although we recommend a neutral stance towards USD over the next few months, we also see ample scope for a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. We believe that there are upside risks to energy prices, which our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recommends playing via the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy (COMT) ETF. As a final point, we remain cognizant of the fact that financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We continue to regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone either to a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or to an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see unequivocal signs of a substantial and broad-based slowdown in the US headline inflation rate, and if long-maturity real bond yields are well-behaved in response or if we see clear signs of a declining equity risk premium. Thus, investors should note that additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 25, 2022 Next Report: September 29, 2022 II. The Fed Funds Rate, Bond Yields, And The Next US Recession The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory September 2022 September 2022 Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today September 2022 September 2022 How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.4 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,5 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts In contrast to the recent rally in equities, BCA’s equity indicators continue to paint a bearish outlook for stock prices. Our Monetary, Technical, and Speculative indicators have stopped falling, but they remain very weak. Meanwhile, the recent rally has pushed our valuation indicator back towards a level indicating stocks are considerably overvalued. While it is still a risk and not yet a likely event, the odds of a US recession over the next 12 months remain elevated. We maintain a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are likely still too optimistic. Although earnings growth will be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits given ongoing pressure on profit margins. Within a global equity portfolio, we maintain a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. We recommend a modest overweight towards value versus growth stocks, given our recommendation of a modestly short duration stance within a global fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices have stopped falling, and our composite technical indicator now highlights that commodities are oversold. Our base-case view is that oil prices are likely to rise over the coming 12-months, barring a US recession. Global food prices have come down in the wake of deal between Russia and Ukraine to allow the latter to resume its agricultural exports. But the recent surge in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation may remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. Ongoing weakness in the Chinese property market argues for a neutral stance towards industrial metals, until compelling signs of a more aggressive policy response emerge. US and global LEIs have now fallen into negative territory, underscoring that the risk of a global recession is elevated. Some indicators are easing back towards positive territory, such as our global LEI Diffusion Index and our US Financial Conditions Index, but it is not yet clear if they are heralding a reacceleration in economic activity or merely a less intense pace of decline. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see US Bond Strategy "The Great Soft Landing Debate," dated August 2, 2022, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Inflation breakevens have stabilized in the US, where gasoline prices have fallen, but have reaccelerated in the UK and euro area, where natural gas prices have exploded. Inflation breakevens have declined in Canada, potentially due to markets starting to discount a rapid decline in Canadian house price inflation. Our suite of global breakeven models shows that US and Canadian 10-year breakevens are too low, while euro area and UK breakevens are too high. When adjusted for market expectations for the future stance of monetary policies, expressed as the slope of nominal bond yield curves, only the UK stands out with a “conflicted” combination of too-high breakevens and an inverted nominal Gilt curve. Bottom Line: Upgrade inflation-linked bonds to overweight in the euro area (Germany, France, Italy), while downgrading Canadian linkers to underweight. Stay underweight UK linkers, with the Bank of England on course to tip the UK into a deep recession. Maintain a neutral stance on US TIPS, but look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy. Feature Chart 1Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) have played a useful role for fixed income investors looking to protect their portfolios from the pernicious effects of the current era of high inflation. The rising inflation tide had been lifting all global ILB boats. Given the global nature of the brief deflationary shock from the global COVID lockdowns in 2020, and the persistent inflationary shock of the policy-induced recovery from the pandemic, ILB yields – and breakeven spreads versus nominal bonds – have tended to be positively correlated between countries. Now, some interesting divergences have started to appear between market-based inflation expectations (ILB breakevens or CPI swaps) at the country level. Most notably, inflation expectations have been climbing in the euro area and UK, while staying more stable – below the 2022 peak - in the US (Chart 1). In smaller ILB markets like Canada and Australia, breakevens have rolled over and remain at levels consistent with central bank inflation targets even in the fact of high realized inflation. Amid signs of easing inflation pressures from the commodity and traded goods spaces, and with global central banks now in full-blown tightening cycles to try and rein in overshooting inflation, ILB markets are likely to continue being less correlated. Being selective with ILB allocations at the country level, both on the long and short side of the market, will provide better relative return opportunities for bond investors over the next 6-12 months. To assess where those ILB opportunities lie within the developed market universe, we must first go over what is happening with various measures of inflation expectations in each country. A Country-By-Country Tour Of The Recent Dynamics Of Inflation Expectations US Chart 2Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations In the US, the correlation with inflation expectations and gasoline prices remains quite strong (Chart 2). That has been the case when gas prices were soaring, but the correlation works in both directions. The US national gasoline price has fallen by 22% since the peak on June 13, according to the American Automobile Association. Lower gas prices have helped ease consumer inflation expectations. The July reading of the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a dip in the 1-year-ahead inflation expectation to 6.2% from 6.8% in June. The 5-year-ahead inflation expectation, which was introduced to the New York Fed survey back in January, fell sharply in July to 2.3% from 2.8% in June (and from a peak of 3% back in March). The fall in US survey-based inflation is also mirrored in lower TIPS breakevens. The 10-year TIPS breakeven fell from 2.76% at the peak of the national gasoline price in mid-June to a low of 2.29% on July 7. The 10-year breakeven has since recovered to 2.58%, but is still below the levels at the time of the peak in gas prices – and considerably lower than the cyclical peak of 3.02% reached in April. The 2-year TIPS breakeven has fallen even more, down from 4.93% to 2.87% since the April peak. UK Chart 3A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK The UK inflation story has been heavily focused on the historic surge in energy prices. UK headline CPI inflation reached double-digit territory in July, climbing to 10.1% on a year-over-year basis, with the energy component of the CPI rising by a staggering 58%. Within that energy component, natural gas prices have been a huge driver, with the gas component of the CPI index up 96% year-over-year in July (Chart 3). Yet despite the relentless climb in energy prices, and the well-publicized “cost of living crisis” with high inflation rates in many non-energy sectors of the UK economy, survey-based measures of UK inflation expectations have stopped rising. The medium-term (5-10 years ahead) inflation expectation from the Citigroup/YouGov survey of UK consumers fell to 3.8% in July, down from the 4.4% peak reached back in March. Even shorter-term inflation expectations have stabilized in the face of rising energy costs (bottom panel). The dip in survey-based inflation expectations as of the July surveys may only be that – a dip – with the 10-year breakeven rate on index-linked Gilts having climbed from 3.8% to 4.2% so far in August. It’s also possible that the household inflation surveys are picking up the impact from the recent slowing of global goods price inflation (and easing global supply chain disruptions). More likely, in our view, UK households are starting to factor in the impact of BoE monetary tightening and an imminent UK recession – one that the BoE is now forecasting – on future inflation. Euro Area Chart 4European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise In the euro area, inflation expectations are finally responding to the steady climb in realized inflation evident across the region. Headline CPI inflation in the region climbed to 8.9% in July, the highest reading since the inception of the euro in 1999. The inflation has been concentrated in a few sectors, with four percentage points of that 8.9% coming from energy prices and another two percentage points coming from food, tobacco and alcohol. Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was 4.0% in July, less alarming than the headline number but still double the ECB’s inflation target of 2%. The ECB now produces its own survey of consumer inflation expectations, which it has been conducting without publishing the results since April 2020. The ECB started publishing the survey this month, as part of a broader Consumer Expectations Survey that also asks questions on topics like future economic growth and the health of labor markets. The most recent survey in June showed that 1-year-ahead inflation expectations were 5%, and 3-year-ahead were 2.8% (Chart 4). Both measures have risen sharply since February – the month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered the spike in oil and European natural gas prices – when the 1-year-ahead and 3-year-ahead measures were 3.2% and 2.1%, respectively. Euro area market-based inflation expectations are a little more subdued than those from the ECB’s consumer survey. The 5-year breakeven inflation rate on German ILBs is now at 3.4%, while the 10-year breakeven is at 2.5%. A similar message comes from European inflation swaps, with the 5-year measure at 3.4% and the 10-year measure at 2.8%. Canada Chart 5A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? In Canada, realized inflation is still elevated, but may be peaking. Headline CPI inflation was 7.6% in July, down from 8.1% in June, although this came almost entirely from lower energy inflation. Measures of underlying inflation produced by the Bank of Canada (BoC) also stabilized in July, with the trimmed CPI inflation measure ticking down from 5.4% from 5.5% in June (Chart 5). The latest read on survey-based inflation expectations from the BoC’s quarterly Consumer Expectations Survey for Q2/2022 showed a pickup in the 1-year-ahead measure (from 5.1% in Q1 to 6.8%), 2-year-ahead measure (from 4.6% in Q1 to 5%) and 5-year-ahead measure (from 3.2% to 4%). All of those measures are well above the latest readings on market-based inflation expectations from Canadian ILBs, a.k.a. Real Return Bonds, with the 5-year breakeven at 2.2% and 10-year breakeven at 2.1%. Market liquidity is always a factor in the relatively small Canadian Real Return Bond market, yet it is somewhat surprising that breakevens are so low compared with realized and survey-based inflation. The aggressive tightening so far by the BoC, including a whopping 100bp rate hike last month and more expected over the next year, may be playing a role in dampening inflation breakevens – especially with the BoC’s tightening already having an impact on the Canadian housing market. National house price inflation, which tends to lead overall headline CPI inflation by around one year, was 14.2% in July, down from the 2022 peak of 18.8% (top panel). Australia Chart 6Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan In Australia, headline CPI inflation reached 6.1% in Q2/2022, up from 5.1% in Q1/2022, while the median inflation rate was 4.2%. While energy costs were a big contributor to the rise in overall inflation, the pickup was fairly broad-based with notable increases in the inflation rates related to housing (both house prices and furniture prices). Survey-based measures of inflation expectations in Australia focus on more shorter time horizons, thus they are highly correlated to current realized inflation. On that note, the Melbourne University measure of 1-year-ahead consumer inflation expectations soared from 4.9% in Q1/2022 to 6.2% in Q2/2022, while the early read on Q3/2022 2-year-ahead inflation expectations from the Union Officials survey rose to 4.1% from 3.5% in the previous quarter (Chart 6). Market-based inflation expectations are relatively subdued given the high readings of realized inflation and shorter-term survey-based inflation expectations. The 10-year Australian ILB breakeven is now at 1.9%, while the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate is at 2.4%. The aggressive RBA tightening in 2022, with the Cash Rate having increased 175bps over the last four policy meetings, may be playing a role in holding down ILB breakevens. The relatively moderate pace of wage gains in Australia, with the Wage Price Index climbing 2.6% year-over-year in Q2, may also be weighing on ILB breakevens (middle panel). Japan There is not much exciting to say on the inflation front in Japan. The core (excluding fresh food) CPI inflation rate targeted by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) did hit a 7-year of 2.4% in July, but the core CPI measure more in line with international standards (excluding fresh food and energy) was only 1.2% in July (bottom panel). That was the strongest reading since 2015 but still well below the BoJ’s 2% inflation target. Survey-based consumer inflation expectations from the BoJ’s Opinion Survey showed a noticeable increase in Q2/2022, with the 5-year-ahead measure rising to 5% from 3% in Q1. This is obviously well above realized Japanese inflation, although the same survey showed that Japanese consumers believed that the current inflation rate was also 5%. Market-based Japanese inflation expectations are well below the BoJ survey-based measure, but in line with realized core inflation with the 2-year and 10-year CPI swap rates at 1.22% and 0.9%, respectively. The