BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights The economic and financial market developments that have occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risks that we identified in our recent reports. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Still, several factors continue to suggest that this is indeed a scare, and not an actual recession. Section 2 of this month’s report reviews the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, we do not yet see signs that this slowdown is recessionary. It remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports in response to a seemingly imminent European embargo on Russian oil, and whether Russia will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy has failed to contain the disease, and it is now clear that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Our base case view is that additional fiscal & monetary support is forthcoming if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. Our profit margin warning indicators have deteriorated over the past month, and it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 margins is likely. Still, a major decline should be avoided, and we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year. We continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months, along with a neutral regional equity stance, a modestly overweight stance towards value over growth, an overweight stance towards small caps, a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, and short US dollar positions. Not Out Of The Woods Yet Chart I-1In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory May was a painful month for the equity market. Globally, stocks fell more than 4% in US$ terms, led by the US. May’s selloff pushed global stocks close to bear market territory relative to their early-January high (Chart I-1), a threshold that was breached in intra-day terms in the US last week. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. In our view, the economic and financial market developments that occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risk we identified in our recent reports. We continue to recommend that investors remain minimally overweight risky assets. Our view that investors should not be underweight risky assets hinges on three expectations: the avoidance of a US recession over the coming year, a continuation of Russian natural gas exports to key gas-reliant European countries, and the announcement from Chinese policymakers of either significant additional stimulus in its traditional form or income-support policies of the type that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Confirmation of these expectations is likely to push us to upgrade our recommended stance toward risky assets, especially if equities continue to sell off in response to growth fears. Conversely, we are likely to recommend downgrading risky assets to neutral or underweight if evidence mounts that our expectations are unlikely to materialize. A US Recession Scare Is Underway We noted in last month’s report that the US economy would likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but that a recession scare was quite likely. We emphasized a probable slowdown in the housing market as the locus of investors’ recessionary concern, and the US housing market data is indeed now surprising significantly to the downside (Chart I-2). We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Chart I-3 highlights that the composition of the US equity selloff since the beginning of the year has looked quite unlike the growth-driven selloffs that occurred over the past decade, in that real bond yields have been a strong driver of the decline in stocks. By contrast, May’s decline has looked more like a typical growth scare, with real bond yields somewhat cushioning the impact of a significant rise in the equity risk premium. Chart I-2The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing Chart I-3May’s Selloff Was Driven By Growth Fears, Not Rising Interest Rates June 2022 June 2022   Chart I-4 highlights that it is not just the housing market that is worrying investors. The chart shows that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator (LEI) is slowing quite sharply, in line with previous episodes of a major growth scare. And while the weakest components of the LEI modestly improved on average in April, Chart I-5 highlights that the collapse in real wage growth alongside the recently severe underperformance of consumer stocks has fed concerns that high inflation has eroded household purchasing power – and that a contraction in real spending is imminent. Chart I-4A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway Chart I-5The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks     In Section 2 of this month’s report we provide further analysis supporting the view that the US housing market will not drive the US economy into recession. But we do continue to believe that a slowdown in housing activity is likely, and that concerns about a housing-driven recession will linger. Still, several factors continue to suggest that the US is experiencing a recession scare, and not an actual recession: The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is currently predicting US real GDP growth that is only modestly below trend in Q2, and the overall estimate continues to be dragged significantly lower by a sizably negative contribution from the change in inventories (Chart I-6). Without this negative inventories effect, the Atlanta Fed’s model would be forecasting real annualized growth of over 3%. After having decelerated significantly in the second half of last year because of a broadening in consumer price inflation, Chart I-7 highlights that real personal consumption expenditures reaccelerated and real personal income ex-transfers stabilized in Q1. Chart I-6No Sign Of A Major Decline In Q2 Consumer Spending June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-7Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating     US manufacturing industrial production surged in April, led by motor vehicle production (Chart I-8, panel 1). It is true that industrial production is a coincident indicator and thus does not necessarily argue against the idea that a recession is imminent. A pickup in vehicle production is encouraging, however, as it suggests that the 15% surge in the level of new car prices over the past year that contributed to the erosion in household real incomes may be set to reverse (panel 2). Chart I-8A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power Services spending is likely to improve, as deliveries of Pfizer’s Paxlovid antiviral drug continue to ramp up and vaccines are eventually approved for children under the age of six. Charts I-9A and I-9B highlight several real services spending categories that remain below their pre-pandemic levels, which in our view have been clearly linked to the pandemic and are not likely to be permanently lower. Americans have not likely stopped going to the gym, amusement parks, movies, live concerts, or the dentist, nor have their stopped needing to put elderly relatives in nursing care homes. They are also highly unlikely to stop traveling. There is some internal debate at BCA about the impact that working-from-home trends will have on the level of services spending, but we would note that essentially all of the spending categories shown in Charts I-9A and I-9B have exhibited uptrends that only appear to have been affected by consumer responses to the Delta and Omicron waves of the pandemic. Widely-available treatment options that reduce the fatality rate of the disease close to that of the flu are likely to be perceived by the public as an effective end of the pandemic, boosting spending on lagging categories of services spending. Chart I-9AAn Eventual End To The Pandemic… June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-9B…Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending ...Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending ...Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending     Based on high-frequency data from OpenTable, the number of seated diners in US restaurants is not exhibiting any major warning signs for US consumer spending (Chart I-10). Real spending in restaurants has been strongly correlated with overall real personal consumption expenditures over the past two decades, and thus Chart I-10 is not suggesting that a collapse in overall spending is imminent. Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending As a final point concerning the risk of recession in the US, investors should note that the recent behavior of inflation expectations is encouraging and points to a potentially imminent peak in Fed hawkishness. Over the past few months, we have expressed our concern about the pace of increase in long-dated household inflation expectations. We highlighted last month that long-term market-based inflation expectations were also exhibiting some potential signs of becoming unanchored. However, Chart I-11 highlights that the momentum of long-dated household inflation expectations is now starting to flag, and that long-term market-based inflation expectations recently decreased in response to escalating growth fears. Chart I-12 clearly shows a slowing pace of core consumer prices, which will act to restrain further significant increases in long-dated inflation expectations. Chart I-11Long-Dated Inflation Expectations Point To A Potentially Imminent Peak In Fed Hawkishness June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-12Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing     Chart I-13 highlights that investors expect the Fed to raise the policy rate by the end of the year to a level even higher than what Jerome Powell implied during the Fed’s May press conference: a target range for the Fed funds rate of 2.5-2.75%, corresponding to two more 50 basis point hikes and three 25 basis point hikes during the FOMC’s September, November, and December meetings. Chart I-13Expectations For Fed Rate Hikes This Year Are Likely To Come Down If Inflation Continues To Moderate June 2022 June 2022 It is likely that the market’s expectation for rate hikes this year will fall over the coming few months if the monthly pace of core inflation continues to slow. The Fed itself may soon signal a less intense pace of tightening than Powell recently implied – a perspective that we feel is supported by the minutes of the May FOMC meeting. That would allow the US economy to “digest” the recent adjustment in interest rates with less uncertainty about the economic outlook, which would lower the odds that a “mid-cycle slowdown” morphs into a full-blown recession. A Debilitating Energy-Driven Recession In Europe Is Not In The Cards, For Now The key issue pertaining to the European economic outlook remains the question of whether Europe’s imports of Russian natural gas will be interrupted. A European embargo of Russian oil now seems likely, which would likely cause Russian oil production to decline. Our Commodity & Energy strategy service now expects Brent oil to trade at $120/bbl on average for the remainder of the year, $5/bbl higher than current levels (Chart I-14). We agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s updated oil price forecast, but we have a different view about the odds that Russia will respond to a European oil embargo by cutting its natural gas exports to the EU. We still think this is a risk, not yet a likely event, although it may still occur later in the year. A full and immediate cutoff of natural gas exports to gas-dependent European countries such as Germany and Italy would not only destabilize the Russian economy by substantially reducing its current account surplus, it would also cause a severe recession in Europe through a combination of gas rationing to industries by government decree and surging energy prices (Chart I-15). Chart I-14A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl Chart I-15A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession   That could erode European voters’ willingness to provide military support for Ukraine, but it could instead backfire and galvanize European public opinion against Russia – and remove leverage that may be potentially used to secure a ceasefire agreement that will preserve its military gains in eastern Ukraine. Chart I-16Europe Is Replenishing Its Gas Storage, But It Cannot Yet Withstand A Full Cutoff June 2022 June 2022 Russia may respond to an oil embargo by throttling the amount of natural gas exported to key European countries in a fashion that raises natural gas prices and prevents European countries from building up sufficient storage for the upcoming winter – a process that is underway but is far from complete (Chart I-16). But it remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports, and whether it will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China: The Only Way Out Is Through Among the three pillars of the global economy – the US, China, and Europe – the last is arguably the least important. Today, the US and China are the core drivers of global demand, and we are therefore more concerned about the economic impact of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy than we are about a slowdown or mild recession in Europe. Given how contagious the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has shown itself to be, and given how widespread recent outbreaks have been, it is now clear that China’s zero-tolerance policy has failed to contain the disease and that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Despite public statements to the contrary, we suspect that Chinese policymakers are well aware of this situation, but are constrained by the consequences of removing the zero-tolerance policy. Recent studies suggest that China could face intensive care demand that is sixteen times existing capacity and upwards of 1.5 million deaths by removing the policy,1 roughly 1.5 times the cumulative amount of deaths that have occurred in the US during the pandemic. But the economic consequences of maintaining the zero-tolerance policy will also be severe, and therefore also likely represent a constraint on policymakers. Charts I-17 and I-18 show that China’s labor market and industrial sector have already slowed sharply over the past few months, at a pace and magnitude that is unlikely to be politically sustainable for much longer. In addition, Chart I-19 shows that China’s credit impulse fell meaningfully in April. Chart I-17China’s Labor Market Is Cratering… China's Labor Market Is Cratering... China's Labor Market Is Cratering... Chart I-18…As Is Its Manufacturing Sector ... As Is Its Manufacturing Sector ... As Is Its Manufacturing Sector       Chart I-19More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread This would be tolerable if the decline in activity was likely to be short-lived as it was at the very beginning of the pandemic, but we no longer see this as a probable outcome. We acknowledge that reported cases of COVID-19 have steadily declined in cities in the Yangtze River region, and we agree that the Shanghai lockdown may soon end for a time. But we doubt that this will mark the end of outbreaks in the region, or prevent major outbreaks from occurring in other parts of the country. If China cannot relax its zero-tolerance policy or tolerate the degree of economic weakness entailed by its continued application, then additional fiscal and monetary support is likely. While China’s leadership has stepped up its pro-growth policy measures, as evidenced by the recent cut in the 5-year loan prime rate, we strongly suspect that more support will be needed. This support may take the form of traditional stimulus via local government spending, or it may involve the introduction of income-support policies of the kind that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chart I-20The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies Chinese policymakers who are eager to prevent another significant releveraging of the economy and who want to avoid another major deterioration in housing affordability may perhaps be forgiven for seeing the developed economy experience with these programs as a poor roadmap to follow. House prices have exploded in most advanced economies during the pandemic, which has significantly contributed to a major decline in affordability. However, with the benefit of hindsight, Chinese policymakers would likely be able to recalibrate any income support program to avoid some of the excesses that occurred in DM countries, such as policies that caused aggregate disposable income to increase in the US and Canada during the pandemic. In addition, Chart I-20 highlights that the starting point for the Chinese property market is one in which house prices are seemingly poised to contract at the worst pace since late 2014 / early 2015. The latter suggests that Chinese policymakers have more ability to support household income without causing an explosion in house prices and speculative activity than DM policymakers did in 2020. Regardless of its form, it is the view of the Bank Credit Analyst service that China cannot avoid the provision of significant additional fiscal/monetary support if it maintains its zero-tolerance COVID policy for the remainder of the year given our assumption that potentially major outbreaks will continue. It is our base case view that additional support is forthcoming over the coming weeks and months if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. US Corporate Profits In A Nonrecessionary Slowdown Scenario Chart I-21US Forward Earnings Very Rarely Fall While The Economy Continues To Expand