Message From Our Inflation Breakeven Valuation Models Chart 7A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds From an overall global perspective, the case for favoring ILBs versus nominal government bonds across all countries is less intriguing today than was the case in 2021 and early 2022 (Chart 7). Commodity price inflation is slowing rapidly alongside decelerating global growth. This is true both for oil and especially for non-oil commodities, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now falling on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). Supply chain disruptions on goods prices are easing, which is evident in lower rates of goods inflation in the US and other countries. Given the divergences evident between realized inflation, expected inflation and monetary policy outlook outlined in our tour of global inflation expectations, there may be better opportunities to selectively allocate to ILBs on a country-by-country basis. One tool to help us identify such opportunities is our suite of inflation breakeven fair value models. The models are all constructed in a similar fashion, determining the fair value of 10-year ILB breakevens as a function of the same two factors for each country: The underlying trend in realized inflation, defined as the five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation. This forms the medium-term “anchor” for breakevens. The year-over-year percentage change in the Brent oil price, denominated in local currency terms for each country. This attempts to capture cyclical trends around that medium-term anchor based on movements in oil and currencies. We have breakeven fair value models for eight developed market countries, which are shown in the next four pages of this report. The list of countries includes the US (Chart 8), the UK (Chart 9), France (Chart 10), Germany (Chart 11), Italy (Chart 12), Canada (Chart 13), Australia (Chart 14) and Japan (Chart 15). Chart 8Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 9Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 10Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 11Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 12Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 13Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 14Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 15Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Full disclosure: we decided last year to de-emphasize our breakeven fair value models after the 2020 COVID recession and, more importantly, the sharp global economic recovery in 2021 from the pandemic shock. The rapid acceleration of oil prices – up 2-3 times in all countries - triggered by that recovery created some wild swings in the estimated breakeven fair value. Today, with oil inflation at more “normal” levels below 100%, we have greater confidence in using the models once again in our strategic thinking on ILBs. The broad conclusions from the models are the following: 10-year inflation breakevens are too low in the US, Canada and Germany 10-year inflation breakevens are too high in the UK and Italy 10-year inflation breakevens are fairly valued in France, Japan and Australia. Taken at face value, our models would suggest overweighting ILBs in the US, Canada and Germany and underweighting ILBs in the UK (and staying neutral on France, Japan and Australia) as part of a new regional ILB diversification strategy. However, there is an additional element to consider when assessing the attractiveness of inflation breakevens at the macro level – the expected stance of monetary policy. ILB inflation breakevens often represent a market-based “report card” on the appropriateness of a central bank’s monetary policy. If monetary settings are deemed to be overly stimulative, the markets will price in higher expected inflation and wider breakevens. The opposite holds true if policy is deemed to be too restrictive, leading to reduced expected inflation and narrower breakevens. Thus, any regional ILB allocation strategy should not only use fair value assessments, but also a monetary policy “filter”. In Chart 16, we show a scatter graph plotting the latest deviations from fair value of 10-year breakevens from our eight country fair value models on the x-axis, and the cumulative amount of expected interest rate increases discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) curves for each country on the y-axis. For the latter, we define this as the peak in rates discounted in 2023 (which is the case for all the countries) minus the trough in policy rates at the start of the current monetary tightening cycle (which is near 0% for all the countries). Chart 16No Clear Link Between Rate Hikes & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The idea behind the chart is that inflation breakeven valuations should be inversely correlated to the amount of monetary tightening expected by markets. Too many rate hikes would result in markets discounting lower breakevens, and vice versa. However, there is no reliable relationship evident in the chart. For example, the OIS curves are discounting roughly similar levels of cumulative tightening in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, yet ILB breakeven valuations are very different between those countries. In Chart 17, we show a slightly different version of that scatter graph, this time plotting the ILB breakeven fair values versus the slope of the 2-year/10-year nominal government bond yield curve for all eight countries. The logic here is that the slope of the yield curve represents the bond market’s assessment of the appropriateness of future monetary policy. When policy is deemed to be too tight – with an expected peak in rates above what the market believes to be the neutral rate – the yield curve will be flat or even inverted, as markets discount slowing growth in the future and, eventually, lower inflation. Chart 17A Stronger Link Between Yield Curves & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds There is a clear positive relationship between yield curve slope and inflation expectations evident in the new chart. This provides some evidence justifying adding a monetary policy filter to a regional ILB allocation strategy. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Under this framework, US and Canadian breakevens trading below fair value is consistent with the inverted yield curves in both countries, with markets now discounting a restrictive level of future interest rates that would dampen inflation expectations. The fair value of Australian and Japanese breakevens also appears in line with the slope of the yield curves in those countries. In terms of divergences, the overvaluation of UK breakevens is inconsistent with the inverted nominal Gilt curve, while the three euro area countries should have somewhat higher breakevens (trading more richly to fair value) given the relatively steeper slope of their yield curves. Investment Conclusions Chart 18Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight After surveying our ILB breakeven fair value models, and cross-checking them versus trends in survey-based inflation expectations and our own assessment of future monetary policies, we arrive at the following country allocations within our new regional ILB strategy: Neutral on US TIPS, despite the attractive valuations. However, look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy (not our base case) or if breakevens fall even further below fair value without more deeper US Treasury curve inversion. Underweight UK ILBs. Breakevens are overshooting due to the near-term inflation risk from soaring energy prices – an outcome that will force the BoE to deliver an even tighter monetary policy, with a more deeply inverted yield curve, that will drive the UK into a disinflationary recession. Underweight Canadian ILBs, despite the attractive valuations. Canadian inflation has likely peaked, and the BoC is engineering a disinflationary downturn in the Canadian housing market with aggressive rate hikes that will maintain an inverted yield curve. Overweight German, French and Italian ILBs. The ECB is likely to deliver fewer rate hikes than markets are discounting, keeping the euro area yield curves relatively steep versus the curves of other developed countries. This also provides a better way to play the near-term inflationary upside from overshooting natural gas prices in Europe than overweighting UK ILBs, with the BoE expected to be much more hawkish than the ECB (Chart 18). Neutral Australia and Japan. Underlying inflation momentum is slower than in the other regions, while breakeven valuations are neutral and not out of line with the expected stance of monetary policy. We are incorporating this new regional ILB strategy into our Model Bond Portfolio, which can be seen on pages 18-20. The changes from current allocations involve upgrades to Germany, France and Italy to overweight, and a downgrade of Canada to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds

Please note that there will no US Bond Strategy publication next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 6th with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for September. Executive Summary This report describes a framework for implementing long/short positions in the TIPS market relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. The framework is modeled after the Golden Rule of Bond Investing that we use to implement portfolio duration trades. The TIPS Golden Rule states that investors should buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries when their 12-month headline inflation expectations are above those priced into the market, and vice-versa. We demonstrate a method for forecasting headline CPI inflation and conclude that it will fall into a range of 2.4% to 4.8% during the next 12 months, with risks to the upside. This suggests a high likelihood that headline inflation will exceed current market expectations. The TIPS Golden Rule’s Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record Bottom Line: We see value in TIPS on a 12-month investment horizon but anticipate that an even better entry point to get long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries will emerge during the next couple of months as headline CPI weakens. We recommend a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, though we are looking for a good opportunity to increase exposure. Feature Regular readers will no doubt be familiar with our Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, the framework we use to think about our portfolio duration recommendations. In brief, the Golden Rule states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. Our research shows that this investment strategy has a strong historical track record.1 The thing we like most about the Golden Rule framework is that it provides us with a good method for filtering incoming information. Does this new piece of news or economic data change our 12-month rate expectations? If not, then we probably don’t want to assign much weight to it when setting our portfolio duration. In this Special Report we demonstrate that the same Golden Rule logic that we apply to duration trading can also be applied to the TIPS market. Specifically, it can be applied to long/short positions in TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Developing The TIPS Golden Rule Before diving into the TIPS Golden Rule, it’s worth running through the logic that underpins this investment strategy. The logic starts with the Fisher Equation – the well-known formula that relates nominal bond yields to real bond yields. Simply, the Fisher Equation can be stated as follows:     Nominal Yield = Real Yield + The Cost Of Inflation Protection In financial market terms, we can re-write the equation as:     Nominal Treasury Yield = TIPS Yield + TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate Two of the three variables in this equation have what we call valuation anchors. The nominal Treasury yield’s valuation is anchored by expectations about the future path for the federal funds rate. Put differently, if you buy a 5-year Treasury note and hold it until maturity, your excess returns versus a position in cash are purely determined by the path of the federal funds rate over that 5-year investment horizon. Similarly, the TIPS breakeven inflation rate’s valuation is anchored by expectations about CPI inflation. If held to maturity, the profits from an inflation protection position (long TIPS/short nominals or short TIPS/long nominals) are purely determined by the path of CPI inflation during the investment horizon. It’s worth noting that, unlike the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate, the TIPS yield has no independent valuation anchor. Within our framework, the best way to forecast the TIPS yield is to follow a 3-step process: Forecast the nominal yield based on a view about the fed funds rate. Forecast the TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on a view about inflation. Use the Fisher Equation to combine the results from steps 1 and 2 into a forecast for the TIPS yield. As an aside, while our framework relies on viewing the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate as reflective of expectations for the fed funds rate and CPI inflation respectively, we do not argue that those bond yields can be used to accurately forecast the fed funds rate or CPI inflation. In fact, history tells us that bond markets are usually poor predictors of future outcomes for the fed funds rate and for CPI inflation. Chart 1 shows that there is only a loose correlation (R2 = 22%) between 12-month bond-market implied expectations for the change in the fed funds rate and the actual change in the fed funds rate. Similarly, Chart 2 shows that there is hardly any correlation (R2 = 3%) between market-implied inflation expectations and the 12-month rate of change in headline CPI. Chart 1Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of The Fed Funds Rate The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart 2Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of Inflation The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing In other words, it’s more advisable to view the expectations priced into bond markets as a breakeven threshold for trading, not as a tool for forecasting. Stating The TIPS Golden Rule To apply the TIPS Golden Rule, investors should follow these three steps: Calculate market-implied expectations for what headline CPI inflation will be over the next 12 months. This can be done by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate or the 1-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate.2 Develop an independent forecast for 12-month headline CPI inflation. We demonstrate one method for doing this later in the report.3 Compare your own headline CPI forecast with the forecast that is priced in the market. If your own forecast is higher, then you should go long TIPS/short nominal Treasuries. If your own forecast is lower, then you should go short TIPS/long nominal Treasuries. Testing The TIPS Golden Rule Chart 3 shows the historical track record of the TIPS Golden Rule going back to 2005.4 The top panel shows 12-month excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays TIPS index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. The bottom panel shows whether inflation surprised market expectations to the upside or to the downside during the investment horizon. We can see that, visually, it looks as though TIPS tend to outperform nominal Treasuries when there is an inflationary surprise and underperform when there is a deflationary surprise. Chart 3The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record Chart 4 shows the same relationship in a little more detail. The 12-month inflation surprise is placed on the x-axis and 12-month TIPS excess returns are on the y-axis. For the TIPS Golden Rule to be useful, we would need to see most of the datapoints in the top-right and bottom-left quadrants of the chart, and indeed this is the case. Chart 412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Finally, Table 1 shows the relationship in even more detail. It shows that inflationary surprises coincide with positive TIPS excess returns 73% of the time for an average excess return of 2.6%. It also shows that deflationary surprises coincide with negative TIPS excess returns 80% of the time, for an average excess return of -3.2%. Table 112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (2005 – Present) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Please note that all the above return calculations are performed on the overall Bloomberg Barclays TIPS Index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. However, the TIPS Golden Rule also performs well when applied to TIPS of any maturity. The Appendix of this report replicates the above analysis for every point along the TIPS curve and shows that the results are consistently excellent. Applying The TIPS Golden Rule Now that we have stated the TIPS Golden Rule and demonstrated its effectiveness as an investment strategy, it is time to apply it to the current market. To do that, we first determine 1-year market-implied inflation expectations by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate. As of last Friday’s close, the 1-year CPI swap rate is 3.16%. This means that if we think headline CPI inflation will be above 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. If we think headline CPI inflation will come in below 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go short TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Next, we must build up our own forecast of headline CPI inflation for the next 12 months. To do this, we follow a bottom-up approach where we split the CPI basket into five components (energy, food, shelter, core goods, and core services ex. shelter) and model each one individually. Energy Inflation (9% Of Headline CPI) Chart 5Modeling Energy Inflation Modeling Energy Inflation Modeling Energy Inflation Energy accounts for roughly 9% of headline CPI, though its often violent price swings mean that this component usually accounts for a much larger percentage of the volatility in headline CPI. In practice, we can accurately model Energy CPI using the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil (Chart 5). To get a 12-month forecast for Energy CPI we therefore need forecasts for the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. In this analysis, we will consider two possible scenarios for energy prices. First, a benign ‘low oil price’ scenario where we assume that the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil follow the paths discounted in their respective futures curves. Second, we consider a ‘high oil price’ scenario that incorporates the view of our Commodity & Energy Strategy service that a drop in Russian oil supply, among other factors, will cause the Brent crude oil price to reach $119 per barrel by the end of this year and average $117 per barrel in 2023.5 To incorporate this outlook into our model, we regress the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil on the Brent crude oil price and extrapolate forward using our commodity strategists’ forecasts. The ‘low oil price’ scenario has Energy CPI inflation falling from its current 32.9% level all the way down to -9.9% during the next 12 months. In contrast, our ‘high oil price’ scenario has it falling to just 15.8%. Food Inflation (13% Of Headline CPI) Chart 6Modeling Food Inflation Modeling Food Inflation Modeling Food Inflation Our Food CPI model is based on the cost of fertilizer, agricultural commodity prices and diesel prices. This model has done a reasonably good job explaining trends in Food CPI inflation over time, but the last few months have seen food inflation jump well above the levels suggested by our model (Chart 6). Given that the inputs to our Food CPI model are highly correlated with the oil price, we also apply the ‘low oil price’ and ‘high oil price’ scenarios discussed above to our Food CPI forecast. Using this method, the ‘low oil price’ scenario has Food CPI inflation falling to 3.8% during the next 12 months and the ‘high oil price’ scenario has it coming down to 4.2%. One key risk to these forecasts is that they both assume that the current gap between food inflation and our model’s fair value will close. It’s possible that other factors not included in our model could prevent the gap from closing. We therefore consider our Food CPI forecast to be quite optimistic. Core Goods Inflation (21% Of Headline CPI) Chart 7Modeling Goods Inflation Modeling Goods Inflation Modeling Goods Inflation Core goods inflation, currently running at 6.9%, appears to have already peaked following its post-pandemic surge. We model Core Goods CPI using the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index, as it is the supply chain constraints that arose during the pandemic that explain the bulk of the movement in core goods prices since that time (Chart 7).6 To forecast Core Goods CPI, we assume that global supply chain constraints continue to ease and that the New York Fed’s index reverts to its pre-pandemic level during the next 12 months. This gives us a forecast for 12-month Core Goods CPI inflation of 0%. Shelter Inflation (32% Of Headline CPI) Chart 8Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation We model shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, using the unemployment rate, rental vacancy rate and home prices (Chart 8). Except for the unemployment rate, all our model’s independent variables enter with a lag of at least 12 months. In other words, we wouldn’t expect any near-term change in home prices to impact Shelter CPI for at least a year. To forecast Shelter CPI, we assume that the unemployment rate rises to 4% during the next 12 months. This results in a shelter inflation forecast of 4.7% for the next 12 months. Much like with food inflation, we tend to view this forecast as relatively optimistic as it assumes a large reversion from the current rate of shelter inflation back to our model’s fair value. It’s conceivable that other factors not included in our model, such as rapid wage growth, could prevent this reversion from occurring. Services ex. Shelter Inflation (24% Of Headline CPI) Chart 9Modeling Services Inflation Modeling Services Inflation Modeling Services Inflation This final component of CPI is a bit of a hodgepodge of different service industries that may not have much in common. However, we find that wage growth does a good job of tracking its trends (Chart 9). We therefore model Services ex. Shelter CPI using the Employment Cost Index, which enters our model with a 10 month lag. To forecast Services ex. Shelter CPI, we assume that the Employment Cost Index holds steady at its current growth rate. This gives us a Services ex. Shelter CPI inflation forecast of 5.5% for the next 12 months. Combining Our Bottom-Up Inflation Forecasts & Investment Conclusions Combining our bottom-up forecasts, we calculate a 12-month headline CPI inflation rate of 2.4% for the ‘low oil price’ scenario and a rate of 4.8% for the ‘high oil price’ scenario. For core CPI inflation, we calculate a 12-month forecast of 3.6%. Given the optimistic assumptions that we incorporated into our forecasts, particularly the large reversions of food and shelter inflation back to our estimated fair value levels, we view the risks to our forecasts as heavily tilted to the upside. We also acknowledge that the re-normalization of global supply chains may not proceed as smoothly as the scenario that is baked into our forecasts. Any hiccup in that process would cause our goods inflation forecast to be too low. Chart 10Inflation Forecasts Inflation Forecasts Inflation Forecasts Chart 10 shows our 12-month headline and core CPI forecasts alongside the market-implied forecast from the CPI swap curve, currently 3.16%. Notice that the market-implied inflation forecast is much closer to the bottom-end of our range of headline CPI estimates, and we have already acknowledged that a lot of things will have to go right for our estimates to pan out. In other words, we see a high likelihood that 12-month headline CPI will be above 3.16% for the next 12 months which, according to our TIPS Golden Rule, tells us that we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. While we acknowledge that there is likely some value in going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries today, we are inclined to maintain our recommended neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals for now. Given the recent drop in oil prices, we anticipate further weakness in headline inflation during the next couple of months. This could push TIPS breakeven inflation rates even lower in the near term, creating even more value. The bottom line is that we see attractive value in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. While we maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, we anticipate turning more bullish in the near future, hopefully from a better entry point after one or two more weak CPI prints. Appendix Chart A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. 2 In this report we use the 1-year CPI swap rate because it is easier to access. 3 To make the TIPS Golden Rule easy to implement, we use seasonally adjusted headline CPI for all our calculations even though TIPS are technically linked to the non-seasonally adjusted index. We also ignore the fact that TIPS coupons adjust to CPI releases with a lag. Our analysis shows that the rule works very well even without incorporating these complications. 4 CPI swap rates are only available from 2004 onwards, so this is the largest historical sample we can use. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “EU Russian Oil Embargoes, Higher Prices”, dated August 18, 2022. 6 For more details on the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/overview Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI The BCA global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still in a downtrend, but its diffusion index – which tends to lead the overall global LEI at major cyclical turning points – has crept higher since bottoming in January. The diffusion index is rising in part because of very marginal increases in the LEIs of a few countries, but there have been more decisive increases in the LEIs of two major countries outside the developed world – China and Brazil. There is not yet enough evidence pointing to a true bottoming of the BCA global LEI anytime soon, but an improvement in the LEI diffusion index above 50 (i.e. a majority of countries with a rising LEI) would be a more convincing signal that global growth momentum is set to rebound. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure. Feature Investors can be forgiven for being a bit confused by some conflicting messages in recent global economic data. For example, US real GDP contracted in both the first and second quarter of this year – a so-called “technical recession” – and consumer confidence is at multi-decade lows, yet the US unemployment rate fell to 3.5%, the lowest level since 1969, in July. A similar story is playing out across the Atlantic, where a historic surge in energy prices was supposed to have already tipped the euro area into recession, yet real GDP expanded in both Q1 and Q2 at an above-trend pace and unemployment continues to decline. At times like the present, when market narratives do not always line up with hard data, we always believe it important to look within our vast suite of indicators to help clear the fog. One of our most trusted growth indicators, the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), is still falling and, thus, signaling a continued deceleration of global growth over at least the next 6-9 months. However, there are some signs of more optimistic news embedded within our global LEI stemming from outside the developed economies, which could be a potential early sign of a bottoming in global growth momentum. In this report, we dig deeper into the guts of our global LEI to assess the odds of an imminent turning point in the LEI and, eventually, global growth. This has important implications for global bond yields, which are likely to remain rangebound until there is greater clarity on global growth momentum (and inflation downside momentum). What Leads The Leading Indicator? The BCA global LEI is a composite index that combines the LEIs of 23 individual countries using GDP weights. The underlying list of countries differs from that of the widely followed OECD LEI, which is comprised of data from 33 countries but with a heavy weighting on developed market economies. The overall OECD LEI excludes important exporting countries such as Taiwan and Singapore, which are highly sensitive to changes in global growth. Most importantly, the OECD LEI omits the world’s largest economy, China. For our global LEI, we prefer to use a smaller set of countries but one that includes China and a bigger weighting on emerging market (EM) economies. For most of the nations in our global LEI, we do use the country-level LEIs produced by the OECD.1 That also includes several large and important non-OECD EM countries for which the OECD calculates LEIs - a list that includes China, Brazil, India, Russia, Indonesia and South Africa. For a few selected countries, however, we use the following data: US, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore: LEIs produced by national government data sources or, in the case of the US, the Conference Board. Argentina, Malaysia and Thailand: LEIs are produced in-house at BCA, a necessary step given the lack of domestically-produced LEIs in those countries at the time our global LEI was first constructed. We find that our global LEI leads global real GDP growth by around six months, and leads global industrial production growth by around twelve months (Chart 1). Chart 1A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI The latest reading on the global LEI from July is pointing to a further deceleration of global GDP into a “growth recession” where GDP is expanding slower than the pace of potential global GDP growth (less than 2%). The global LEI is also pointing to an outright contraction of global industrial production, a path also signaled by the JPMorgan global manufacturing PMI index which hit a two-year low of 51.1 – closing in on the 50 level that signifies expanding industrial activity – in July. Chart 2A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? The momentum of our global LEI is largely influenced by its breadth. Specifically, we have found that when a growing share of countries within the global LEI have individual LEIs that are rising, the overall LEI will eventually follow suit. Thus, the diffusion index of our global LEI, which measures the percentage share of countries with rising individual LEIs, is itself a fairly good leading indicator of the global LEI at major cyclical turning points. We may be approaching such a turning point, as our global LEI diffusion index has increased from a low of 9 back in January of this year to the level of 30 in July (Chart 2). In past business cycles, the diffusion index has tended to lead the global LEI by around 6-9 months, which suggests that a bottom in the actual global LEI could occur sometime in the next few months – although that outcome is conditional on the magnitude of the rise in the diffusion index. In the top half of Table 1, we list previous episodes since 1980 where the global PMI diffusion index followed a similar path to that seen in 2022 – bottoming out below 10 and then rising to at least 30. We identified nine such episodes. In the table, we also show the subsequent change in the level of the global LEI after the increase in the diffusion index. Table 1Global LEI Diffusion Index Greater Than 50 Typically Signals LEI Uptrend A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The historical experience shows that an increase in the diffusion index to 30 was only enough to trigger a decisive rebound in the global LEI over a 6-12 month horizon in the 2000-01 and 2008 episodes. In several episodes, the global LEI actually contracted despite the pickup in the diffusion index. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think In the bottom half of Table 1, we run the same analysis but define the episodes as when the diffusion index rose from a low below 10 to at least 50. Unsurprisingly, periods when at least half of the countries have a rising LEI tend to result more frequently in the overall global LEI entering an uptrend within one year – although the two most recent episodes in 2010 and 2018-19 were notable exceptions. Bottom Line: After looking at past experience, the latest pickup in the global LEI diffusion index has not been by enough to confidently forecast a rebound in the LEI – and, eventually, faster global growth. No Broad-Based Improvement In Our Global LEI When grouping the countries within our global LEI by geographical region, it is clear that there is still no sign of improvement in North America or Europe, but some signs of bottoming in Asia and Latin America (Chart 3). Typically, the regional LEIs tend to be very positively correlated during major cyclical moves in the overall LEI, with no one region being particularly better than the others at consistently leading the global business cycle. Chart 3More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI ​​​​​ Table 2Country Weightings In Our Global LEI A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? Of course, the global LEI is a GDP-weighted index that is dominated by the US and China (Table 2). When looking at individual country LEIs, the recent improvement in the LEI diffusion index looks less impressive. Some countries, like the UK and Korea, have only seen a tiny fractional uptick in the most recent LEI reading – moves small enough to qualify as statistical noise, even though the tiniest of positive moves still register as an “increase” when calculating the diffusion index. When looking at all the individual country LEIs within our global LEI, only two countries stand out as having meaningful increases over the past few months – China and Brazil (Chart 4). In the case of China, the idea that there could be signs of improving growth runs counter to the broad swath of recent data that highlight slowing momentum of Chinese consumer spending, business investment and residential construction. However, the production-focused components of the OECD’s China LEI, which we use in our global LEI, have shown some improvement of late (Chart 5). For example, motor vehicle production grew at a 32% year-over-year rate in July according to the OECD’s data, while total construction activity (based on OECD aggregates of production by industry) rose 9% year-over-year. Chart 4LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere ​​​​​ Chart 5Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI ​​​​​ The OECD’s LEI methodology is designed to include the minimum number of data series to optimize the fit of the LEI to the growth rate of each country’s industrial production index, which does lead to some peculiar series being included in the LEIs. However, there are signs of a potential rebound in Chinese economic growth evident in indicators preferred by our emerging market strategists, like the change in overall credit and fiscal spending as a share of GDP, a.k.a. the credit and fiscal impulse (Chart 6). The latter has shown a modest improvement that is hinting at faster Chinese growth in 2023, similar to the OECD’s China LEI. Turning to Brazil, the improvement in the OECD’s LEI there is focused on more survey-based data, like confidence among manufacturers and expectations on the demand for services. However, some hard data that the OECD includes in its Brazil LEI, namely net exports to Europe, have also shown clear improvement (Chart 7). Chart 6China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound Bottom Line: The modest improvement in our global LEI diffusion index is even less than meets the eye, as only China and Brazil have seen LEI increases that are meaningfully greater than zero. Chart 7Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI ​​​​​ Investing Around The Global LEI Chart 8Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Investors spend a sizeable chunk of their time focused on the future growth outlook to make investment decisions. This would, presumably, give leading economic indicators a useful role in any investment process. However, when looking at the relationship between our global LEI and the returns on risk assets like equities and corporate credit, the correlation is highly coincident (Chart 8). In other words, risk assets are themselves leading indicators of future economic growth – so much so that equity indices are often included as a component of the leading indicators of individual countries. On that front, the recent rebound in global equity markets, and the pullback in global credit spreads from the mid-June peak, could be signaling a more stable growth outlook that would be reflected in a bottoming of our global LEI. However, the monetary policy cycle matters, as evidenced by the correlation between the shape of government bond yield curves and our global LEI (bottom panel). That relationship is less strong than that of the LEI and equity/credit returns, but there are very few examples where yield curves are flat, or even inverted as is now the case in the US, and leading indicators are rising. Chart 9Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure In the current environment where more central banks are worrying more about overshooting inflation than slowing growth, a turnaround in our global LEI will be difficult to achieve until inflation is much closer to central bank target levels, allowing policymakers to loosen policy and steepen yield curves. We do not expect such a scenario to unfold over at least the next 12-18 months, given broad-based entrenched inflation pressures in global services and labor markets. While leading indicators may not be of much value in forecasting risk assets, we do find value in using them to forecast moves in government bond yields. Regular readers of BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy will be familiar with our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of growth-focused measures that have historically had a leading relationship to the momentum (annual change) in developed market bond yields (Chart 9). The Duration Indicator contains both the global LEI and its diffusion index, as well as the ZEW expectations indices for the US and Europe. Three of those four indicators remain at depressed levels suggesting waning bond yield momentum. Overshooting global inflation has weakened the correlation between bond yield momentum and our Duration Indicator over the past year. However, with global commodity and goods inflation now clearly decelerating, we expect bond momentum to begin tracking growth dynamics more closely again. This leads us to expect bond yields to remain trapped in ranges over at least the balance of 2022, defined most prominently by the 10-year US Treasury yield trading between 2.5% and 3%. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   Details on how the OECD calculates the individual country leading economic indicators can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/sdd/leading-indicators/compositeleadingindicatorsclifrequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm\   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 16 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Policymakers must continue engineering higher real interest rates, and tighter financial conditions, to help cool off growth and bring down overshooting inflation. This will inevitably lead to inverted yield curves across most of the developed world, following the recent trend of US Treasuries. US growth expectations remain overly pessimistic, which opens up the potential for more near-term bond-bearish upside data surprises like the July employment and ISM Services reports. The Bank of England – under increasing political pressure for its relatively timid response to the massive UK inflation overshoot – is now forecasting a long policy-induced recession as the only way to tame UK inflation expected to reach 13% by year-end. Expect UK Gilts to be a relative outperformer within developed bond markets over the next 12-18 months. Bottom Line: Stay overweight UK Gilts versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, but increase exposure to yield curve flattening in both countries. The Fed and Bank of England are both on course to push monetary policy into restrictive, growth-damaging territory. Don’t Get TOO Comfortable Taking Risk In a bit of a summer surprise, global financial markets have been staging a mild recovery from the stagflationary doom that prevailed during the first half of 2022. In the US, the S&P 500 index is up 14% from the year-to-date intraday low reached on June 16, with the VIX index back down to low-20s zone last seen in April (Chart 1). High-yield corporate bond spreads in the US and euro area are down 97bps and 36bps, respectively, since that mid-June trough in US equities. Even emerging market equities and credit – the most unloved of asset classes in 2022 – have stabilized. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyIt’s Time To Flip The Script - Upgrade UK Gilts Some of this risk rally is surely short-covering, but there are some valid reasons to be less pessimistic on growth-sensitive risk assets. In the US, where the back-to-back contractions in GDP in the first two quarters of the year have stoked recession fears, the latest data releases have seen upside surprises suggesting an expanding, not contracting, economy (Chart 2). The July ISM non-manufacturing (services) index rose +1.4 points in July to 56.7, a broad-based move that included increases in Production, New Orders and New Export Orders. Core durable goods orders rose +0.5% in June for the second straight month. The biggest surprise was the July Payrolls report, which showed a whopping +528,000 increase in employment – over twice the expected gain of +250,000 – with a downtick in the unemployment rate to 3.5%. Chart 1Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss Stepping Back From The Recessionary Abyss ​​​​​​ Chart 2The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature The US Recession Talk May Have Been Premature ​​​​​​ Chart 3Goods Inflation Pressures Easing Goods Inflation Pressures Easing Goods Inflation Pressures Easing There was also some good news on the inflation front in the latest US data. The Prices Paid components of both the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing indices showed big declines, 18.5pts and 7.8pts respectively, in July, continuing the downtrends that began in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 3). This is not just a US story. The Prices Paid components of the S&P Global manufacturing PMIs in the euro area, the UK, Japan and China have also been falling. Lower global commodity prices, particularly for oil, are playing a large role in the pullback in reported business input costs. The Supplier Deliveries components of both ISM reports also fell on the month, continuing a trend seen throughout 2022 as global supply chain pressures have eased. Combined with the drop in the Prices Paid data, global PMIs are sending a strong message - inflationary pressures on the traded goods side of the global economy are finally easing. Slower goods inflation, however, does not provide an all-clear for risk assets on a cyclical basis. Non-goods price pressures are showing little sign of peaking across most of the developed world. Labor markets remain tight, and both wage inflation and services inflation rates continue to accelerate in the major economies of the US, UK and euro area at a pace well above central bank inflation targets (Chart 4). Until these domestic sources of inflation show signs of peaking, central banks will continue to push up policy rates to slow growth, generate higher unemployment and, eventually, bring domestically driven inflation back down to central bank targets. Expect the so-called Misery Index, summing headline inflation and the unemployment rate, to remain elevated across the major developed economies until negative real interest rates begin to rise through a combination of more nominal rate hikes and, eventually, slower inflation (Chart 5). Chart 4Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating Domestic Inflation Pressures Accelerating ​​​​​ Chart 5Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise Realized Real Interest Rates Must Rise ​​​​​​As we discussed in last week’s report, bond markets were getting way ahead of themselves in pricing in aggressive rate cuts in 2023, especially in the US. This was setting up for a potential move higher in yields on any positive data news. Within the “Big 3” developed economies, US Treasuries look most vulnerable to a rebound in bond yield momentum, judging by what looks like a true bottom in the mean-reverting Citigroup US Data Surprise Index (Chart 6). The flow of data surprises is more mixed in the euro area and UK and is not yet at the stretched extremes that would signal a sustainable increase in bond yields. Taken at face value, this fits with our current recommendation to underweight the US, and overweight core Europe and the UK, within global government bond portfolios. With central banks now on track to push policy