June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-3 highlighted that the US equity market selloff in May shifted from one that was strongly driven by rising real government bond yields to one in which a rising equity risk premium was the dominant driver. And yet, the chart showed that there has been no negative contribution to US stock prices from falling earnings expectations, with expected earnings having continued to rise since the beginning of the year. While it may seem counterintuitive to investors that forward earnings expectations are not falling in the middle of a major growth scare, Chart I-21 highlights that this is not abnormal. The chart highlights that forward earnings expectations rarely decline outside of the context of a recession, because actual earnings typically do not decline when the economy is expanding. This means that the potential for earnings to decline shows up as a rise in the equity risk premium during growth scares, which is what has generally occurred since the beginning of the year (excluding energy, forward EPS estimates have fallen slightly this year). In last month’s Section 2, we noted that nonrecessionary earnings declines almost always occur because of contractions in profit margins. We argued that risks to US equity margins might rise later this year. In fact, since we published our report last month, some of these risks have already materialized: our new profit margin warning indicator has jumped significantly (Chart I-22), and our sector profit margin diffusion index has fallen below the boom/bust line (Chart I-23). As such, it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 profit margins is likely over the coming year, which contrasts with analyst EPS growth expectations of 9.5% and sales per share growth expectations of 8% (meaning that analysts are currently forecasting a margin expansion). Chart I-22A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... Chart I-23...Now Looks Likely ...Now Looks Likely ...Now Looks Likely     Will a likely contraction in profit margins cause an outright decline in earnings over the coming year? Investors should acknowledge that this is a risk, but for now our answer is no. Chart I-24For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable Taken at face value, our sector diffusion index shown in Chart I-23 suggests that profit margins are set to decline by 2 percentage points over the coming year, which would indeed imply a 7-8% contraction in earnings per share assuming 8% revenue growth. However, the index is much better at predicting inflection points in profit margins than the magnitude of the change; in several cases over the past three decades the model correctly predicted a decline in profit margins, but implied a much larger change in margins than what actually occurred. In addition, our model shown in Chart I-22 has yet to cross above the 50% mark into probable territory, and Chart I-24 highlights that net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are falling but have not yet reached levels that would be consistent with a major margin decline. In sum, we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year given our expectation of a nonrecessionary slowdown scenario. This implies that US equity returns will be uninspiring over the coming year, but they will be likely be positive and will likely beat the returns offered from bonds. Investment Strategy Recommendations Considerable uncertainty remains about the global economic and financial market outlook, and there are several identifiable risks that would warrant an underweight stance towards risky assets were they to materialize. We agree that an aggressively overweight stance is not justified. Chart I-25Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline However, the fact that corporate profits do not usually fall while the economy is expanding underscores why investors should be reluctant to significantly cut their risky asset exposure unless a recession appears likely. Without a recession, the US equity risk premium is very likely to decline (Chart I-25), meaning that 10-year Treasury yields closer to 4% or a significant contraction in profit margins would be required for US stocks to post negative returns over the coming 6-12 months. We would not rule out either of these outcomes, but we also do not think that they are probable. To conclude, it is fair to say that global investors are not out of the woods yet, but we continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets on the basis that the US will avoid a recession over the coming year, Russia is not yet likely to push Europe into a debilitating recession, and China will further ease fiscal & monetary policy to support growth. In addition to a modest overweight towards stocks in a multi-asset portfolio, we continue to recommend the following: A neutral regional equity stance, with global ex-US equities on upgrade watch in response to an improvement in the European economic outlook and further fiscal & monetary support in China. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. As such, ex-US stocks have outperformed for the wrong reasons, and investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. A modestly overweight stance towards value over growth stocks on the basis of better valuation. However, most of the pandemic-related outperformance of growth stocks has already reversed (Chart I-26), suggesting that the outperformance of value is getting late. An overweight stance toward global small-cap stocks over their large-cap peers, as they are now unequivocally inexpensive and have remained resilient as global growth fears have intensified (Chart I-27). Chart I-26Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Chart I-27Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap   A modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Short US dollar positions, as the dollar is clearly benefiting from growth fears that will wane. In addition, the US dollar is very expensive, and extremely overbought. Concerning our recommended duration stance, we acknowledge that a slower pace of rate hikes than what investors currently expect and a slowing pace of inflation would normally argue for a long duration stance. But we do not expect the Fed to stop raising interest rates unless a recession seems likely, and a slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This, in turn, increases the odds that the Fed funds rate will peak at a higher level than investors currently expect, which should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. On balance, this suggests that investors should be modestly short duration, even if long-maturity bond yields move temporarily lower over the coming few months. Long-duration positions are perhaps reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon, but over a 6-12 month time horizon we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 26, 2022 Next Report: June 30, 2022 II.  Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession? The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused a sharp increase in US interest rates. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. In addition to a severe contraction in real home improvement spending, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. The growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, the breadth of house prices and building permits, consumer surveys, housing equity sector relative performance, and the fact that mortgage rates have likely peaked for the year point to a more optimistic outlook for housing. At a minimum, they do not yet suggest that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is recessionary. Structural factors are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. The opposite is true: the US and several other developed market economies have underbuilt homes over the past decade. This should limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Chart II-1The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused US interest rates to rise at an extremely rapid pace. Panel 1 of Chart II-1 highlights that the spread between the US 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield reached a 20-year high in early April of this year. Panel 2 shows that the two-year change in the 30-year mortgage rate will reach the highest level since the early 1980s by the end of this year if mortgage rates remain at their current level. Over the longer run, it is the level of interest rates that matters more than their change. However, changes in interest rates and other key financial market variables are also important drivers of economic activity, especially when they happen very rapidly. Given the speed of the recent adjustment in US interest rates, and the fact that the Fed funds rate will have likely reached the Fed’s neutral rate forecast by the end of this year, investors have understandably become concerned about the potential for a recession in the US. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. We conclude that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, several signs suggest that this slowdown is not recessionary. Investors should remain laser-focused on the pace of housing-related activity over the coming 6-12 months, but for now our assessment of the housing market is consistent with a modest overweight stance towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. A Brief Review Of The Housing Sector’s Contribution To Growth Table II-1 highlights the importance of the housing sector as a driver/predictor of US recessions. This table highlights that real residential investment is not a particularly important contributor to real GDP growth during nonrecessionary quarters, but it is the only main expenditure component exhibiting negative growth on average in the year prior to a recession.2 Table II-1Real Residential Investment Tends To Contract In The Year Prior To A Recession June 2022 June 2022 When examining the contribution to economic growth from the housing sector, investors and housing market analysts often fully equate real residential investment with housing construction. In fact, while direct construction of housing units accounts for a sizeable portion of the contribution to growth from housing, it is just one of four components. This is an important point, as one of the often-overlooked elements of real residential investment has strongly leading properties and is currently providing a very negative signal about the housing sector. Chart II-2 breaks down what we consider as aggregate real “housing-related activity”, and Chart II-3 presents the contributions to annualized quarterly growth in housing activity from the four components. For the sake of completeness, we include personal consumption expenditures on furnishings and household equipment as part of housing-related activity, alongside the two main components of real residential investment: permanent site construction (including single and multi-family properties), and “other structures.” In reality, “other structures” is not predominantly accounted for by the construction of different types of residential properties; it is almost entirely composed of spending on home improvements and brokerage commissions on the sale of existing residential properties. Chart II-2Housing Construction Is An Important Part Of Residential Investment, But There Are Other Contributing Factors June 2022 June 2022 Chart II-3Home Improvement Spending And Brokerage Commissions Also Drive Residential Investment June 2022 June 2022     Aside from the link between existing home sales and the general demand for newly-built homes, the prominence of brokerage commissions in other residential structures investment helps explain why existing home sales are strongly correlated with real residential investment (Chart II-4, panel 1). Given that a distributed lag of monthly housing starts maps closely to permanent site construction (panel 2), starts and existing home sales explain a good portion of the contribution to growth from housing-related activity. Of the two remaining components of housing-related activity, Chart II-5 highlights that personal consumption expenditures on furniture and household equipment generally coincide with the pace of housing construction and new home sales. We take this to mean that the consumption component of housing-related activity is typically a derivative of the decision to build a new home or sell an existing one. Chart II-4Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Chart II-5The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying   What is not coincident with construction and existing home sales is residential home improvement: Panel 2 of Chart II-5 highlights that it has strongly leading properties, and is currently contracting at its worst rate since the 2008 recession. Data on real home improvement spending is only available quarterly from 2002, so the ability to compare the current situation to previous housing market cycles is limited. But the pace of contraction is worrying and underscores that investors should be on the lookout for corroborating signs of a major contraction in the housing market. Is The Housing Data Sending A Recessionary Signal? In addition to the severe contraction in real home improvement spending shown in Chart II-5, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. In particular, Chart II-6 highlights that both the growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, that housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and that the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, there are also several signs pointing to a more optimistic outlook for housing, or at least indicating that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is not recessionary. We review these more optimistic indicators below. The Breadth Of House Prices And Building Permits In sharp contrast to previous periods of serious housing market weakness and/or recessionary periods, there is no sign yet of a major slowdown in US house price appreciation including cities with the weakest gains. In fact, Chart II-7 highlights that house prices have recently been reaccelerating on a very broad basis after having slowed in the second half of last year, which hardly bodes poorly for new home construction. Chart II-6A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway Chart II-7No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices   It is true that US house price data is somewhat lagging, so it is quite likely that price weakness is forthcoming. However, there has been no sign of a major slowdown in prices through to March 2022, by which point 30-year mortgage rates had already risen 200 basis points from their 2021 low. More importantly, Chart II-8 highlights that a state-by-state diffusion index of authorized housing permits has done a very good job at leading the growth in permits nationwide, and is currently not pointing to a contraction in activity. Chart II-9 presents explanatory models for the growth in US housing starts and total home sales based on our state permits diffusion index, pending home sales, the change in mortgage rates, and housing affordability. The chart underscores that a contraction in housing activity is not what these variables would predict, even though starts and sales should be growing at a much more modest pace than what has prevailed on average over the past two years. Chart II-8Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Chart II-9Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome     Consumer Surveys The University of Michigan consumer survey shows that consumers feel it is the worst time to buy a home since the early-1980s (Chart II-10), which seems like a clearly negative sign for the housing market and an indication of the likely impact of tighter policy on housing-related activity. And yet, panel 2 highlights that this is the result of the fact that house prices in the US have surged during the pandemic, not that mortgage rates have risen too high. It is true that the number of survey respondents citing “interest rates are too high” is rising sharply, but this factor as a share of all “bad time to buy” reasons given is not meaningfully higher than it was in 2018, 2011, or 2006. It is clear that high prices are also the culprit for why consumers report that it is a bad time to buy large household durables and not that large household durables are unaffordable or that interest rates are too high (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Chart II-11Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables   It may seem counterintuitive for investors to see Charts II-10 and II-11 as in any way positive for the housing market. But, to us, the notion that elevated house prices are the main source of poor affordability supports the idea that a normalization of the housing market will occur through a combination of marginally lower demand, a slower pace of house price appreciation, and a sustained pace of housing market construction. This implies that existing home sales may be weaker than housing construction over the coming year, but the latter will help to support the contribution to overall economic growth from housing-related activity. Housing Sector Relative Performance Despite the significant slowdown in real home improvement spending and the recent decline in the NAHB’s housing market index, Chart II-12 highlights that home improvement retail and homebuilding stocks have not exhibited significantly negative abnormal returns over the past year – as they did in 1994/1995 and in the lead up to the global financial crisis. The chart, which presents a rolling 1-year “Jensen’s alpha” measure for both industries, attempts to capture the risk-adjusted performance of the industry versus the S&P 500. While the chart shows that both industries have generated negative alpha over the past year, the magnitude does not appear to be consistent with a recession. In the case of homebuilder stocks in particular, negative abnormal returns over the past year should have been meaningfully worse given the year-over-year change in mortgage rates. Chart II-13 highlights that homebuilder performance has not been cushioned by a deep valuation discount in advance of the rise in mortgage rates. Chart II-12Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Chart II-13Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked   In short, the important takeaway for investors is that the relative performance of housing-related stocks is not yet consistent with a housing-led US recession. Mortgage Rates Are Not Restrictive, And Have Likely Peaked As we highlighted in Chart II-1, the two-year change in the US 30-year conventional mortgage rate will be the largest in history by the end of this year, save the Volcker era, if the mortgage rate remains at its current level. However, it is not just the change in interest rates that matters for economic activity, but rather also the level. Encouragingly, Chart II-14 highlights that the level of mortgage rates has not yet risen into restrictive territory relative to the economy’s underlying potential rate of growth. In addition, it appears that mortgage rates have overreacted to the expected pace of monetary tightening – and thus have likely peaked for this year. Two points support this view: First, panel 2 of Chart II-14 highlights that the 30-year mortgage rate is one standard deviation too high relative to the 10-year Treasury yield, underscoring that the former has overshot. And second, Chart II-15 highlights that the mortgage rate is still too high even after controlling for business cycle expectations, current coupon MBS yields, and bond & equity market volatility. Chart II-14Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Chart II-15No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched   Structural Factors Supporting Housing Construction Chart II-16The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Our analysis above points to a scenario in which the housing market slows in a nonrecessionary fashion, supported by relatively buoyant construction activity. Structural factors, which are mostly a legacy of the global financial crisis, are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US and other developed market economies. We presented Chart II-16 in our June 2021 Special Report, which shows the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies: the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1) and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or a flat trend (panel 2). The US, along with the euro area, the UK, and Japan, all belong to the first group, with commodity-producing and Scandinavian countries belonging to the second group. The point of the chart is that the US and most other major DM economies have seemingly experienced a chronic undersupply of homes in the wake of the global financial crisis, which should continue to support housing construction activity even if demand for housing is slowing because of a sharp increase in mortgage rates. Given that the trend in real residential investment to GDP is a somewhat crude metric of housing supply, Chart II-17 presents a more precise measure for the US. It shows the standardized trend in permanent site residential structures investment (both single- and multi-family) relative to both the US population and the number of households. The chart makes it clear that the US vastly overbuilt homes from the late-1990s to 2007, but also vastly underbuilt since 2008. Relative to the number of households, real permanent site residential structures investment is still half of a standard deviation below its long-term average – even after the surge in construction that occurred in 2020. Chart II-18 highlights a similar message: it shows that the US homeowner vacancy rate (the proportion of the housing stock that is vacant and for sale) was at a 66-year low at the end of the first quarter. Chart II-19 shows that the monthly supply of existing one-family homes on the market is also at a multi-decade low, but that the supply of new homes for sale spiked in April. Chart II-17More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses Chart II-18The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low     At first blush, this spike in the monthly supply of new homes relative to sales is quite concerning, as it has risen back to levels that prevailed in 2007. One point to note is that the increase in new home inventory relates to homes still under construction; the inventory of completed homes for sale remains quite low. In addition, from the perspective of a homebuilder, a rise in the monthly supply of new homes relative to home sales is only concerning if it translates into a significant increase in the amount of time to sell a completed home, as has historically been the case (Chart II-20). Chart II-19Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Chart II-20...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes   Chart II-20 highlights that a fairly significant divergence between these two series has emerged over the past decade. Despite roughly five-six months’ supply of new home inventory on average since 2012, the median number of months required to sell a new home rarely exceeded four. In early-2019 the monthly supply of new homes also spiked, and a relatively modest and nonrecessionary slowdown in housing starts was sufficient to prevent any meaningful rise in the amount of time required to sell a newly completed home. Notably, the models that we presented in Chart II-9 led the slowdown in total home sales and starts in late-2018/early-2019, and they are not pointing to a major contraction today. The key point for investors is that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. In fact, the opposite is true: despite a surge in construction during the pandemic, it remains below its historical average relative to the population and especially the number of households. This should act to limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and therefore reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Investment Implications We noted in our May report that the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set a recessionary tone to any weakness in US macroeconomic data, and that a recession scare was likely. Recent negative housing market data surprises underscore that a slowdown in the US housing market is clearly underway, and that this will likely feed recessionary concerns for a time. Investors should continue to be highly focused on the evolution of US macro data when making asset allocation decisions over the coming 6-12 months, as the current economic and financial market environment remains highly uncertain. This should include a strong focus on the housing market, as consumer surveys highlight that the overall impact of falling real wages and high house prices could cause a more pronounced slowdown in housing-related activity than we expect – and that the change and level of interest rates would imply. Nevertheless, our analysis of the historical predictors of housing construction and sales points to the conclusion that the ongoing housing market slowdown is not likely to be recessionary in nature. This, in conjunction with the factors that we noted in Section 1 of our report, support maintaining a modest overweight towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators generally paint a pessimistic picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is at its weakest level in almost three decades, and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still expensive. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have broken down, and have not yet reached levels that would indicate an imminent reversal. Investors should be, at most, very modestly overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Equity earnings will likely rise over the coming year if the US economy avoids a recession (as we expect), but analysts are pricing in too much growth over the coming year. A contraction in profit margins is now likely, signaling that earnings will grow at a low single-digit pace. Net earnings revisions are falling, but are not yet signaling a large enough decline in margins that would cause earnings to contract even in the face of positive revenue growth. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral regional equity allocation. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. Investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. Within a fixed-income portfolio, long-duration positions are reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon given that 10-year Treasurys are significantly oversold. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. A slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. Our composite technical indicator for commodity prices continues to highlight that commodities are overbought. Still, the geopolitical situation continues to favor higher energy prices, as a seemingly imminent European oil embargo against Russia will likely lower Russian oil production.  Additional fiscal & monetary support in China is likely to cause a renewed rally in industrial metals, although they may fall in the nearer-term as COVID-19 cases continue to spread across China. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals prices given that Russia’s aggression has sped up Europe’s decarbonization timeline. US and global LEIs remain in positive territory but have now rolled over significantly from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index is now rising, which may herald a stabilization in our global LEI. Manufacturing PMIs are falling in the US and globally, but have not yet fallen below the boom/bust line and are far from levels normally consistent with a recession. 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 Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Cai, J. . et al., Modeling Transmission Of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in China, Nature Medicine. May 10, 2022. 2     This is aside from the contribution to growth from imports, which mechanically subtract from consumption and investment when calculating GDP.

Executive Summary Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Complementing the US Political Strategy Quantitative Presidential And Senate Election Models, we introduce our Quantitative House Of Representatives Election Model. Our House election model measures the expected change in seats that will be won or lost by the incumbent party (Democratic Party) in the midterm election. The model predicts that Democrats will lose 21 seats, giving up control of the House and resulting in political gridlock from 2023 to 2025 even if the Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting is effectively over. In a last ditch effort, Democrats will look to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Post-midterm, financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that should warrant investors taking a defensive position. ​​​ Asset Initiation Date Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 2022-02-23 6.1% Bottom Line: Stay tactically defensive until US election risk subsides and global macro risks stabilize.     The 2020 US election was hotly contested and future elections, like the upcoming 2022 midterm election, will be closely watched by investors. BCA’s US Political Strategy has introduced two quantitative models over the past year that aim to predict both the Presidential election in 2024 and the Senate election in 2022.  In this report we introduce our House election model, so that we now provide readers with a quantitative model-based estimate for all three major US elections. With the 2022 midterms scheduled for November 8, our House model provides valuable insight into control of Congress in 2023-24. In the 2020 election the Democrats held onto the House while winning the Senate and the White House – the so-called “Blue Sweep.” But the Democrats lost 13 House seats while the GOP gained 14, leaving a mere five-seat margin for President Biden today (221 versus 208 seats today, with six vacancies). In 2022, markets expect Republicans to take control of the House and Senate given the well-established pattern that the president’s party performs badly in midterm elections.1 Our House model agrees, and points to the Democrats losing 21 seats later this year. The Model And Variables Our House model uses a simpler modelling approach than our Presidential and Senate models. Unlike those two models, we do not predict any state level outcomes, nor do we assign a probability to any predictions. For starters, House elections do not occur at the state level but rather at the level of congressional districts. Secondly, we are primarily interested in the overall control of the House rather than individual elections. Therefore our model predicts the number of seats the incumbent party will lose or gain (seat swing), and hence its control of the House.  Our model is based off a simple linear regression. Uniquely, in our suite of three models, our House model does not include any economic variables. Rather, the model is based off three independent political variables that explain our dependent variable. Due to data constraints on one of our independent variables, our sample size is limited to 20 observable House elections, from 1982-2020. Our model is defined as: Change In House Seatsi= β0+β1Var1i+β2Var2i+β3Var3i+εi Change In House Seats. This is the dependent variable in the model and what we aim to predict. A negative change means the incumbent party will lose seats while a positive change means the incumbent party will win seats. Congressional approval (Var1). This variable measures the public’s approval rating on “how congress is doing its job.” We take the average net approval rating (approval less disapproval) in an election year. A positive net rating supports the incumbent party in gaining seats while a negative rating does the opposite.  Generic congressional ballot (Var2). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress in a given election. We take the average net support rate in an election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). The larger the president’s party’s deficit on the generic ballot rate, the more House seats it tends to lose. Defending House seats (Var3). The last independent variable is inspired by work from Sabato’s Crystal Ball.2 This measures the number of House seats defended by the incumbent president’s party in an election year. The more seats to defend, the more seats tend to be lost. One variable we omitted is presidential approval. Readers might find this surprising as presidential job approval ratings have tended to correlate reasonably well with House seats gained and lost in midterm elections. Our reason for excluding this variable is that three explanatory variables explain a high degree of variation in the dependent variable. Combined, our three variables explain more than 80% of the variation in the dependent variable. This is more than satisfactory from a statistical standpoint and keeps the model simplistic in nature. Democrats To Lose The House As it stands, our election model predicts that Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022 (Table 1). The Democrats are predicted to lose 21 seats. This prediction is based off current values of our independent variables as calculated and shown below. For the number of defending House seats, we allocate two of three vacant seats to the Democrats to defend.3 This adds up to 224 seats. Table 1Quant Model Predicts A Democrat Loss Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model For this report, we are only concerned with election outcomes pertaining to midterm elections. In this regard, our model’s prediction is in line with historical outcomes for the president’s party (Chart 1). That is, the president’s party almost always loses House seats in a midterm election. While our model does not provide any probability measure for the predicted outcome, it is in line with market expectations that Democrats will lose the House later in the year. Currently, market implied odds for the Democrats to retain the House are just 16%, as opposed to 87% for Republicans to gain control (Chart 2). Most other private forecasts for the House also point to Democrats losing control.4  Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart 2Republicans Overwhelmingly Favored To Take The House Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Back Testing Our Model Chart 3In-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Our House model performs well during in-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1982-2020) but show results for midterm election outcomes only. Our model correctly predicted the direction of seat change (positive or negative) for 80% of outcomes, missing the direction of seat swing for just the 1998 and 2002 midterm elections (Chart 3). The latter two elections are the only two in the post-WWII period in which the president’s party gained seats and this was due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. the Dotcom Bubble and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). During this same test, when our model correctly predicted the directional change in seat swing, it only over-predicted the change once (in 1986), highlighting a more conservative forecast over time. In 2022, given the stagflationary economic backdrop and President Biden’s weak approval rating, the voting public may very well punish the Democrats harder in November than our model expects. Chart 4Out-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2002-2018, comprising of just five midterm elections. Our model correctly predicts the direction of seat swing in 80% of the midterm elections, just like our in-sample testing showed (Chart 4). 