rates into restrictive territory, there is the potential for additional flattening of already very flat yield curves across the Big 3. Forward rates are not priced for additional curve flattening in those markets, looking at both the 2-year/10-year and 5-year/30-year government bond curves (Chart 7). This makes positioning for more curve flattening in the US, UK and euro area a positive carry trade by leaning against the pricing of forward rates. Chart 6Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US Greater Potential For Bond-Bearish Data Surprises In The US ​​​​​​ Chart 7Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' Increase Exposure To Curve Flattening In The 'Big 3' We are adjusting the positioning within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Model Bond Portfolio this week to benefit from the trend towards additional curve flattening in the US, the UK and core Europe (Germany and France). With the 2-year/10-year curve already inverted by -45bps in the US, we see better value by adding flattening exposure between the 5-year and 30-year points – a curve segment that is not yet in inversion. In the UK and euro area, we see a case for positioning for flattening across the entire yield curve. Bottom Line: Stay overweight both UK Gilts and core European government bonds versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, but increase exposure to yield curve flattening in all countries. The Fed and Bank of England are both clearly on course to push monetary policy into restrictive, growth-damaging territory, and the ECB may be forced to do the same. Painful Honesty From The Bank Of England The Bank of England (BoE) delivered its largest rate hike since 1995 last week, raising Bank Rate by 50bps to 1.75%. Planned sales of UK Gilts accumulated by the BoE during the quantitative easing phase of pandemic stimulus, at a pace of £10bn per quarter starting in September, were also announced. While those moves were largely expected by markets, the BoE’s new set of economic forecasts contained quite a shocker – an expectation of recession starting in Q4 of this year, running through the end of 2023 (Chart 8). The UK unemployment rate is expected to rise substantially from the current 3.8% to 6.3% by Q3/2025. Chart 8Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts Brutal Honesty In The Latest BoE Forecasts ​​​​​​ Chart 9Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts Energy Prices Driving BoE Inflation Forecasts We are hard pressed to remember the last time a major central bank announced a forecast of a prolonged economic downturn as part of its baseline scenario to bring inflation to its target. Such is the predicament that the BoE finds itself in, with headline UK inflation expected to soar to 13% by the end of 2022 – a mere 11 percentage points above the central bank’s inflation target. The BoE has been forced to sharply ratchet up that expected peak in UK inflation at both the May and August policy meetings this year. This is largely due to the massive increase in UK energy prices with the Energy component of the UK CPI index up over 50% in year-over-year terms. According to analysis published in the BoE August 2022 Monetary Policy Report, the direct impact of higher energy prices was projected to account for roughly half of that expected 13% peak in UK inflation this year (Chart 9). At the same time, falling energy prices embedded into futures curves are expected to full unwind that effect in 2023. The BoE’s recession call is also conditioned on a market-implied path for interest rates, with a 2023 peak in Bank Rate of just over 3% priced into the UK OIS curve. Looking beyond the energy price surge, there are signs that the BoE will not have to tighten as aggressively as interest rate markets are currently expecting. Our BoE Monitor, constructed using growth, inflation and financial market variables that would typically pressure the central bank to tighten or loosen monetary policy, has clearly peaked (Chart 10). All three components of the Monitor have rolled over, although inflation pressures remain the strongest contributor to the elevated absolute level of the Monitor. From a growth perspective, there are many reasons to expect the UK economy to enter a recession without much more prodding from BoE rate hikes (Chart 11): Chart 10Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates Our BoE Monitor Sees Easing Cyclical Pressure To Raise Rates ​​​​​​ Chart 11A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of UK Growth ​​​​​​ Both the S&P Global manufacturing and services PMIs are on target to soon fall below the 50 level that indicates positive growth (top panel) Consumer confidence has collapsed as surging inflation has overwhelmed household income growth, leading to a contraction in retail sales volume growth (middle panel) The BoE’s Agents’ Survey of individual businesses shows a sharp deterioration in business investment spending plans (bottom panel). Yet even with growth clearly slowing already, the sheer magnitude of the inflation overshoot is forcing markets to discount a fairly aggressive path for UK interest rates over the next year. This is not only evident in the OIS curve, but also in the BoE’s own Market Participants Survey (MPS) of UK investors. According to the just released August MPS, the median expectation is for Bank Rate to peak at 2.5% next year (Chart 12). This is a sizeable increase from the previous expected peak of 1.75% from the last MPS in May, but is still below the discounted peak in rates from the OIS curve of 3.1%. The bigger news is that the, according to the August MPS, the median survey participant now believes that the neutral range for Bank Rate is now 2-2.5%, up from the 1.5-2.0% range in the May MPS. Therefore, the August MPS forecasted peak Bank Rate of 2.5% is only at the high end of neutral and not restrictive. Yet both the OIS curve and the August MPS expect the BoE to immediately pivot from rate hikes to rate cuts in the second half of 2023. Chart 12UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations UK Interest Rate Markets Have Adjusted Neutral Rate Expectations Chart 13The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The BoE Is Facing Severe Public Scrutiny The notion that the BoE would pivot so quickly next year, when their own forecasts still call for UK inflation to be over 9% in the third quarter of 2023, seem somewhat optimistic. Especially with the BoE under tremendous public and political pressure because of runaway UK inflation. The leading candidate to become the next UK Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, has already gone on record stating that she would look to change the BoE’s remit as Prime Minister to focus solely on keeping inflation low. Meanwhile, the latest BoE Inflation Attitudes Survey shows more respondents are now dissatisfied with the BoE than satisfied (Chart 13). 1-year-ahead inflation expectations from that same survey are now at 4.6%, while 5-year/5-year forward breakevens from UK index-linked Gilts are still at 3.8%. With inflation expectations still so elevated, and with the BoE’s own forecasts calling for headline UK inflation to not fall back to the 2% BoE target until Q3/2024, it is unlikely that the BoE will revert to rate cuts as quickly as markets expect – especially given the accelerating wage dynamics in the UK labor market. According to the BoE’s measure of “underlying” wage growth, which adjusts headline wage inflation data for pandemic effects from furloughs and shifting labor composition, wages are growing at a 4.2% year-over-year rate (Chart 14). The BoE’s own modeling work indicates that 2.9 percentage points of that wage growth is due to the level of short-term inflation expectations, with only 0.9 percentage points coming from productivity growth. Thus, the BoE cannot let its foot off the monetary brake until short-term inflation expectations fall substantially from current elevated levels – especially with employment indicators still pointing to a very tight supply-constrained, post-COVID UK labor market. Chart 14A Wage-Price Spiral In The UK? Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company Given that interplay of rising headline inflation, elevated inflation expectations and tight labor markets, the BoE will likely be forced to begin unwinding the current rate hiking cycle later than markets expect. This will eventually lead to an inversion of the UK Gilt yield curve as the BoE pushes policy rates to restrictive territory and the UK economy falls into recession faster than other countries (like the US). Chart 15Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias Stay Overweight UK Gilts, With A Curve Flattening Bias We still believe that the Fed is more likely than the BoE to fully follow through on market-discounted rate hikes over the next year, which was a major reason why we upgraded our cyclical recommendation on UK Gilts to overweight back in May. However, with the BoE now under more pressure to wring high inflation out of the UK economy by keeping policy tighter for longer, we also see value in positioning for that eventual inversion of the UK Gilt curve (Chart 15). We see the sequencing as being inversion first, and relative Gilt outperformance later, although we do not expect the relative performance of Gilts to worsen with the UK economy set to enter recession before other major economies. Importantly, the forward rates in the Gilt curve are still priced for a somewhat steeper yield curve, making curve flattening trades along the entire curve attractive as positive carry trades that pay you to wait for the eventual policy driven inversion. The 2-year/10-year and 2-year/30-year flatteners look particularly attractive from that carry-focused perspective. Bottom Line: The BoE– under increasing political pressure for its relatively timid response to the massive UK inflation overshoot – is now forecasting a long policy-induced recession as the only way to tame UK inflation expected to reach 13% by year-end. Expect UK Gilts to be a relative outperformer within developed bond markets over the next 12-18 months, and enter positive carry Gilt curve flatteners now to benefit from the inevitable inversion of the curve.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Misery Loves Company Misery Loves Company

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse The US dollar has bounced off its 50-day moving average. In the recent past, that had led to a period of cyclical strength. The yen rally can be explained by the decline in Treasury yields and the fall in energy prices. Where next for the yen will depend on the time horizon. For investors trying to time the bottom, the euro is not yet a buy, but the common currency is incredibly cheap. Much depends on global/Chinese growth (Feature Chart). One of the key drivers of the dollar is volatility, and the correlation with the MOVE index. Less uncertainty will ease safe-haven demand. Stay short EUR/JPY and CHF/JPY. Remain long EUR/GBP. Maintain a limit sell on CHF/SEK at 10.76. RECOMMENDATIONS inception date RETURN Short EUR/JPY 2022-07-21 3.68 Bottom Line: We are tactically neutral the dollar but will be sellers on strength. Questions And Answers Chart 1Currencies And Yield Differentials Currencies And Yield Differentials Currencies And Yield Differentials It is rare that we receive clients in our Montreal office. This has obviously been doubly the case due to the pandemic and the general hassle of travel nowadays. But when we do, it is a delight. In this week’s report, we got asked a few difficult questions on a tea date. The most important was not surprisingly the dollar view, but also our highest conviction trades in FX markets. We enjoyed the conversation and the intellectual debate, so we thought we would share this with our clients. Hopefully, this answers some of the most pressing questions. We have sliced this into as brief and concise a conversation as we could. Question: It is hard not to notice the steep decline in the dollar over the last few weeks. Should we fade this decline or lean into it? That is a tough question, but our educated guess is to fade it for now. That said, longer-term asset allocators should really be looking at buying extremely cheap G10 currencies on any declines. The drivers of dollar downside have been clear. First, long-term interest rates in the US have fallen substantially. The US 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from 3.5% to 2.7%. In real terms, they have also declined. The 10-year TIPS yield has fallen from 0.85% to 0.23%. On a relative basis, the market is also pricing in that the Fed will cut interest rates next year much faster than other central banks. More simply put, 2-year real bond yields in the US are rolling over, relative to the euro area and Japan, the biggest components of the DXY index (Chart 1). Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyHow Deep A Recession Is The Dollar Pricing In? Specific to Japan and the euro area, there has also been another critical factor – the decline in energy import costs. Germany’s trade balance improved markedly in June (Chart 2). This has been the first genuine improvement in a year. There is also discussion to extend the life of existing nuclear power plants, which will help assuage energy import costs. In Japan, trade balance data comes out on Monday next week, so we will see what it reveals. But what has been clear is a political drive to restart nuclear power and wean the Japanese economy off its dependence on oil and gas (Chart 3). Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida has been very vocal about this in recent speeches. Chart 2Euro Area And Japanese Trade Balances Are Improving Euro Area And Japanese Trade Balances Are Improving Euro Area And Japanese Trade Balances Are Improving Chart 3A Nuclear Renaissance In Japan? A Nuclear Renaissance In Japan? A Nuclear Renaissance In Japan? Turning to the more important part of your question, should we fade the decline or lean into it? We are of two minds on this to be honest, and here is why. The DXY has bounced off its 50-day moving average, which has been a sign in the past that the rally is not over (Chart 4). Our Geopolitical and Commodity & Energy colleagues are telling us not to trust the decline in oil prices. Our bond strategists think US yields are heading higher, with a whisper floor of 2.5%. Chart 4The DXY Has Support At The 50-Day Moving Average The DXY Has Support At The 50-Day Moving Average The DXY Has Support At The 50-Day Moving Average Given these crosscurrents, there are many better opportunities that exist in FX at the crosses, rather than playing the dollar outright. But of course, the dollar call is critical. We would be neutral over the next three-to-six months but be incremental sellers of the dollar on strength. Question: Okay, neutral dollar for now, but bearish long term. We tend to consider longer-term investments as well, and we are confused about the euro, but even more so about the yen. Would you buy the yen today? If so, why? Our starting point for many currencies is valuation. On this basis, the yen is incredibly cheap. So, if you have a five-to-ten-year horizon, you can unlock incredible value in Japan, simply on a buy-and-hold basis. Our in-house curated model shows that the yen is at a multi-general low in value terms (Chart 5). Currencies mean-revert. Consider this for a minute – we are not equity experts, but Toyota trades at a P/E of 10.75, while Tesla trades at a P/E of 109.15. And yes, Toyota has electric cars. Chart 5The Japense Yen Is Incredibly Cheap The Japense Yen Is Incredibly Cheap The Japense Yen Is Incredibly Cheap Chart 6The Yen Is A Favorite Short The Yen Is A Favorite Short The Yen Is A Favorite Short It is true that a winner-takes-all mantra can be attributed to Tesla’s valuation over Toyota, but our colleagues in the Global Investment Strategy are telling us this era is over. As such, at a 40% discount, the yen is a long-term buy in our books. Interestingly, nobody likes the yen, at least by our preferred measure – net speculative positions. It is one of the most shorted G10 currencies (Chart 6). A cheap currency that is the most shorted ranks quite well in our evaluation of bargains in currency markets. Given my discussion above about the dollar, we have played the yen at the crosses. We are short EUR/JPY and CHF/JPY. On the euro, Japanese car manufacturers are simply becoming more competitive than their eurozone or US counterparts. This is not only related to the car industry, but according to the OECD, EUR/JPY is expensive on a purchasing power parity basis (Chart 7). Meanwhile, a short EUR/JPY trade is a perfect hedge for a pro-cyclical portfolio. The DXY index has historically traded in perfect inverse correlation to the euro-yen exchange rate (Chart 8). This suggests the collapse in the yen, relative to the euro, is very much overdone. In a risk-off environment, EUR/JPY will sell off. Meanwhile, there are also fundamental reasons to suggest that the yen should trade higher vis-à-vis the euro. Chart 7Remain Short ##br##EUR/JPY Remain Short EUR/JPY Remain Short EUR/JPY Chart 8The DXY And EUR/JPY Usually Track Each Other The DXY And EUR/JPY Track Each Other EUR/JPY And The DXY: Unsustainable Gap The DXY And EUR/JPY Track Each Other EUR/JPY And The DXY: Unsustainable Gap Question: Okay, let’s switch to the euro. I know you are short EUR/JPY, which has been working out well in the last few days. But the euro touched parity and I get a sense that it has bottomed. You have often mentioned that the euro has priced in one of the deepest recessions in the eurozone. I am surprised you are not trumpeting this currency and a once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunity. We agree somewhat with your conclusion but not the premise. Let’s consider the narrative over the last few months in the media. The first was that eurozone inflation will never catch up to the US, because the economy was structurally weak. Well, it did, albeit due to an exogenous shock.  So, among a ranking of stagflationary candidates, the euro area is a top contender. If you believe in the idea that currencies are driven by real interest rates, rising inflation, and falling growth are an anathema for the exchange rate. When we typically have doubts about the euro area economy, and the outlook for its financial markets, we consult with our European Investment Strategy colleagues. We did just that and Mathieu Savary, who heads the service, mentioned two things: one – Chinese import volumes are imploding. For net creditor nations, this is a negative as their source of income is waning. The euro area falls into that category. The second thing to consider is that the dollar is a momentum currency. So is the euro. We mentioned earlier that the dollar bounced off its 50-day moving average, which explains euro weakness in recent trading days. In the end, Mathieu and the FX team did not really disagree, but I highlighted two charts to track. The euro tracks the Chinese credit impulse due to the importance of Chinese import demand for the euro area. It looks like our measure of that impulse has bottomed (Chart 9). If it has, you buy the euro on a long-term view. Relatedly, financial conditions are easing in China. As the Chinese bond market becomes more open and liberalized, bond yields become a financial conditions valve. That has been the case and has perfectly tracked the propensity for imports in the last few years (Chart 10). Chart 9The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse The Euro And The Chinese Credit Impulse Chart 10Financial Conditions Are Easing In China Financial Conditions Are Easing In China Financial Conditions Are Easing In China In short, we will buy the euro if it touches parity, and even more so below parity with a 5–10-year view, but we think EUR/USD could touch 0.95 in the near term. I guess what we are saying is that a 5%-7% move is big in FX markets, but a 26% move (the undervaluation of the euro) is a whale. We do not see the catalyst for a whale in our current compass. Question: We have talked about the yen and the euro. I do not want to get into the pound, Australian dollar, and other currencies as you have told me your team has upcoming reports on those. But the Chinese yuan is very important in my investment portfolio. Any ideas on its next move? USD/CNY topped out near 6.8 in May. Since then, it has been in a trading range despite the DXY breaking to multi-decade highs (Chart 11). When a pattern like this emerges, it is always useful to revisit fundamentals. Those fundamentals are real interest rate differentials. We care about the yuan because China is a big trading partner of the US. As such, it is also a huge weight in the broad trade-weighted dollar index. China has huge problems, especially related to the property market, which need to be resolved. Bond yields have also collapsed. But the real interest rate in China is very attractive (Chart 12). It is also important to consider that if the dollar is the global safe haven, that means that the yuan could be becoming the haven in Asia. So, yuan downside is not a big risk for our long-term dollar bearish call. That said, we will be short CNY versus the yen, but not the dollar. Chart 11The RMB Has Been Relatively Resilient The RMB Has Been Relatively Resilient The RMB Has Been Relatively Resilient Chart 12The RMB Has Undershot Real Rate Differentials The RMB Has Undershot Real Rate Differentials The RMB Has Undershot Real Rate Differentials Question: I think I could sit with you all morning to discuss other aspects of FX,  but I respect you have a tight stop due to the BLU meeting. Any concluding thoughts? I have one. Very often, we debate with our colleagues about capital flows. The dollar rises (in general), as capital inflows accelerate into the US and vice versa. It is often said that getting the dollar call right gets everything else right. So, if you can predict the path of the dollar, the performance of, say, US versus non-US equities becomes easy. Chart 13The Dollar And Earnings Revisions The Dollar And Earnings Revisions The Dollar And Earnings Revisions We agree that the dollar is a real-time indicator of relative fundamentals. But here is one important observation: relative earnings revisions are deteriorating in the US vis-à-vis other countries (Chart 13). That has historically had an impact on exchange rates, as it affects equity capital flows. If the Federal Reserve also cut rates next year as the market is predicting, that will also be a negative for bond inflows. We think the global economy will avoid a deep recession, and that will allow growth to pick up outside the US. When the euro area and China bottom, then the dollar will truly peak, as capital flows to these economies will accelerate. So we are watching relative earnings and bond yield differentials closely.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Government bond yields worldwide are falling due to fears of a global recession that will lead to monetary easing in 2023. This pricing is too optimistic with inflation likely to remain well above central bank targets next year. Even though US real GDP contracted modestly in the first half of 2022, the broader flow of US economic data is more consistent with an economy that is slowing substantially but not yet in recession. The Fed welcomes sharply slower growth to deal with high inflation, but will not unwind the 2022 rate hikes as quickly as markets expect given sticky core/wage inflation. The Fed rate cuts now discounted for 2023 will likely not be delivered. No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves … Yet No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet Bottom Line: Falling global bond yields have helped stabilize risk assets – a path that will eventually lead to a rebound in yields if easier financial conditions help avoid a deep recession. Stay neutral overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The Great Recession Debate Begins Global bond yields have seen substantial declines over the past few weeks, as the market narrative has quickly changed from surging inflation and rate hikes to imminent recession and eventual rate cuts (Chart 1). The truth is somewhere in the middle, with global inflation in the process of peaking and global growth slowing rapidly but not yet in full-blown recession. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyMixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Bond markets are expecting central banks, most importantly the Fed, to quickly abandon the fight against high inflation for a new battle to tackle decelerating economic growth. The problem for investors is that weaker growth is needed – and, indeed, welcomed by policymakers - to create economic slack to help bring down elevated inflation. There is little evidence of such a disinflationary slack being created, with unemployment rates still near cyclical lows in the US, Europe and most of the developed world. The link between longer-term bond yields and shorter-term interest rate expectations remains strong in an environment of very flat government yield curves. For example, in the US, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from a peak of 3.47% in mid-June to 2.67% at the end of July. Over the same period, the 1-month interest rate, two-years ahead priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve fell from a peak of 3.1% to 2.1% (Chart 2). Chart 1A Downward Adjustment Of Interest Rate Expectations A Downward Adjustment Of Interest Rate Expectations A Downward Adjustment Of Interest Rate Expectations ​​​​​​ Chart 2A Lower Trajectory For Rates Priced In As Growth Slows A Lower Trajectory For Rates Priced In As Growth Slows A Lower Trajectory For Rates Priced In As Growth Slows ​​​​​​ An even more dramatic decline in yields has been seen in Europe. The 10-year German Bund yield has fallen from a mid-June peak of 1.75% to 0.83% at the end of July, while the 1-month/2-year forward European OIS rate fell from 2.5% to 1.1%. The 2-year German yield, most sensitive to ECB rate hike expectations, also fell dramatically from 1.15% to 0.24%. There have also been substantial declines in bond yields and rate expectations in the UK, Canada and Australia over the past six weeks. As central banks continue to raise policy rates towards levels perceived to be at least neutral, if not mildly restrictive, there should a stronger correlation between future rate hike expectations and longer-term bond yields. Put another way, yield curves tend to flatten and eventually invert as policymakers move rates to levels that should slow growth and, eventually, reduce inflation. Currently, the “global” 2-year/10-year government bond yield curve, using Bloomberg Global Treasury index data, is slightly inverted at -13bps (Chart 3). More deeper curve inversions typically precede major contractions in global growth and equity prices. Chart 3No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet At the moment, global equities have performed in line with deeper curve inversions and contracting growth, with the MSCI World equity index down -7% on a year-over-year basis (bottom panel). Yet actual global growth is not yet in contraction. Global industrial production, while slowing, is still growing at a +3% year-over-year rate. The global manufacturing PMI remains above 50, indicative of a still-expanding manufacturing sector. Euro area, which is widely believed to already be in recession, saw real GDP growth (non-annualized) of +0.5% and +0.7%, respectively, in Q1 and Q2 of this year. Meanwhile, US real GDP shrank modestly over the first half of 2022, down only -0.6% (non-annualized) over Q1 and Q2, but with no corroborating evidence of recession from the labor market with the headline unemployment rate falling from 4.0% to 3.6% over that same period. Further adding to the confusing mix of signals between yield curves and growth is that the curve inversion at the global level is not yet evident across all countries. For example, the 2-year/10-year curve is inverted in the US and Canada, countries where central banks have been more aggressive on hiking rates in 2022 (Chart 4A) Yet in both countries, there have only been moderate declines in leading economic indicators and composite PMIs (combining manufacturing and services). In contrast, the 2-year/10-year curve in Germany and the UK – where the ECB and Bank of England have delivered fewer rates than the Fed and Bank of Canada – remains positively sloped but with similar moderate declines in leading economic indicators and composite PMIs to those seen in the US and Canada (Chart 4B). Chart 4AA Policy-Driven Slowdown In North America A Policy-Driven Slowdown In North America A Policy-Driven Slowdown In North America ​​​​​​ Chart 4BAn Energy-Driven Slowdown In Europe An Energy-Driven Slowdown In Europe An Energy-Driven Slowdown In Europe ​​​​​​ Chart 5Central Banks Cannot Pivot Dovishly Against This Backdrop Central Banks Cannot Pivot Dovishly Against This Backdrop Central Banks Cannot Pivot Dovishly Against This Backdrop The deceleration of growth seen so far in this countries is nowhere near enough for central banks to begin contemplating a pivot away from hawkish rate hikes in 2022 to dovish rate cuts in 2023/24, as markets are now discounting. Inflation rates remain far too elevated, and labor markets remain far too tight, for policymakers to switch from the brake pedal to the gas pedal (Chart 5). This exposes global bond yields to a rebound from recent lows as central banks disappoint the market’s growing belief that policymakers’ focus will turn to growth from inflation. The language from recent central bank policy decisions, from the ECB’s 50bp hike on July 21 to the Fed’s 75bp hike last week to yesterday’s 50bp hike by the Reserve Bank of Australia, has been consistent, calling for a continued need to tighten policy. All three central banks essentially abandoned forward guidance, but described future rate moves as being “data dependent”, particularly inflation data. There is likely to be some relief from elevated inflation rates over the next few months. There have already been substantial declines in the growth of commodity prices, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now contracting in year-over-year terms (Chart 6). Global shipping costs and supplier delivery times have also declined, as evidence of some easing of supply