2002 is again a standout election where our model incorrectly predicted the direction of seat swing. Closing In On Election Day The midterm election is approximately five months away. Our Senate model predicts the Democrats will lose control of the Senate. Our House model suggests Democrats will lose the lower chamber too. This view is in line with the consensus across markets, forecasters, and historical outcomes. Given the poor showing by Democrats in the 2020 House election, this House prediction will be hard to change. The Senate race could still see some surprises, such as via the Supreme Court. But all in all the “Blue Sweep” of 2020 is already over. The headwinds against the president’s party have gained even more momentum in the context of high inflation, falling consumer confidence, and low real wages. These factors were not measured in our model, but they do form a basis for voting intentions in elections. Coupled with President Biden’s low approval ratings, in general and in specific policy areas like the economy, the Democratic party will need to pull off  a political “Hail Mary” to retain the Senate, let alone the House, later this year. Investment Takeaways President Biden and the Democrats may look to the 1934, 1962, 1998, and 2002 elections for proof that the ruling party can perform well in the midterms. But 1998 was a period of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity, while 2002 came in the wake of a historic attack on the homeland. The 1934 election reinforced a crisis-era government and as such could serve as a model for Biden, but today’s situation is not as dire as the Great Depression. The 1962 analogy is perhaps the best, since Biden, like President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, could conceivably benefit from an escalating showdown with Russia this fall. But Kennedy’s Democrats still lost a net of four seats in the House that year – and Kennedy’s approval rating was above 60% while Biden’s is barely 40%. COVID-19 was an unprecedented shock that continues to play out across the economic and political environment in the US. But while the Republicans suffered from the pandemic itself, the Democrats now own the stagflationary aftermath. Democratic enthusiasm should revive a bit from now until the election, but it would take a massive shock to reverse the general trend. There is a strong correlation between opinion polling in the beginning of the year and the midterm election results. Facing a shellacking, Democrats will make one last-ditch effort to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Given the energy crisis in Europe, there is potential for Biden’s renewable energy subsidies to be repackaged into a general “energy security” bill that drops the former hostility to fossil fuels. This could be matched with limited tax changes, including the 15% minimum corporate tax rate that Biden negotiated with other countries. Otherwise US fiscal policy will virtually freeze even if the Senate stays in Democratic hands. Taxes will no longer be able to rise from 2023 but spending will not be subject to cuts. Heading into 2024, gridlock will be reinforced by our presidential quant election model’s slightly higher odds of Democrats retaining the White House, which we think are underestimated at present. Hence Biden is lined up to retain veto power even if Democrats squander the House and Senate in 2022, as long as his administration avoids a recession. Financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that will keep us on the sidelines. Global growth is wobbly. Global supply chains remain constrained, affecting growth outcomes and adding to elevated price levels. China’s zero-covid policy and the absence of a credible plan for US-China tariff reduction and economic re-engagement continue to weigh on sentiment. Fed rate hikes are still generating uncertainty. The Middle East is unstable and likely to bring additional energy supply disruptions. Lastly, the Russia-Ukraine war has yet to come to a ceasefire and Russia is likely to reduce energy supplies to Europe in retaliation for Germany’s energy ban and NATO enlargement. With this backdrop in mind, we remain tactically defensive. We see the potential for improvement after the US election brings a reduction in policy uncertainty – as long as geopolitical risks and inflation also stabilize.   Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious to read through our model’s estimated regression coefficients as well as conditional forecasts given certain levels of our independent variables. These are discussed herein: Regression Coefficients As mentioned earlier, our model is estimated exclusively by political variables. The beta coefficients for the three explanatory variables are shown below alongside their t-statistics and p-values. All three of these variables tested statistically significant at 5% and 10% levels. The regression’s R-squared value is 0.8183, meaning that the explanatory variables help explain 81.83% of the variation in the dependent variable (Table A1). Clients can recreate the model’s prediction by multiplying the current level of each variable as it stands today by that variable’s respective beta coefficient and adding the constant at the end of the equation. Be sure to follow the methodology explained earlier in the text if such an exercise is of interest. Also, conditional forecasts can be created by holding certain parameters constant should clients want to better understand what differing levels of the three explanatory variables may imply for the change in House seats. Table A1Regression Coefficients Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Conditional Forecasts We will create simple conditional forecasts for two explanatory variables. Let’s start with the net congressional approval variable. Forecasts will be generated with data intervals calculated over the course of President Biden’s first term in office so far. The lowest net congressional approval rating was -67 ppt and the highest was -25 ppt. We will use 10 ppt intervals between -20 ppt an -70 ppt. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Table A2Conditional Forecasts Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model In Table A2, we hold our other explanatory variables constant at their prevailing levels while we assume differing levels for the net congressional approval variable. We will apply this method to conditional forecasts using the net generic congressional ballot. Table A2 shows us that a more negative net congressional approval rate suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Of course, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat (only whole seats), but this conditional forecast illustrates the point of the variable’s impact on the overall outcome. Table A3Conditional Forecasts Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Changing to the net generic congressional ballot, our conditional forecast for values ranging from -2 ppt to + 5 ppt are shown in Table A3. This range shows the high and low of the net generic congressional ballot through President Biden’s first term in office. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Like before, the results in Table A3 shows us that a more negative net generic congressional ballot suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Again, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat. But the results in Table A3 show that changes in House seats are more sensitive to changes in the net generic congressional ballot variable compared to the net congressional approval variable. This is due to two reasons: The net generic congressional ballot variable is a strong predictor of House election outcomes. It’s larger beta value indicates it’s high degree of sensitivity for the dependent variable, implying that it is the most important variable in our model, and that changes to it have the largest impact on the modelled outcome, that is predicted changes in House seats.   Footnotes 1     See The American Presidency Project. "Seats in Congress Gained/Lost by the President's Party in Mid-Term Elections," October 29, 2018. presidency.ucsb.edu 2     See Kyle Kondik, “The Kinds of Seats that Flip in Midterms,” Sabato’s Crystal Ball, May 11, 2022, UVA Center For Politics, centerforpolitics.org. 3    For our 2022 prediction, we allocate vacant House seats evenly between Democrats and Republicans. For example, if there are six vacant seats, each party will be allocated three seats to defend on top of the House seats that they already occupy. If there are an odd number of vacant seats, for example three, each party will receive one seat added to their count, then the incumbent party will receive the remaining seat. 4    See fivethirtyeight.com, 270towin.com and racetowh.com, among others. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A3US Political Capital Index Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart A1Presidential Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model ​​​​​​​ Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model ​​​​​​​

Executive Summary Global inflation will peak sometime in the next few months, a process that has likely already begun in the US. This will give policymakers some breathing room to turn less hawkish, a more credible stance given softening global growth momentum and increased financial market volatility. Our Global Golden Rule of Bond Investing suggests that overall government bond returns should turn positive over the next year, but with widening divergences across countries for our base case scenarios. Projected government bond return expectations over the next 12 months look most attractive in Australia, Germany and the UK – where far too many rate hikes are priced in – compared to the US, where the Fed is more likely to follow through on most, but not all, discounted rate increases. Japan has the lowest expected returns, and the defensive properties of “low-beta” JGBs will be less necessary with global yield momentum set to peak in the latter half of 2022. Our Global Golden Rule Base Case Scenarios For The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Bottom Line: The return expectations over the next year stemming from our Global Golden Rule suggest the following country allocation recommendations in global government bond portfolios: maintain overweights in Australia, Germany and the UK, stay underweight the US and neutral Canada, but downgrade Japan to underweight. Feature Chart 1A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market Global bond markets may finally be showing signs of settling down after a painful period of rising yields and high volatility. Government bond yields across the developed economies have fallen substantially over the past week as equity and credit markets have sold off, in a typical risk-off response to increased concerns over global growth momentum. For example, benchmark 10-year government yields have fallen by -32bps both the US and UK, -25bps in Germany and -22bps in Canada since the cyclical intraday high was reached on May 9. These moves are modest in the context of the cyclical bond bear market, with the Bloomberg Global Treasury index still down -12.1% year-to-date and -14.4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 1). That painful selloff has been driven by expectations of intense monetary tightening in response to surging global inflation. However, last week’s release of US Consumer Price Index data for April confirmed that US goods inflation has peaked, a trend that we expect to follow suit in other countries (Chart 2). That will leave inflation momentum, and eventual interest rate hikes, to be driven more by domestic services inflation that will prove to be less correlated across countries over the next 6-12 months (Chart 3). Chart 2Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . ​​​​​​ Chart 3. . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation . . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation . . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation ​​​​​​ With that in mind, we revisit our framework for linking government bond returns to monetary policy outcomes versus expectations, the Global Golden Rule of Bond Investing. A Brief Overview Of The Global Golden Rule In September 2018, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.” This was an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, that links US Treasury returns (versus cash) to changes in the fed funds rate that were not already discounted in the US Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve.1 The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields and Treasury returns. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRevisiting Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We discovered that relationship also held in other developed market countries. This gave us a framework to help project expected global bond returns simply based on a view for future central bank interest rate moves versus market expectations.2 Specific details on the calculation of the Global Golden Rule can be found in those original 2018 papers. In the following pages, we present the latest results of the Global Golden Rule for the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, the euro area and Japan. The set-up for the chart shown for each country is the same. We show the 12-month policy rate “surprise”, defined as the actual change in the central bank policy rate over the preceding 12-months versus the expected 12-month change in the policy rate from a year earlier extracted from OIS curves (a.k.a. our 12-month discounters). We then compare the 12-month policy rate surprise to the annual excess return over cash (treasury bills) of the Bloomberg government bond index for each country. We also show the 12-month policy rate surprise versus the 12-month change in the government bond index yield. The very strong historical correlation between those latter two series is the backbone of the Global Golden Rule framework. After that, we present tables showing expected yield changes and excess returns for various maturity points, as well as the overall government bond index, derived from the Global Golden Rule regressions. The expected change in yield is derived from regressions on the policy rate surprises, with different estimations done for each maturity point. In the tables, we show the results for different scenarios for changes in policy rates. For example, the row in the return tables labeled “+25bps” would show the expected yield changes and excess returns if the central bank for that particular country lifts the policy interest rate by +25bps over the next 12 months. Showing these scenarios allows us to pick the one that most closely correlates to our own expectation for central bank actions, translating that into government bond return expectations. Global Golden Rule: US Chart 4Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' US Treasuries have delivered a painful loss of -7.8% versus cash over 12 months. Bearish outcomes of such magnitude were last seen during 1994 and 1999 when the Fed was aggressively lifting the funds rate. The Fed delivered a smaller hawkish surprise over the past year than those 1990s episodes, with a trailing 12-month policy rate surprise of -72bps. Thus, the Golden Rule underestimated losses realized by US Treasuries, as US bond yields moved to price in far more Fed tightening than what was expected one year ago. The US OIS curve now discounts +229bps of rate hikes over the next 12 months, taking the fed funds rate to 3.3% (Chart 4). That is a more aggressive profile than was laid out in the March 2022 Fed “dots”, where the median FOMC member projection called for the funds rate to climb to 2.8% in 2023. That means there is less scope for Fed rate hikes to surprise versus market expectations that are already very hawkish, at a time when US growth and inflation momentum is rolling over. Our base case calls for the Fed to deliver +200bps of rate increases over the next year, +50bps at the next two policy meetings followed by +25bps at the subsequent four meetings. That outcome produces a Golden Rule forecast of the overall US Treasury index yield falling -13bps, generating a total return of +3.73% (Tables 1 & 2). Table 1US: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 2US: Expected Changes In Treasury Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Canada Chart 5Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian government bonds have sold off hard over the past 12 months, delivering an excess return over cash of -7.5% (Chart 5). That loss reflects the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) hawkish turn, but is a less severe outcome compared to other developed economy government bond markets that saw a major repricing of rate hike expectations like the US and Australia. Losses in the Canadian government bond market were consistent with the +34bps of hawkish surprises delivered by the BoC, which tightened by +75bps on a 12-month basis versus the +41bps expected by markets in May 2021. Rate expectations are highly aggressive on a forward basis. The Canadian OIS curve now discounts 210bps of interest rate increases over the next 12 months. However, high household debt in Canada, fueled by a relentlessly expanding housing bubble, will limit the ability of the BoC to match the Fed’s rate hikes over the next 6-12 months. Higher debt levels also imply a lower nominal neutral rate of interest, as the BoC has less room to hike before debt servicing costs become overly burdensome for overleveraged Canadian consumers. Our base case is that the BoC will deliver +150bps of tightening over the next 12 months. This produces a Golden Rule forecast of a decline in the overall Canadian government bond index yield of -17bps, delivering a projected total return of 4.52% (Tables 3 & 4). Table 3Canada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 4Canada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Australia Chart 6Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Australian government bonds have delivered a negative excess return over cash of -9.6% over the past year (Chart 6). This is the biggest sell-off among all the countries covered in our Global Golden Rule framework. The magnitude of those realized losses far exceeded what would have been predicted by the Golden Rule a year ago, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) delivering only a modest hawkish surprise. An unexpectedly high Australian headline inflation print of 5.1% in Q1 of this year led the RBA to deliver a surprise +25bps rate hike in April. This created a mild hawkish policy rate surprise of -17bps over the past 12 months, as only +8bps of tightening had been discounted in the Australian OIS curve in May 2021. The Australian OIS curve is now discounting 292bps of rate hikes over the next year, taking the cash rate to just over 3% - a level last seen in 2013 when the neutral rate in Australia was much higher by the RBA’s own reckoning. The RBA appears confident in the Australian economy, forecasting the unemployment rate to reach a 50-year low around 3.5% in 2023. However, we believe the RBA will be more measured in its pace of rate increases over the next year than markets expect, as global traded goods inflation cools and Australian wages are still not overheating. According to the Golden Rule projections, our base case of +150bps of tightening will produce a decline in Australian government bond index yield of -92bps, delivering a projected total return of 9.29% (Tables 5 & 6). Table 5Australia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 6Australia: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: UK Chart 7The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect UK government bonds have gotten hit hard over the past year, delivering a negative excess return over cash of -7.9% - one of the worst performances seen over the past quarter century (Chart 7). The size of that loss was in line with the Global Golden Rule forecasts, given the magnitude of the rate shock seen in the UK. The Bank of England (BoE) hiked rates by 90bps over the past 12 months, which was a hawkish surprise of -79bps compared to what was discounted one year earlier. The UK OIS curve is now priced for another +139bps of rate hikes over the next year. This would take the BoE’s Bank Rate to 2.4%, a level that would push the UK unemployment rate up by two percentage points and lower UK inflation to below 2% within the next 2-3 years, according to the BoE’s own forecasting models. As we discussed in our report last week, where we upgraded our stance on UK Gilts to overweight, the neutral level of UK policy rates is between 1.5-2%, at best, with UK potential growth barely above 1%. Thus, markets are already pricing in a very restrictive monetary policy stance from the BoE that is unlikely to be fully delivered before UK growth and inflation decline sharply. Our base case calls for the BoE to deliver only another +75bps of hikes over the next year, which will produce a fall in the UK government bond index yield of -21bps and a total return of 4.12% (Tables 7 & 8). Table 7UK: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 8UK: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Germany Chart 8German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German government bonds suffered major losses over the past year, underperforming cash by -8.5% over the past year. We saw no policy surprise from the European Central Bank (ECB) over that time relative to market expectations (Chart 8). The dramatic sell-off instead reflected surging expectations of future tightening as the euro area faces an energy-driven inflation spike. The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for Germany (and the overall euro area) remains stuck near zero. However, markets now expect a very aggressive move by the ECB, discounting a full +156bps of tightening over the next 12 months. This would push the ECB’s main refinancing rate to levels last seen in the disastrous tightening cycle during the 2011 European debt crisis. As argued by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, the euro area is heading into a growth slowdown and energy inflation looks set to peak. Even if the hawks are able to sway the ECB Governing Council to begin hiking rates this summer, the slowing trajectory of growth and inflation make it highly unlikely that the ECB will deliver the full amount of tightening currently discounted. Our base case is that the ECB will deliver only +50bps of tightening over the next 12 months, enough to push the deposit rate out of negative territory to 0%. As shown in Tables 9 & 10, this is consistent with the Germany government bond index yield falling -55bps, delivering an index return of 5.07% over a 12-month horizon. Table 9Germany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 10Germany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Japan Chart 9The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited Japanese government bonds (JGBs) have delivered an excess return versus cash of -1.8% over the past twelve months (Chart 9). The policy rate surprise was flat as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) kept the policy rate unchanged at -0.1%. Admittedly, the Golden Rule framework is poorly suited to project Japanese bond returns. The BoJ has been unable to lift policy rates for many years, while instituting yield curve control on 10-year JGBs since 2016 to anchor yields near zero. With no variability on policy rates or bond yields, a methodology that links bond returns to unexpected policy interest rate changes will have poor predictive power. However, rates traders are making some attempt to challenge the BoJ’s ultra-dovish posture. The Japan OIS curve now discounts +9bps of tightening, approximately enough to push the policy rate to zero, over the next 12 months. With the yen weakening rapidly and the cost of imported energy elevated, consumer price inflation in Tokyo (excluding fresh food) hit the BoJ’s 2% target in April. However, as evidenced in the minutes of the March BoJ meeting, policymakers see a sustainable inflation overshoot as unlikely. Our base case is the “Flat” scenarios shown in Tables 11 & 12, with the BoJ keeping policy rates unchanged for the next twelve months and delivering a slight dovish surprise. That generates a Golden Rule forecast of a -6bps fall in the Japanese government bond index yield, with a total return projection of 0.87%. Table 11Japan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 12Japan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Investment Implications Of The Global Golden Rule Projections For all the countries discussed above, our base case calls for the respective central banks to deliver less tightening than markets are discounting over the next year. This suggests that government bonds should be expected to deliver positive returns versus cash, even as we expect multiple rate increases from all central banks except the BoJ. While this could argue for an above-benchmark duration stance at the overall global level, we prefer to translate the Global Golden Rule results via country allocations – as we have greater conviction on relative central bank moves in the current high inflation environment – while keeping overall global duration exposure at neutral. The return outcomes for our base case scenarios for the six countries in our Global Golden Rule framework are presented in Table 13. We show the expected returns both in local currency and hedged into US dollars, the latter allowing a comparison in common currency terms. In our base case scenarios, we expect Australian and German government bonds to deliver the strongest performance over the next year, followed by the UK, Canada, the US and Japan. Table 13Our Global Golden Rule Base Case Scenarios For The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Chart 10Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Our UK upgrade to overweight last week was a change to our strategic call on Gilts. Based on the results from our Global Golden Rule update, increased exposure to UK Gilts should be “funded” in a global bond portfolio by reducing exposure to Japan, with JGBs expected to deliver the weakest returns. Cutting JGB exposure also fits with the signal from our Global Duration Indicator, which is heralding a peak in global bond yield momentum in the latter half of 2022 (Chart 10). JGBs are typically a good “defensive” overweight country allocation in an environment of rising global bond yields. Persistently low Japanese inflation prevents the BoJ from credibly signaling rate hikes when other central banks like the Fed are lifting rates in response to stronger growth or overshooting inflation as is currently the case. The relative performance of Japan versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury benchmark index (in USD-hedged terms) is highly correlated to the year-over-year momentum of the overall level of global bond yields. With our Duration Indicator signaling a peak in yield momentum, we expect JGBs, which continue to exhibit a very low “beta” to changes in global bond yields, to underperform. Thus, this week we are downgrading our strategic allocation to Japan from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). We view this as an offsetting recommendation to our UK upgrade from last week, while leaving our other country allocations unchanged. The result is that our country recommendations now line up with the expected returns from our Global Golden Rule, as can be seen in Table 13. That includes leaving the recommended US Treasury exposure at underweight, as we expect the Fed to deliver the smallest dovish surprise out of the central banks discussed in this report. We are adding both of the view changes made over the past two weeks, upgrading the UK and downgrading Japan, to our model bond portfolio as seen on pages 20-21. Bottom Line: Our Global Golden Rule suggests that developed market government bonds are expected to deliver positive returns over the next year as softening inflation momentum leads central banks to not fully deliver discounted rate hikes. Return expectations look most attractive in Australia, Germany and the UK, especially compared to the US and Japan.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Deborah Acri Research Associate deborah.acri@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcarearch.com. 2     Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary German GeoRisk Indicator German GeoRisk Indicator German GeoRisk Indicator Russia and Germany have begun cutting off each other’s energy in a major escalation of strategic tensions. The odds of Finland and Sweden joining NATO have shot up. A halt to NATO enlargement, particularly on Russia’s borders, is Russia’s chief demand. Tensions will skyrocket. China’s reversion to autocracy and de facto alliance with Russia are reinforcing the historic confluence of internal and external risk, weighing on Chinese assets. Geopolitical risk is rising in South Korea and Hong Kong, rising in Spain and Italy, and flat in South Africa. France’s election will lower domestic political risk but the EU as a whole faces a higher risk premium. The Biden administration is doubling down on its defense of Ukraine, calling for $33 billion in additional aid and telling Russia that it will not dominate its neighbor. However, the Putin regime cannot afford to lose in Ukraine and will threaten to widen the conflict to intimidate and divide the West. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 14.2% Bottom Line: Stay long global defensives over cyclicals. Feature Chart 1Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Drive Up Dollar Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Drive Up Dollar Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Drive Up Dollar The dollar (DXY) is breaking above the psychological threshold of 100 on the back of monetary tightening and safe-haven demand. Geopolitical risk does not always drive up the dollar – other macroeconomic factors may prevail. But in today’s situation macro and geopolitics are converging to boost the greenback (Chart 1). Global economic policy uncertainty is also rising sharply. It is highly correlated with the broader trade-weighted dollar. The latter is nowhere near 2020 peaks but could rise to that level if current trends hold. A strong dollar reflects slowing global growth and also tightens global financial conditions, with negative implications for cyclical and emerging market equities. Bottom Line: Tactically favor US equities and the US dollar to guard against greater energy shock, policy uncertainty, and risk-aversion. Energy Cutoff Points To European Recession Chart 2Escalation With Russia Weighs Further On EU Assets Escalation With Russia Weighs Further On EU Assets Escalation With Russia Weighs Further On EU Assets Russia is reducing natural gas flows to Poland and Bulgaria and threatening other countries, Germany is now embracing an oil embargo against Russia, while Finland and Sweden are considering joining NATO. These three factors are leading to a major escalation of strategic tensions on the continent that will get worse before they get better, driving up our European GeoRisk indicators and weighing on European assets (Chart 2). Russia’s ultimatum in December 2021 stressed that NATO enlargement should cease and that NATO forces and weapons should not be positioned east of the May 1997 status quo. Russia invaded Ukraine to ensure its military neutrality over the long run.1 Finland and Sweden, seeing Ukraine’s isolation amid Russian invasion, are now reviewing whether to change their historic neutrality and join NATO. Public opinion polls now show Finnish support for joining at 61% and Swedish support at 57%. The scheduling of a joint conference between the country’s leaders on May 13 looks like it could be a joint declaration of their intention to join. The US and other NATO members will have to provide mutual defense guarantees for the interim period if that is the case, lest Russia attack. The odds that Finland and Sweden remain neutral are higher than the consensus holds (given the 97% odds that they join NATO on Predictit.org). But the latest developments suggest they are moving toward applying for membership. They fear being left in the cold like Ukraine in the event of an attack. Russia’s response will be critical. If Russia deploys nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad, as former President Dmitri Medvedev warned, then Moscow will be making a menacing show but not necessarily changing the reality of Russia’s nuclear strike capabilities. That is equivalent to a pass and could mark the peak of the entire crisis. The geopolitical risk premium would begin to subside after that. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyLe Pen And Other Hurdles (GeoRisk Update) However, Russia has also threatened “military-political repercussions” if the Nordics join NATO. Russia’s capabilities are manifestly limited, judging by Ukraine today and the Winter War of 1939, but a broader war cannot entirely be ruled out. Global financial markets will still need to adjust for a larger tail risk of a war in Finland/Sweden in the very near term. Most likely Russia will retaliate by cutting off Europe’s natural gas. Clearly this is the threat on the table, after the cutoff to Poland and Bulgaria and the warnings to other countries. In the near term, several companies are gratifying Russia and paying for gas in rubles. But these payments violate EU sanctions against Russia and the intention is to wean off Russian imports as soon as possible. Germany says it can reduce gas imports starting next year after inking a deal with Qatar. Hence Russia might take the initiative and start reducing the flow earlier. Bottom Line: If Europe plunges into recession as a result of an immediate natural gas cutoff, then strategic stability between Russia and the West will become less certain. The tail risk of a broader war goes up. Stay cyclically long US equities over global equities and tactically long US treasuries. Stay long defense stocks and gold. Stay Short CNY At the end of last year we argued that Beijing would double down on “Zero Covid” policy in 2022, at least until the twentieth national party congress this fall. Social restrictions serve a dual purpose of disease suppression and dissent repression. Now that the state is doubling down, what will happen next? The economy will deteriorate: imports are already contracting at a rate of 0.1% YoY. The manufacturing PMI has fallen to 48.1  and the service sector PMI to 42.0, indicating contraction. Furthermore, social unrest could emerge, as lockdowns serve as a catalyst to ignite underlying socioeconomic disparities. Hence the national party congress is less likely to go smoothly, implying that investors will catch a glimpse of political instability under the surface in China as the year progresses. The political risk premium will remain high (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Risk Weighs On Stocks And Currency China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Risk Weighs On Stocks And Currency China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Risk Weighs On Stocks And Currency While Chairman Xi Jinping is still likely to clinch another ten years in power, it will not be auspicious amid an economic crash and any social unrest. Xi could be forced into some compromises on either Politburo personnel or policy adjustments. A notable indicator of compromise would be if he nominated a successor, though this would not provide any real long-term assurance to investors given the lack of formal mechanisms for power transfer. After the party congress we expect Xi to “let 100 flowers bloom,” meaning that he will ease fiscal, regulatory, and social policy so that today’s monetary and fiscal stimulus can work effectively. Right now monetary and fiscal easing has limited impact because private sector actors are averse to taking risk. Easing policy to boost the economy could also entail a diplomatic charm offensive to try to convince the US and EU to avoid imposing any significant sanctions on trade and investment flows, whether due to Russia or human rights violations. Such a diplomatic initiative would only succeed, if at all, in the short run. The US cannot allow a deep re-engagement with China since that would serve to strengthen the de facto Russo-Chinese strategic alliance. In other words, an eruption of instability threatens to weaken Xi’s hand and jeopardize his power retention. While it is extremely unlikely that Xi will fall from power, he could have his image of supremacy besmirched. It is likely that China will be forced to ease a range of policies, including lockdowns and regulations of key sectors, that will be marginally positive for economic growth. There may also be schemes to attract foreign investment. Bottom Line: If China expands the range of its policy easing the result could be received positively by global investors in 2023. But the short-term outlook is still negative and deteriorating due to China’s reversion to autocracy and confluence of political and geopolitical risk. Stay short CNY and neutral Chinese stocks. Stay Short KRW South Koreans went to the polls on March 9 to elect their new president for a five-year term. The two top candidates for the job were Yoon Suk-yeol and Lee Jae-myung. Yoon, a former public prosecutor, was the candidate for the People Power Party, a conservative party that can be traced back to the Saenuri and the Grand National Party, which was in power from 2007 to 2017 under President Lee Myung-bak and President Park Geun-hye. Lee, the governor of the largest province in Korea, was the candidate for the Democratic Party, the party of the incumbent President Moon Jae-in. Yoon won by a whisker, garnering 48.6% of the votes versus 47.8% for Lee. The margin of victory for Yoon is the lowest since Korea started directly electing its presidents. President-elect Yoon will be inaugurated in May. He will not have control of the National Assembly, as his party only holds 34% of the seats. The Democratic Party holds the majority, with 172 out of 300 seats. The next legislative election will be in 2024, which means that President Yoon will have to work with the opposition for a good two years before his party has a chance to pass laws on its own. President-elect Yoon was the more pro-business and fiscally restrained candidate. His nomination of Han Duck-soo as his prime minister suggests that, insofar as any domestic policy change is possible, he will be pragmatic, as Han served under two liberal administrations. Yoon’s lack of a majority and nomination of a left-leaning prime minister suggest that domestic policy will not be a source of uncertainty for investors through 2024. Foreign policy, by contrast, will be the biggest source of risk for investors. Yoon rejects the dovish “Moonshine” policy of his predecessor and favors a strong hand in dealing with North Korea. “War can be avoided only when we acquire an ability to launch pre-emptive strikes and show our willingness to use them,” he has argued. North Korea responded by expanding its nuclear doctrine and resuming tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles with the launch of the Hwasong-17 on March 24 – the first ICBM launch since 2017. In a significant upgrade of North Korea’s deterrence strategy, Kim Yo Jong, the sister of Kim Jong Un, warned on April 4 that North Korea would use nuclear weapons to “eliminate” South Korea if attacked (implying an overwhelming nuclear retaliation to any attack whatsoever). Kim Jong Un himself claimed on April 26 that North Korea’s nuclear weapons are no longer merely about deterrence but would be deployed if the country is attacked. President-elect Yoon welcomes the possibility of deploying of US strategic assets to strengthen deterrence against the North. The hawkish turn is not surprising considering that North-South relations failed to make any substantive improvements during President Moon’s five-year tenure as a pro-engagement president. South Koreans, especially Yoon’s supporters, are split on whether inter-Korean dialogue should be continued. They are becoming more interested in developing their own nuclear weapons or at the very least deploying US nuclear weapons in South Korea. Half of South Korean voters support security through alliance with the US, while a third support security through the development of independent nuclear weapons. The nuclear debate will raise tensions on the peninsula. An even bigger change in South Korea’s foreign policy is its policy towards China. President-elect Yoon has accused President Moon of succumbing to China’s economic extortion. Moon had established a policy of “three No’s,” meaning no to additional THAAD missiles in South Korea, no to hosting other US missile defense systems, and no to joining an alliance with Japan and the United States. By contrast, Yoon’s electoral promises include deploying more THAAD and joining the Quadrilateral Dialogue (US, Japan, Australia, India). Polls show that South Koreans hold a low opinion of all of their neighbors but that China has slipped slightly beneath Japan and North Korea in favorability. Even Democratic Party voters feel more negative towards China. While negative attitudes towards China are not unique to Korea, there is an important difference from other countries: the Korean youth dislike China the most, not the older generations. Negative sentiment is less tied to old wounds from the Korean war and more related to ideology and today’s grievances. Younger Koreans, growing up in a liberal democracy and proud of their economic and cultural success, have been involved in campus clashes against Chinese students over Korean support for Hong Kong democrats. Negative attitudes towards China among the youth should alarm investors, as young people provide the voting base for elections to come, and China is the largest trading partner for Korea. Korea’s foreign policy will hew to the American side, at risk to its economy (Chart 4). Chart 4South Korean Geopolitical Risk Rising Under The Radar South Korean Geopolitical Risk Rising Under The Radar South Korean Geopolitical Risk Rising Under The Radar President-elect Yoon’s policies towards North Korea and China will increase geopolitical risk in East Asia. The biggest beneficiary will be India. Both Korea and Japan need to find a substitute to Chinese markets and labor, which have become less reliable in recent years. South Korea’s newly elected president is aligned with the US and West and less friendly toward China and Russia. He faces a rampant North Korea that feels emboldened by its position of an arsenal of 40-50 deliverable nuclear weapons. The North Koreans now claim that they will respond to any military attack with nuclear force and are testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and possibly a nuclear weapon. The US currently has three aircraft carriers around Korea, despite its urgent foreign policy challenges in Europe and the Middle East. Bottom Line: Stay long JPY-KRW. South Korea’s geopolitical risk premium will remain high. But favor Korean stocks over Taiwanese stocks. Stay Neutral On Hong Kong Stocks Hong Kong’s leadership change will trigger a new bout of unrest (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong: More Turbulence Ahead Hong Kong: More Turbulence Ahead Hong Kong: More Turbulence Ahead On April 4, Hong Kong’s incumbent Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, confirmed that she would not seek a second term but would step down on June 30. John Lee, the current chief secretary of Hong Kong, became the only candidate approved to run for election, which is scheduled to be held on May 8. With the backing of the pro-Beijing members in the Election Committee, Lee is expected to secure enough nominations to win the race. Lee served as security secretary from when Carrie Lam took office in 2017 until June 2021. He firmly supported the Hong Kong extradition bill in 2019 and National Security Law in 2020, which provoked historic social unrest in those years. He insisted on taking a tough security stance towards pro-democracy protests. With Lee in power, Hong Kong will face more unrest and tougher crackdowns in the coming years, which will likely bring more social instability. Lee will provoke pro-democracy activists with his policy stances and adherence to Beijing’s party line. For example, his various statements to the news media suggest a dogmatic approach to censorship and political dissent. With the adoption of the National Security Law, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy faction is already deeply disaffected. Carrie Lam was originally elected as a popular leader, with notable support from women, but her popularity fell sharply after the passage of the extradition bill and National Security Law, as well as her mishandling of the Covid-19 outbreak. Her failure to handle the clashes between the Hong Kong people and Beijing damaged public trust in government. Trust never fully recovered when it took another hit recently from the latest wave of the pandemic. Putting another pro-Beijing hardliner in power will exacerbate the trend. Hong Kong equities are vulnerable not merely because of social unrest. During the era of US-China engagement, Hong Kong benefited as the middleman and the symbol that the Communist Party could cooperate within a liberal, democratic, capitalist global order. Hence US-China power struggle removes this special status and causes Hong Kong financial assets to contract mainland Chinese geopolitical risk. As a result of the 2019-2020 crackdown, John Lee and Carrie Lam were among a list of Hong Kong officials sanctioned by the US Treasury Department and State Department in 2020. Now, after the Ukraine war, the US will be on the lookout for any Hong Kong role in helping Russia circumvent sanctions, as well as any other ways in which China might further its strategic aims by means of Hong Kong. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on Hong Kong equities. Favor France Within European Equities French political risk will fall after the presidential election, which recommits the country to geopolitical unity with the US and NATO and potentially pro-productivity structural reforms (Chart 6). France is already a geopolitically secure country so the reduction of domestic political risk should be doubly positive for French assets, though they have already outperformed. And the Russia-West conflict is fueling a risk premium regardless of France’s positive developments. Chart 6France's Domestic Political Risk Will Subside But Russian War Will Keep Geopolitical Risk Elevated France's Domestic Political Risk Will Subside But Russian War Will Keep Geopolitical Risk Elevated France's Domestic Political Risk Will Subside But Russian War Will Keep Geopolitical Risk Elevated The French election ended with a solid victory for the political establishment as we expected. President Emmanuel Macron gaining 58% of the vote to Marine Le Pen’s 42%. Macron beat his opinion polling by 4.5pp while Le Pen underperformed her polls by 4.5pp. A large number of voters abstained, at 28%, compared to 25.5% in 2017. The regional results showed a stark divergence between overseas or peripheral France (where Marine Le Pen even managed to get over half of the vote in several cases) and the core cities of France (where Macron won handily). Macron had won an outright majority in every region in 2017. Macron did best among the young and the old, while Le Pen did best among middle-aged voters. But Macron won every age group except the 50 year-olds, who want to retire early. Macron did well among business executives, managers, and retired people, but Le Pen won among the working classes, as expected. Le Pen won the lowest paid income group, while Macron’s margin of victory rises with each step up the income ladder. Macron’s performance was strong, especially considering the global context. The pandemic knocked several incumbent parties out of power (US, Germany) and required leadership changes in others (Japan, Italy). The subsequent inflation shock now threatens to cause another major political rotation in rapid succession, leaving various political leaders and parties vulnerable in the coming months and years (Australia, the UK, Spain). Only Canada and now France marked exceptions, where post-pandemic elections confirmed the country’s leader. The Ukraine war constitutes yet another shock but it helped Macron, as Le Pen had objective links and sympathies with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Macron’s timing was lucky but his message of structural reform for the sake of economic efficiency still resonates in contemporary France, where change is long overdue – at least compared with Le Pen’s proposal of doubling down on statism, protectionism, and fiscal largesse. The French middle class was never as susceptible to populism as the US, UK, and Italy because it had been better protected from the ravages of globalization. Populism is still a force to be reckoned with, especially if left-wing populists do well in the National Assembly, or if right-wing populists find a fresher face than the Le Pen dynasty. But the failure of populism in the context of pandemic, inflation, and war suggests that France’s political establishment remains well fortified by the economic structure and the electoral system. Whether Macron can sustain his structural reforms depends on legislative elections to be held on June 12-19. Early projections are positive for his party, which should keep a majority. Macron’s new mandate will help. Le Pen’s National Rally and its predecessors may perform better than in the past but that is not saying much as their presence in the National Assembly has been weak. Bottom Line: France is geopolitically secure and has seen a resounding public vote for structural reform that could improve productivity depending on legislative elections. French equities can continue to outperform their European peers over the long run. Our European Investment Strategy recommends French equities ex-consumer stocks, French small caps over large caps, and French aerospace and defense.   