chain disruptions that is helping bring down goods inflation. Yet given the starting point of such high headline inflation rates – at or above 9% in the US, UK and euro area – it is unlikely that there will be enough disinflation from the commodity/goods space to quickly bring inflation down by enough for central banks to breathe easier. This is especially true given that stickier domestically generated inflation stemming from wages and services will remain well above central bank targets over at least the next year, or at least until there is a substantial increase in slack-producing unemployment (i.e. a recession). What does all this mean for our view on the direction of global bond yields? We still see the current environment as more consistent with broad trading ranges for yields, rather than the start of a new major downtrend or uptrend. Europe was the one exception to this view, given how markets were pricing in a rise in ECB policy rates that was too aggressive, but even that has now corrected after the dramatic collapse in core European yields from the mid-June peak. Our Global Duration Indicator has been calling for a loss of cyclical upward momentum of bond yields in the latter half of 2022, which is now starting to play out (Chart 7). That indicator is focused on growth indicators like our global leading economic indicator and the ZEW expectations index for the US and Europe, all of which have been declining for the past several months. Chart 6Global Inflation Is Peaking Global Inflation Is Peaking Global Inflation Is Peaking ​​​​​ Chart 7Stay Neutral On Global Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Global Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Global Duration Exposure ​​​​​​ However, there is a potential note of economic optimism from another key component of the Global Duration Indicator - the diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which measures the number of countries with rising leading indicators versus those with falling ones. That diffusion index has hooked up as the leading economic indicators of some important countries that are typically leveraged to global growth – China, Japan, Brazil, Korea and Malaysia – have started to move higher. If this trend continues in the months ahead, our Duration Indicator may signal a reacceleration of global bond yield momentum in the first half of 2023 as the global growth outlook improves. Bottom Line: Bond markets are overreacting to slowing global growth momentum by pricing in a quick reversal of 2022 rate hikes in 2023 across the developed world. Do not chase bond yields lower. The Fed Will Respond To Inflation Before Recession The Q2/2022 US GDP report showed an annualized decline of -0.9%, following on the annualized -1.6% fall in Q1 real GDP (Chart 8). This fulfills the so-called “technical definition” of a recession widely cited by the financial media. However, the official arbiters of recession dating – the National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER – use a broader list of data to identify recessions that focus on income growth, employment and industrial production. None of those indicators contracted in the first half of the year, when the GDP-defined recession allegedly took place. We are sympathetic to the view that the US has not yet entered recession. However, recession odds are increasing, with many reliable cyclical data series slowing to a pace that has preceded past recessions. In Chart 9, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” comparison of the latest readings on some highly cyclical US economic data with readings from past recessions dating back to the late 1970s. In the chart, the data series are lined up such that the vertical line represents the NBER-designated start date of each recession, starting with the 1979/80 recession up to the 2008 recession. We show both the average path for each series across all of those recessions (the dotted line) and the range of outcomes from each recession (the shaded zone). Given the unique nature of the 2020 COVID recession, which was limited to just one quarter of collapsing activity due to pandemic lockdowns rather than typical business cycle forces, we did not include that episode in this chart. Chart 8No US Growth In H1/2022 No US Growth In H1/2022 No US Growth In H1/2022 The selected variables in this cycle-on-cycle analysis are: The year-over-year growth of the Conference Board leading economic indicator The ISM manufacturing index The University Of Michigan consumer expectations index The year-over-year growth of housing starts The year-over-year growth rate of non-financial (top-down) corporate profits. Chart 9The US Is Definitely Flirting With Recession The US Is Definitely Flirting With Recession The US Is Definitely Flirting With Recession ​​​​​ All five series selected have slowed over past several months, consistent with the run-up to previous recessions. However, in terms of timing, not all of the indicators shown are at levels that would be consistent with the US already being in a recession, as the real GDP contractions in Q1 and Q2 would suggest. Typically, the ISM index falls below 50 at the start of the recession, while the growth in the leading indicator turns negative about six months before the start of the recession. The current readings on both are still modestly above levels seen at the start of those past recessions. Corporate profit growth typically contracts for a full year ahead of recessions, and the latest complete reading available from Q1 was still showing positive, albeit slowing, growth. Chart 10The Fed Is OK With This Outcome, Given High Inflation The Fed Is OK With This Outcome, Given High Inflation The Fed Is OK With This Outcome, Given High Inflation Some of the indicators shown are looking recessionary. The current contraction in the growth of housing starts is in line with the timing from the average of past recessions. The same can be said for falling consumer expectations, although the latest decline is particularly severe compared to past recessions. From the point of view of investors, the semantics over the “official” declaration of a recession are irrelevant. There has already been a major pullback in US equity markets and widening of US corporate credit spreads as investors have priced in substantially slower growth – and the Fed tightening that is helping engineer that economic outcome. The pullback in risk assets has tightened US financial conditions, exacerbating the hit to business and consumer confidence from high inflation and declining real incomes (Chart 10). Equity and credit markets did stage healthy recoveries in the month of June as markets began to price out Fed rate hikes in response to the US potentially entering recession. However, Fed rate hikes have already flattened the US Treasury curve, which has raised the odds of a US recession NEXT year. According to the New York Fed’s recession probability model, the current spread between the 10-year US Treasury yield and the 3-month US Treasury bill rate of 23bps translates to a 26% probability of a US recession occurring one year from now (Chart 11). That model uses data going back to the 1960s, which includes the Volcker-era Fed tightenings in the 1970s that resulted in dramatic increases in real US interest rates and steep inversions of the US Treasury curve. Using the post-1980 range of recession probabilities, ranging from 0-50%, the latest 26% probability is more like a 50/50 bet on a 2023 US recession. Chart 11A US Recession Is More Likely In 2023, Says The UST Curve A US Recession Is More Likely In 2023, Says The UST Curve A US Recession Is More Likely In 2023, Says The UST Curve The Fed will need to continue delivering rate hikes until there is evidence that core inflation has peaked and will begin the path of falling back to the Fed’s 2% target. That is certainly not a story for 2022, or even for 2023, given the rapid acceleration of US wage growth (Chart 12). If the Fed were to begin pivoting away from rate hikes now, with the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker and the Employment Cost Index accelerating at a 5-7% pace, the result would be an unwanted increase in inflation expectations. Chart 12The Fed Must Stay Hawkish With Labor Costs Still Accelerating The Fed Must Stay Hawkish With Labor Costs Still Accelerating The Fed Must Stay Hawkish With Labor Costs Still Accelerating The Fed is fighting hard to regain the inflation-fighting credibility lost in 2022 when “Team Transitory” ruled the FOMC and policy did not respond to rapidly rising inflation. The Fed’s aggressive rate hikes in 2022 have helped restore some of that credibility with bond markets, judging by the pullback in longer-term CPI-based TIPS breakevens seen in recent months, which are now back in line with the 2.3-2.5% range we have deemed consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE inflation target (Chart 13). The evidence from survey-based measures of inflation expectations is a bit mixed, but still consistent with improved Fed credibility. The New York Fed’s Consumer Survey shows 1-year-ahead inflation expectations still elevated at 6.8%, but the 3-year-ahead expectation has drifted back below 4% (bottom panel). The University of Michigan 5-10 year consumer inflation expectation is even lower, falling to 2.8% in July from 3.1% in June. The Fed will not risk those hard-earned declines in longer-term inflation expectations by turning dovish too quickly – especially as it is not year clear if the US is even in a recession. Investors betting on a dovish pivot by the Fed before year end, leading to substantial rate cuts in 2023, are likely to be disappointed. In our view, this is setting up a potential opportunity to reduce US duration exposure to position for a rebound in Treasury yields. However, a meaningful increase in yields will be difficult to achieve, as yields are still adjusting to downside data surprises and duration positioning among investors is still below benchmark, according to the JPMorgan client duration survey (Chart 14). We suggest staying neutral on US duration exposure, for now, until the technical backdrop becomes more conducive to higher yields. Chart 13Mixed Messages On US Inflation Expectations Mixed Messages On US Inflation Expectations Mixed Messages On US Inflation Expectations ​​​​​ Chart 14Stay Neutral On US Duration - For Now Stay Neutral On US Duration - For Now Stay Neutral On US Duration - For Now ​​​​​ Bottom Line: US recession odds have increased, but the economy is not yet in recession. The Fed welcomes sharply slower growth to deal with high inflation, but will not unwind the 2022 rate hikes as quickly as markets expect given sticky core/wage inflation. The Fed rate cuts now discounted for 2023 will likely not be delivered. Treasury yields are more likely to stay rangebound over the next 3-6 months than move lower.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think

Executive Summary Italy’s right-wing alliance, led by Brothers of Italy, will likely outperform in  the upcoming election. The new government will prioritize the economy, posing a risk to the EU’s united front against Russia. It is conducive to an eventual ceasefire, which is marginally positive for risk assets in 2023. We recommend investors underweight Italian assets on a tactical basis. China’s political risks will remain elevated until Xi consolidates power this fall, positive news will come after, if at all. Geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait will remain high and persistent until China and the US reach a new understanding. Separately, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US equities relative to UAE equities trade. Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US / UAE EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-11 9.0% Bottom Line: Italy’s political turmoil suggests a more pragmatic policy toward Russia going forward. Europe’s energy cutoff will also motivate governments to negotiate with Russia. Feature In this report we update our GeoRisk Indicators, with a special focus on Italy’s newest political turmoil. Italy Over the past several months, we have argued that Italy was a source of political risk within the European Union and that the market underestimated the probability of an early Italian election. In the past two weeks, this forecast has become a reality (Chart 1). Chart 1Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator The grand coalition under Prime Minister Mario Draghi had fulfilled its two main purposes – to distribute EU recovery funds and secure an establishment politician in the Italian presidency. At the same time, headline inflation hit 8.5% in June, the highest since 1986, even as the Italian and global economy slowed down, Italian government bonds sold off, and Russia induced an energy crisis. The stagflationary economic environment is biting hard and the different coalition members are looking to their individual interests ahead of election season. On July 14, Giuseppe Conte, the former prime minister, pulled its populist Five Star Movement (M5S) out of Mario Draghi’s national unity government, triggering a new round of political turmoil in Italy. Draghi’s first resignation was rejected by Italian President Mattarella later that day. However, on July 21, the League and Forza Italia also defected from the grand coalition. After Draghi’s plan of reviving the coalition collapsed, President Mattarella accepted his resignation and called for a snap election to be held on September 25, ten months ahead of the original schedule. Based on the latest public opinion polls, right-wing political parties are well-positioned for the upcoming election. The far-right Brothers of Italy is now the front runner in the election race and is expected to win around 23% of the votes. Another far-right party, the League, is the third most popular party, with nearly 15% support despite a drop in support during its time within the grand coalition. In addition, the center-right Forza Italia receives 8.5% of the support. Together, the right-wing conservative bloc amounts to 46.5% of voting intentions. There is still positive momentum for Brothers of Italy to harvest more support given that they are the flag-bearer for anti-incumbent sentiment amid the stagflationary economy. By contrast, the left-wing parties – the Democrats, the Left, and the Greens – only command about 27%. The possibility of an extended left-wing coalition, even with the inclusion of the M5S, is looking slim. On July 25, Enrico Letta, the leader of the Democratic Party, publicly expressed his anger against party leader Giuseppe Conte and ruled out any electoral pact with the M5S because of the recent political chaos they caused. He stressed that the Democratic Party would seek ties with parties that had remained loyal to Draghi’s national unity. However, there are not many parties left for the Democrats to partner with. Apart from the Left and the Greens, the Democrats’ best chance would be the center-left Action Party and Italia Viva, which is led by Matteo Renzi, who served as the secretary of the Democratic Party from 2013 to 2018. However, these four parties are small and will not enable the Democrats to form a government. Courting M5S is the Democrats’ only chance to set up an alternative to the right-wing bloc, but that will require the election to force the two parties together. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyLe Pen And Other Hurdles (GeoRisk Update) The Democratic Party was the biggest supporter of Draghi’s government, while the Brothers of Italy were the sole major opposition. Thus the September 25 election will be a race between these two major parties. Both are expected to outperform current polling, as they will attract the most supporters from each side. The other right-wing parties, Forza Italia and the League, will at least perform in line with their polling, while the other left-wing parties will underperform. In the meantime, M5S’ popularity will continue to decline – the party is bruised over its role in Draghi’s coalition and divided over how to respond to the Ukraine war. Foreign policy is a major factor in this election. Italy has the highest share of citizens in the Eurozone who support solving the Russia-Ukraine conflict through peaceful dialogue (52% versus the Eurozone average of 35%). Italy has long maintained pragmatic relations with Russia, including the Putin administration, as it imported 40% of its natural gas from there prior to 2022. The EU is struggling to maintain a united front against Russia, and war policy will be a key focal point among the different parties. Draghi and the Democratic Party are the strongest supporters of the EU’s oil embargo on Russia and decision to send arms to support Ukraine. On the other side, the right-wing Forza Italia and the League have been more equivocal due to their traditional friendship with Russia. What’s more important is the stance of the Brothers of Italy on Russia, as it is the largest party now and will probably lead a right-wing government after the election. On July 27, the three right-wing parties struck a deal to officially form an alliance in the upcoming election and whichever party wins the most votes would determine the next prime minister if the alliance wins. This deal puts Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Brothers of Italy, one step closer to becoming Italy’s first female PM. Giorgia Meloni, unlike her right-wing peers, has endorsed Draghi’s hawkish stance towards Russia. Recently, she stressed that Italy would keep sending arms to Ukraine if her party forms a government after the election. However, Meloni’s speech could be a tactical move to win the election more than an unshakeable policy position. First, like the other two right-wing parties, the Brothers of Italy have had close connections with Russia. After the 2018 Russian presidential election, Meloni congratulated Putin and claimed his victory was “the unequivocal will of Russians.” In addition, she is close to Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and National Rally leader Marine Le Pen of France, both of whom have criticized the EU’s decision to provide military support to Kyiv. Hence her sharp change of stance this year seems calculated to avoid accusations of being pro-Russian. But that does not preclude a more pragmatic approach to Russia once in office. Second, Meloni has compromised other far-right positions to broaden her voter base. She has reversed the party’s original anti-EU stance and claimed it does not seek to leave the EU, as most European anti-establishment parties have had to do in order to make themselves electable. Being the only female in the election race, Meloni also pledged to protect women’s access to safe abortions in Italy, also a softer stance than before. Even if the Brothers of Italy distance themselves from some unpopular right-wing positions, including on Ukraine, they probably cannot form a government on their own. They will need to court Forza Italia and the League. These two parties prefer a more pragmatic approach to Russia and a peaceful resolution to the war. Thus while it will be hard to find a middle ground on the issue of Ukraine, the election will likely prevent Italy from taking a more confrontational stance toward Russia. It will probably do the opposite. Consider the context in which the next Italian government will operate. Russia declared on July 25 that it will further reduce natural gas supplies to Europe through Nord Stream 1, as we expected, bringing pipeline flows to 20% of its full capacity.  Energy prices will go up even as European economic activity and industry will suffer greater strains. If Meloni is elected as the new prime minister this September, she will have to keep talking tough on Russia while simultaneously seeking a solution to soaring energy prices and economic crisis. This solution will be diplomacy – unless Russia seeks to expand its invasion all the way to Moldova. A right-wing victory is the most likely outcome based on opinion polling, the negative cyclical economy, and the underlying structural factors supporting populism in Italy that we have monitored for years. Such a coalition will not be pro-Russian but it will be pragmatic and focused on salvaging Italy’s economy, which means it will be highly inclined toward diplomacy. If Russia halts its military advance – does not attempt to conquer southwestern Ukraine to Moldova – then this point will be greatly reinforced. Italy will become a new veto player within the European Union when it comes to any major new sanctions on Russia. While Europeans will continue diversifying their energy mix away from Russia, it will be much harder for the EU to implement a natural gas embargo in the coming years if Italy as well as Hungary oppose it. Even if we are wrong, and the Democratic Party or other left-wing parties surprise to the upside in the election, the new coalition will most likely have to focus on mitigating the economic crisis and thus pursuing diplomacy with Russia. That is, as long as Russia pushes for a ceasefire after it achieves its military aims in Donetsk, the last holdout within the south-southeastern territories Russia is trying to conquer. Bottom Line: Due to persistent political uncertainty, we recommend investors underweight Italian stocks and bonds at least until a new government takes shape, which could take months even after the election. However, government bonds will remain vulnerable if a right-wing coalition assumes power, since it will pursue loose fiscal policies and will eschew structural reforms. Overall Italy’s early elections will lead to a new government that is focused on short-term economic growth, likely including pragmatism toward Russia. From an investment point of view that will not be a negative development, though much depends on whether Russia expands its invasion or declares victory after Donetsk. Russia Market-based measures of Russian geopolitical risk are rebounding after subsiding from peak levels hit during the invasion of Ukraine in February (Chart 2). Chart 2Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia’s continued tightening of natural gas supplies (and food exports) this week is precisely what we predicted would happen despite a wave of wishful thinking from investors over the past month. The optimists claimed that Russia would resume Nord Stream 1 pipeline flows after a regular “maintenance” period. They also said that Canada’s cooperation in resolving some “technical” issues around turbines would stabilize natural gas supply. The truth is that Russia is seeking to achieve its war aims in Ukraine. Until it has achieved its aims, it will use a range of leverage, including tightening food and energy supplies. Most likely Russia will halt the advance after completing the conquest of the Donbas region and land-bridge to Crimea. Then it will seek to legitimize its conquests through a ceasefire agreement. However, it could launch a new phase of the war to try to take Odessa and Transniestria, which would cement European resolve, even in Italy, and trigger a new round of sanctions. Bottom Line: Russia faces a fork in the road once it completes the conquest of Donetsk. Most likely it will declare victory and start pushing for a ceasefire late this year or early next year. Movement toward a ceasefire would reduce geopolitical risk for global financial markets in 2023. But there is still a substantial risk that Russia could expand the invasion to eastern Moldova, which would escalate the overarching Russia-West conflict and sustain the high level of geopolitical risk for markets. China Chinese political and geopolitical risk will continue to rise and the bounce in Chinese relative equity performance is faltering as we expected (Chart 3). Chart 3China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China’s leaders will hold their secretive annual meeting at Beidaihe in August ahead of the critical Communist Party national congress this fall. General Secretary Xi Jinping is attempting to cement himself as the paramount leader in China, comparable to Chairman Mao Zedong, transforming China’s governance from that of single-party rule to single-person rule. The reversion to autocratic government is coinciding with a historic economic slowdown consisting of cyclical factors (weak domestic demand, weakening foreign demand, draconian Covid-19 restrictions) and structural factors (labor force contraction, property sector bust, social change and unrest). Both Xi and US President Biden face major domestic political challenges in the coming months with the party congress and the US midterm election. Hence they are holding talks to try to stabilize relations. But we do not think they will succeed. China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture, while the US cannot afford to re-engage with a China that is partnering with Russia in a challenge to the liberal-democratic world order. In addition, US policies are erratic and the US cannot credibly promise China that it will not pursue a containment strategy even if China offers trade concessions. Bottom Line: China-related political and geopolitical risks will remain very high until at least after the twentieth party congress. At that point we expect President Xi to loosen a range of policies to stabilize the economy and foreign trade relations. These policies may bring positive news in 2023, though China’s biggest macroeconomic and geopolitical problems remain structural in nature and we remain underweight Chinese assets. Taiwan For many years we have warned of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” due to the unsustainable geopolitical situation between China, Taiwan, and the United States. After the war in Ukraine we argued that the US would try to boost its strategic deterrence around Taiwan, since it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine, but that the increased commitment to Taiwan would in fact provoke China (Chart 4). Chart 4Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Until the US and China reach a new understanding over Taiwan, we argued that the region would be susceptible to rising tensions and crisis points that would send investors fleeing from risky assets, especially risky regional assets. It is possible that we have arrived at this crisis now, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making preparations to visit Taiwan, China pledging “forceful” countermeasures if she does, President Biden suggesting that the US military thinks Pelosi should not visit, and Biden and Xi preparing for a phone conversation. In essence China is giving an ultimatum and setting a new bar, and a very low bar, for taking some kind of action on Taiwan, i.e. the mere visit of a US House speaker, which has happened before (House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997). China’s purpose is to lay the groundwork for preventing the US from upgrading Taiwan relations in any more substantial way, whether political or military. If the Biden administration calls off the Pelosi visit, then American relations with Taiwan will have been curtailed, at least for this administration. If Biden goes forward with the visit, then Beijing will need to respond with an aggressive show of force to prevent any future president from repeating the exercise or building on it. And if this show threatens US personnel or security, a full-blown diplomatic or military crisis could ensue. While we doubt it would lead to full-scale war, it could lead to a frightening confrontation. Biden may want to stabilize relations with China, since he is primarily focused on countering Russia, but his options are limited. China cannot save him from inflation but it can solidify the public perception that he is weak. Hence he is more likely to maintain his administration’s hawkish approach. Biden’s approval rating is 38% and his party faces a drubbing in the midterm elections. A confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, or anyone else would likely help his party by producing a public rally around the flag. Any unilateral concessions will merely strengthen Xi’s power consolidation at the party congress, which is detrimental to US interests. Only if the Biden administration pursues a dovish policy of re-engagement that is subsequently confirmed by the 2024 presidential election will there be potential for a substantial US-China economic re-engagement. We are pessimistic. Bottom Line: Taiwan-related geopolitical risk will rise in the short run. If there is a new US-China understanding over Taiwan, then regional and global geopolitical risk will decline over the medium term. But we remain short Taiwanese assets. Investment Takeaways Investors should remain defensively positioned until the US midterm election ends with congressional gridlock; the Chinese party congress is over and Xi Jinping launches a broad pro-growth policy; and Russia starts pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. We also expect that markets will need to get over new, unexpected oil supply shocks arising from the failure of US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which remains off the radar and therefore a source of negative surprises. Any US-Iran nuclear deal would be a major positive surprise that postpones this risk for a few years. Having said that, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US versus UAE equity trade for technical reasons. Democrats have reached a deal to pass a budget reconciliation bill in an effort to mitigate midterm election losses. This development reinforces the 65% odds of passage that we have maintained for this bill’s passage in our US Political Strategy reports since last year.   Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix UK Chart 5UK: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Chart 6Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France Chart 7France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Chart 8Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Chart 9Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Chart 10Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Chart 11Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Chart 12Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Chart 13Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa Chart 14South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades Geopolitical Calendar