Favor Spanish Over Italian Stocks Chart 7Italian And Spanish Political Risk Will Rise But Favor Spanish Stocks Italian And Spanish Political Risk Will Rise But Favor Spanish Stocks Italian And Spanish Political Risk Will Rise But Favor Spanish Stocks What about Spain? It is still a “divided nation” susceptible to a rise in political risk ahead of the general election due by December 10, 2023 (Chart 7). In the past few months, a series of strategic mistakes and internal power struggles have led to a significant decline in the popularity of Spain’s largest opposition party, the People’s Party. Due to public infighting and power struggle, Pablo Casado was forced to step down as the leader of the People’s Party on February 23, as requested by 16 of the party’s 17 regional leaders. It is yet to be seen if the new party leader, Alberto Nunez Feijoo, can reboot People’s Party. The far-right VOX party will benefit from the People Party’s setback. The latter’s misstep in a regional election (Castile & Leon) gave VOX a chance to participate in a regional government for the very first time. Hence VOX’s influence will spread and it will receive greater recognition as an important political force. Meanwhile the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) faces anger from the public amid inflation and high energy prices. However, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s decision to send offensive military weapons to Ukraine is widely supported among major parties, including even his reluctant coalition partner, Unidas Podemos. The People’s Party’s recent infighting gives temporary relief to the ruling party. The Russia-Ukraine issue caused some minor divisions within the government but they are not yet leading to any major political crisis, as nationwide pro-Ukraine sentiment is largely unified. The Andalusia regional election, which is expected this November, will be a check point for Feijoo and a pre-test for next year’s general election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, consisting about 17% of the seats in the congress (the lower house). The problem for Sanchez and the Socialists is that the stagflationary backdrop will weigh on their support over time. Bottom Line: Spanish political risk is likely to spike sooner rather than later, though Spanish domestic risk it is limited in nature. Madrid faces low geopolitical risk, low energy vulnerability, and is not susceptible to trying to leave the EU or Euro Area. Favor Spanish over Italian stocks. Stay Constructive On South Africa The political and economic status quo is largely unchanged in South Africa and will remain so going into the 2024 national elections. Fiscal discipline will weaken ahead of the election, which should be negative for the rand, but the global commodity shortage and geopolitical risks in Russia and China will probably overwhelm any negative effects from South Africa’s domestic policies. Rising commodity prices have propped up the local equity market and will bring in much-needed revenue into the local economy and government coffers. But structural issues persist. Low growth outcomes amid weak productivity and high unemployment levels will remain the norm. The median voter is increasingly constrained with fewer economic opportunities on the horizon. Pressure will mount on the ruling African National Congress (ANC), fueling civil unrest and adding to overall political risk (Chart 8). Chart 8South Africa's Political Status Quo Is Tactically Positive For Equities And Currency South Africa's Political Status Quo Is Tactically Positive For Equities And Currency South Africa's Political Status Quo Is Tactically Positive For Equities And Currency Almost a year has passed since the civil unrest episode of 2021. Covid-19 lockdowns have lifted and the national state of disaster has ended, reducing social tensions. This is evident in the decline of our South Africa GeoRisk indicator from 2021 highs. While we recently argued that fiscal austerity is under way in South Africa, we also noted that fiscal policy will reverse course in time for the 2024 election. In this year’s fiscal budget, the budget deficit is projected to narrow from -6% to -4.2% over the next two years. Government has increased tax revenue collection through structural reforms that are rooting out corruption and wasteful expenditure. But the ANC will have to tap into government spending to shore up lost support come 2024. Already, the ANC have committed to maintaining a special Covid-19 social-grant payment, first introduced in 2020, for another year. This grant, along with other government support, will feature in 2024 and possibly beyond. Unemployment is at 34.3%, its highest level ever recorded. The ANC cannot leave it unchecked. The most prevalent and immediate recourse is to increase social payments and transfers. Given the increasing number of social dependents that higher unemployment creates, government spending will have to increase to address rising unemployment. President Cyril Ramaphosa is still a positive figurehead for the ANC, but the 2021 local elections showed that the ANC cannot rely on the Ramaphosa effect alone. The ANC is also dealing with intra-party fighting. Ramaphosa has yet to assert total control over the party elites, distracting the ANC from achieving its policy objectives. To correct course, Ramaphosa will have to relax fiscal discipline. To this outcome, investors should expect our GeoRisk indicator to register steady increases in political risk moving into 2024. The only reason to be mildly optimistic is that South Africa is distant from geopolitical risk and can continue to benefit from the global bull market in metals. Bottom Line: Maintain a cyclically constructive outlook on South African currency and assets. Tight global commodity markets will support this emerging market, which stands to benefit from developments in Russia and China. Investment Takeaways Stay strategically long gold on geopolitical and inflation risk, despite the dollar rally. Stay long US equities relative to global and UK equities relative to DM-ex-US. Favor global defensives over cyclicals and large caps over small caps. Stay short CNY, TWD, and KRW-JPY. Stay short CZK-GBP. Favor Mexico within emerging markets. Stay long defense and cyber security stocks. We are booking a 5% stop loss on our long Canada / short Saudi Arabia equity trade. We still expect Middle Eastern tensions to escalate and trigger a Saudi selloff.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1   The campaign in the south suggests that Ukraine will be partitioned, landlocked, and susceptible to blockade in the coming years. If Russia achieves its military objectives, then Ukraine will accept neutrality in a ceasefire to avoid losing more territory. If Russia fails, then it faces humiliation and its attempts to save face will become unpredictable and aggressive. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights All four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to a three decade low, our Technical Indicator has broken into negative territory, our Valuation Indicator still signals extreme equity pricing, and our Speculation Indicator does not yet support a contrarian buy signal. Still, we do not expect a US recession over the coming year, which implies that S&P 500 revenue growth will stay positive. Nonrecessionary earnings contractions are rare, and are almost always associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. Our new profit margin warning indicator currently suggests the odds of falling margins are low, although the risks may rise later this year. Stocks are extremely expensive, but rich valuations are being driven by extremely low real bond yields, rather than investor exuberance. Valuation is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly over the coming year unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical analysis of stock prices has a long and successful history at boosting investment performance, which ostensibly suggests that investors should be paying more attention to technical conditions in the current environment. However, technical trading rules have been less helpful in expansionary environments when inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated (as is currently the case). As such, the recent technical breakdown of the US equity market may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio associated with these economic and financial market regimes. For now, we see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6 to 12 months. Rising odds of a recession, declining profit margins, and a large increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market, the risks of which should be monitored closely by investors. Feature In Section 1 of our report, we reviewed why a recession in the US is unlikely over the coming 6 to 12 months. However, we also highlighted that the risks to the economic outlook are meaningful and that an aggressively overweight stance toward risky assets is currently unwarranted. During times of significant uncertainty, investors should pay relatively more attention to long-term economic and financial market indicators with a reliable track record. In this report we begin by briefly reviewing the message from our US Equity Indicators, and then turn to a deeper examination of the top-down outlook for earnings, the determinants of rich valuation in the US stock market, and whether investors should rely on technical indicators in the current environment. We conclude that, while an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market, we generally see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. Aside from tracking the risk of a recession, investors should be closely attuned to signs of a contraction in profit margins or shifting neutral rate expectations as a basis to reduce equity exposure to below-benchmark levels. A Brief Review Of Our US Equity Indicators Chart II-1Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Chart II-1 presents our US Equity Indicators, which we update each month in Section 3 of our report. We highlight our observations below: Chart II-1 shows that our Monetary Indicator has fallen to its lowest level since 1995, when the Fed surprised investors and shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction. The indicator is most acutely impacted by the speed of the rise in 10-year Treasury yields and a massive surge in the BCA Short Rate Indicator to levels that have not prevailed since the late 1970s (Chart II-2). Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, which we have traditionally interpreted as a sign to sell stocks. The indicator has been dragged lower by a deterioration in stock market breadth across several tracked measures and by weak sentiment (Chart II-3). The momentum component of the indicator is fractionally positive but is exhibiting clear weakness. Our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history, despite the recent sell-off in stock prices. Our Speculation Indicator arguably provides the least negative signal of our four indicators, at least from a contrarian perspective. In Q1 2021, the indicator nearly reached the all-time high set in March 2000, but it has since retreated significantly and has exited extremely speculative territory. While this may eventually provide a positive signal for stocks, equity returns have historically been below average during months when the indicator declines. Thus, the downtrend in the Speculation Indicator still points to weakness in stock prices, at least over the nearer term. Chart II-2Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-3All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling In summary, all four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction, which clearly argues against an aggressively overweight stance favoring equities within a multi-asset portfolio. At the same time, we reviewed the odds of a US recession over the coming year in Section 1 of our report and argued that a recession is not likely over the coming 12 months. Thus, one key question for investors is whether a nonrecessionary contraction in earnings is likely over the coming year. We address this question in the next section of our report, before turning to a deeper examination of the relative importance of equity valuation and technical indicators. Gauging The Risk Of A Nonrecessionary Earnings Contraction Chart II-4Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Based on S&P data, there have been five cases since 1960 when 12-month trailing earnings per share fell year-over-year, while the economy continued to expand (Chart II-4). Sales per share growth remained positive in four of these cases (panel 2), underscoring that falling profit margins have been mostly responsible for these nonrecessionary earnings declines. We have noted our concern about how elevated US profit margins have become and have argued that a significant further expansion is not likely to occur over the coming 12-24 months.1 To gauge the risk of a sizeable decline in margins over the coming year, we construct a new indicator based on the seven instances when S&P 500 margins fell outside the context of a recession. This includes two cases when margins fell but earnings did not (because of buoyant revenue growth). We based the indicator on these five factors: Changes in unit labor cost growth to measure the impact of wage costs on firm profitability; Lagging changes in commodity prices as a proxy for material costs; The level of real short-term interest rates as a proxy for borrowing costs; Changes in a sales growth proxy to measure the impact of operating leverage on margins; And changes in the ISM manufacturing index to capture any residual impact on margins from the business cycle. Chart II-5The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low Chart II-5 presents the indicator, which is shaded both for recessionary periods and the seven nonrecessionary margin contraction episodes we identified. While the indicator does not perfectly predict margin contractions outside of recessions, it did signal 50% or greater odds of a margin contraction in four of the seven episodes we examined, and signals high odds of a contraction in margins during recessions. Among the three cases in which the indicator failed to indicate falling margins during an expansion, two of those failures were episodes when earnings growth did not ultimately contract. The inability to explain the 1997-1998 margin contraction is the most relevant failure of the indicator, in addition to two false signals in 1963 and 1988. Still, the approach provides a useful framework to gauge the risk of falling profit margins, and the results provide an interesting and somewhat surprising message about the relative importance of the factors we included. We would have expected that accelerating wages would have been the most significant factor explaining nonrecessionary profit margin declines. Wages were highly significant, but they were the second most important factor behind our sales growth proxy. Lagged commodity prices were the third most significant factor, followed by real short-term interest rates. Changes in the ISM manufacturing index were least significant, underscoring that our sales growth proxy already captures most of the effect of the business cycle on profit margins. This suggests that operating leverage is an important determinant of margins during economic expansions, and that investors should be most concerned about declining profit margins when both revenue growth is slowing significantly and wage growth is accelerating. The indicator currently points to low odds of a nonrecessionary margin contraction, but this is likely to change over the coming year. We expect that all five of the factors will evolve in a fashion that is negative for margins over the coming twelve months: While the pace of its increase is slowing, median wage growth continues to accelerate, even when adjusting for the fact that 1st quartile wage growth is growing at an above-average rate (Chart II-6). Combining the latter with higher odds of at or below-trend growth this year implies that unit labor costs may rise further over the coming twelve months. Analysts expect S&P 500 revenue growth to slow nontrivially over the coming year (Chart II-7). Current expectations point to growth slowing to a level that would still be quite strong relative to what has prevailed over the past decade; however, accelerating wage costs in lockstep with decelerating revenue growth is exactly the type of combination that has historically been associated with falling margins during economic expansions. Chart II-6Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Chart II-7...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ​​​​​​ Although these are less impactful factors, the lagged effect of the recent surge in commodity prices will also weigh on margins over the coming year, as will rising real interest rates and a likely slowdown in manufacturing activity in response to slower goods spending. In addition to our new indicator, we have two other tools at our disposal to track the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year. First, Chart II-8 illustrates that an industry operating margin diffusion index does a decent job at leading turning points in S&P 500 profit margins, despite its volatility. And second, Chart II-9 highlights that changes in the sales and profit margin diffusion indexes sourced from the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations Survey have predicted turning points in operating sales per share and margins over the past decade. Chart II-9 does suggest that profit margins may not rise further, but flat margins are not likely to be a threat to earnings growth over the coming year if a recession is avoided (as we expect). Chart II-8Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Chart II-9...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes ...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes ...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes     The conclusion for investors is that the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year are elevated and should be monitored, but are seemingly not yet imminent. In combination with expectations for slowing revenue growth, this implies, for now, that earnings growth over the coming year will be low but positive. Valuation, Interest Rates, And The Equity Risk Premium As noted above, our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US Equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history. Our Valuation Indicator is a composite of different valuation measures, and we sometimes receive questions from investors asking about the seemingly different messages provided by these different metrics. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that equity valuation has almost, but not fully, returned to late-1990 conditions based on the Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio, but is seemingly more expensive based on the Price/Book (P/B) and especially Price/Sales (P/S) ratios. In our view, this apparent discrepancy is easily resolved. Relative to the P/E ratio, both the P/B and especially P/S ratios are impacted by changes in aggregate profit margins, which have risen structurally over the past two decades because of the rising share of broadly-defined technology companies in the US equity index (Chart II-11). Barring a major shift in the profitability of US tech companies over the coming year, we do not see discrepancies between the P/E, P/B, or P/S ratios as being particularly informative for investors. As an additional point, we also do not see the Shiller P/E or other cyclically-adjusted P/E measures as providing any extra information about the richness or cheapness of US equities today, as these measures tend to move in line with the 12-month forward P/E ratio (Chart II-12). Chart II-10US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics Chart II-11Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis In our view, rather than focusing on different measures of valuation, it is important for investors to understand the root cause of extreme US equity prices, as well as what factors are likely to drive equity multiples over the coming year. As we have noted in previous reports, the reason that US stocks are extremely overvalued today is very different from the reason for similar overvaluation in the late 1990s. Charts II-13 and II-14 present two different versions of the equity risk premium (ERP), one based on trailing as reported earnings (dating back to 1872), and one based on twelve-month forward earnings (dating back to 1979). Chart II-12The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation Chart II-13The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average… The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average The ERP accounts for the portion of equity market valuation that is unexplained by real interest rates, and the charts highlight that the US ERP is essentially in line with its historical average based on both measures, in sharp contrast to the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. This underscores that historically low interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic growth are the root cause of extreme equity overvaluation in the US (Chart II-15), meaning that very rich pricing can be thought of as “rational exuberance.” Chart II-14…In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s ...In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s ...In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s Chart II-15US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low     Chart II-16The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index Over the longer term, the risks to US equity valuation are clearly to the downside, as we detailed in our October 2021 report.2 But over the coming 6 to 12 months, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up in the US. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, a significant further rise in long-maturity bond yields will likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors and the Fed, which we think is more likely a story for next year than this year. And Chart II-16 highlights that the ERP has historically been well explained by the sum of unemployment and inflation (the Misery Index), which should come down over the coming several months as inflation moderates and the unemployment rate remains low. To conclude, it is absolutely the case that US equities are extremely expensive, but this fact is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical Analysis Amid A Shifting Economic Regime Technical analysis of financial markets, and especially stocks, has a long history. It has also provided disciplined investors with significant excess returns over time. A simple stock / bond switching rule based on whether stock prices were above their nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month has significantly outperformed since the 1960s, earning an average excess annual return of 1.3% relative to a 60/40 stock/bond benchmark portfolio (Chart II-17). This outsized performance has come at the cost of only a minor increase in portfolio volatility. Ostensibly, then, investors should be paying more attention to equity technical conditions in the current environment, which we noted above are not positive. Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, and the S&P 500 has clearly fallen back below its 200-day moving average. However, Chart II-17 presented generalized results over long periods of time. Over the past two decades, investors have been able to rely on a durably negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields to help boost portfolio returns from technically-driven switching rule strategies. Chart II-18 highlights that this correlation has been much lower over the past two years than has been the case since the early 2000s, raising the question of whether similar switching strategies are viable today. In addition, there is the added question of whether technical analysis is helpful to investors during certain types of economic and financial market regimes, such as high inflation environments. Chart II-17Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Chart II-18Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated To test whether the message from technical indicators may be relied upon today, we examine the historical returns from a technically-driven portfolio switching strategy during nonrecessionary months under four conditions that reflect the economic and political realities currently facing investors: months when both stock and bond returns are negative; months of above-average inflation; months of above-average geopolitical risk; and the 1970s, when the Misery Index was very elevated. In all the cases we consider, the switching rule is simple: whether the S&P 500 index was above its nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month. If so, the rule overweights equities for the subsequent months; if not, the rule overweights a comparatively risk-free asset. We consider portfolios with either 10-year Treasurys or 3-month Treasury bills as the risk-free asset, as well as a counterfactual scenario in which cash always earns a 1% annual rate of return (to mimic the cash returns currently available to investors). Table II-1 presents the success and whipsaw rate of the trading rule. Table II-2 presents the annualized cumulative returns from the strategy. The tables provide three key observations: As reflected in Chart II-17, both Tables II-1 and II-2 highlight that simple technical trading rules have historically performed well, and that outperformance has occurred in both recessionary and nonrecessionary periods. Relative to nonrecessionary periods overall, technical trading rules have underperformed during the particular nonrecessionary regimes that we examined. It is the case not only that these strategies have performed in inferior ways during these regimes, but also that they were less consistent signals in that they generated significantly more “whipsaws” for investors. Among the four nonrecessionary regimes that we tested, technical indicators underperformed the least during periods of above-average geopolitical risk, and performed abysmally during nonrecessionary (but generally stagflationary) months in the 1970s. Table II-1During Expansions, Technically-Driven Switching Rules Underperform… May 2022 May 2022 Table II-2…When Inflation Is High And When Stocks And Bonds Lose Money May 2022 May 2022 The key takeaway for investors is that technical analysis is likely to be helpful for investors to improve portfolio performance as we approach a recession but may be less helpful in an expansionary environment in which inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated. Investment Conclusions Echoing the murky economic outlook that we detailed in Section 1 of our report, our analysis highlights that an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market. On the one hand, all four of our main equity indicators are currently providing a bearish signal, and the risk of a nonrecessionary contraction in S&P 500 profit margins over the coming year is elevated – albeit seemingly not imminent. On the other hand, our expectation that the US will not slip into recession over the coming year implies that revenue growth will stay positive, which has historically been associated with expanding earnings. In addition, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up, and the recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500 may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio that appears to exist in expansionary environments in which inflation is high and the stock price / bond yield correlation is near-zero or negative. Netting these signals out, we see our equity indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. The emergence of a recession, declining profit margins, and a significant increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market. We will continue to monitor these risks and adjust our investment recommendations as needed over the coming several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?” dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms,” dated September 30, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Several factors point to both an improvement and a deterioration in economic and financial market conditions, underscoring that the 6- to 12-month investment outlook is unavoidably uncertain. On the one hand, the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, slowing headline inflation will boost real wages and lower the equity risk premium, bond yields will not move much higher this year, and US services spending will support consumption as the pandemic continues to recede in importance. These are positive factors that will work to support economic activity and risky asset prices. On the other hand, the US will likely experience a recession scare focused on the housing market, the European economy may contract, Omicron’s spread in China threatens a further rise in shipping costs and a trade shock for Europe, and US inflation expectations may unanchor despite a falling inflation rate. For now, investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6- to 12-month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. Within a global equity allocation, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional stance. The larger risk of a recession in Europe than in the US would normally imply that investors should be overweight US stocks, but euro area stocks have already underperformed global stocks significantly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance despite our forecast that long-maturity bond yields will not increase much this year. More nimble investors should be neutral duration, and should test a long stance if US data releases begin to exhibit meaningfully negative surprises. The US dollar is likely to strengthen over the near term, but we expect it to be lower a year from today. The Scourge Of Harry Truman US President Truman famously lamented the need for “one-handed” economists. His complaint reflected how essential it is for economic policymakers to receive clear advice about the best path forward. Investors understandably have even less tolerance for ambiguity than Truman did about the macro landscape and the attendant investment implications. However, there are times when the economic and financial market outlook is unavoidably uncertain. The current economic and geopolitical environment easily qualifies as one of those instances. Several factors point to both an improvement and a deterioration in economic and financial market conditions, which we review in detail below. The likely avoidance of a recession in the US over the coming year suggests that investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6- to 12-month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. What Could Go Right The US Will Likely Avoid A Recession Over The Coming Year Chart I-1The Odds Of A US Recession Are Currently Low The Odds Of A US Recession Are Currently Low The Odds Of A US Recession Are Currently Low We downgraded our odds of an above-trend 2022 growth scenario in last month’s report,1 but noted that a stagflation-lite environment of below-trend growth and above-target inflation was a more likely outcome than recession. We based this assessment on our view that the US neutral rate of interest is likely higher than the Fed and investors expect, which we discussed at length in past reports.2 Chart I-1 highlights that our recession probability indicator also supports this view, as it does not yet signal that a recession is on the horizon.3 Table I-1 highlights the components of the model (which is significantly influenced by the Conference Board’s LEI), and shows that the model is not providing a meaningful warning signal. The Fed funds rate component of the model will likely flash red next month following the FOMC meeting, and we have listed it as providing a warning signal in Table I-1. But rising rates themselves have not proven to be a particularly timely indicator of a recession; this is similarly true with rising inflation expectations and oil prices. We noted in last month’s report that a surge in oil prices has not been an especially consistent indicator of a recession since 2000. Table I-1The Components Of Our Recession Model Are Not Yet Flashing A Warning Sign May 2022 May 2022 The yield curve component of the model is based on the spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield in order to minimize false recession signals, and we agree that the 10-year / 2-year spread has better leading properties. But even the latter curve measure has recently moved back into positive territory (Chart I-2), which will certainly qualify as a false yield curve signal if a recession is avoided over the coming 18 months. Within the components of the Conference Board’s LEI, Table I-1 highlights that there have been signs of weakness from the manufacturing sector, consumer expectations, and the credit market. Chart I-3 aggregates the deviation of six of these components from their trend, and shows that they have indeed been consistent with a significant slowdown in economic activity. Chart I-2The 2/10 Yield Curve Is No Longer Inverted The 2/10 Yield Curve Is No Longer Inverted The 2/10 Yield Curve Is No Longer Inverted Chart I-3The Weakest Components Of The Conference Board's LEI Are Not Yet Signaling A Recession The Weakest Components Of The Conference Board's LEI Are Not Yet Signaling A Recession The Weakest Components Of The Conference Board's LEI Are Not Yet Signaling A Recession However, two caveats are warranted. First, part of this weakness reflects the ongoing shift from goods to services spending, unraveling the massive surge in goods spending that occurred during the pandemic (Chart I-4). Second, Chart I-3 highlights that similar weaknesses occurred in the past outside of the context of a recession, most notably in 1995/1996, in the aftermath of the 1994 bond market crisis; in 1998/1999, following the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis; in 2015, following the collapse in oil prices; and, finally, in 2018/2019, in response to the Trump administration’s trade war. None of these instances resulted in a contraction in output. Headline Inflation Is Likely To Come Down Headline consumer price inflation is currently extremely high in the US. Rising prices do not just reflect energy, food, or pandemic-related effects. Chart I-5 highlights that trimmed mean CPI and PCE inflation rates have accelerated significantly since last summer, and are currently running at 6% and 3.6% year-over-year rates, respectively. Chart I-4Part Of The Weakness In Manufacturing Activity Indicators Reflects A Shift In Spending From Goods To Services Part Of The Weakness In Manufacturing Activity Indicators Reflects A Shift In Spending From Goods To Services Part Of The Weakness In Manufacturing Activity Indicators Reflects A Shift In Spending From Goods To Services Chart I-5There Is More To High Inflation Than Food, Energy, And Pandemic-Related Effects... There Is More To High Inflation Than Food, Energy, And Pandemic-Related Effects... There Is More To High Inflation Than Food, Energy, And Pandemic-Related Effects... However, it seems likely that inflation has peaked in the US (or is about to do so), even abstracting from base effects.Chart I-6 highlights that the one-month rate of change in trimmed mean measures seemingly peaked in October and January, and shows that the level of used car prices also appears to be trending lower (panel 2). The ongoing shift away from goods to services spending noted above will also push core ex-COVID-related consumer prices lower. Finally, BCA’s Commodity & Energy strategy service is forecasting that Brent crude oil prices will average roughly $90/bbl for the remainder of the year, which would likely bring US gasoline prices back toward $3.50/gallon and will lower both headline inflation and energy passthrough effects to core prices (Chart I-7). Chart I-6... But The Rate Of Headline Inflation Has Likely Peaked ... But The Rate Of Headline Inflation Has Likely Peaked ... But The Rate Of Headline Inflation Has Likely Peaked Chart I-7Our Forecast For Oil Implies US Gasoline Prices Will Fall Our Forecast For Oil Implies US Gasoline Prices Will Fall Our Forecast For Oil Implies US Gasoline Prices Will Fall     A meaningful deceleration in inflation will help reverse some of the recent decline in real wage growth that has occurred, and will likely lower the equity risk premium (see Section 2 of this month’s report).   Long-Maturity Bond Yields Will Not Move Much Higher This Year Chart I-8Our Inflation Probability Model Is Signaling Core Inflation That Is Roughly In Line With The Fed's Latest Forecast Our Inflation Probability Model Is Signaling Core Inflation That Is Roughly In Line With The Fed's Latest Forecast Our Inflation Probability Model Is Signaling Core Inflation That Is Roughly In Line With The Fed's Latest Forecast Chart I-8 highlights that our inflation probability model is currently signaling core PCE inflation of roughly 4.3% over the coming year. This is only moderately above the Fed’s forecast for this year, suggesting that a moderation in the rate of inflation makes it more likely that the Fed will raise rates in line with, or only moderately above, what was projected in the March Summary of Economic Projections (1.9% by the end of this year, and 2.8% by the end of 2023). By contrast, Chart I-9 highlights that the OIS curve is pricing the Fed funds rate at 80 basis points higher by the end of this year than what the Fed projected in March, suggesting that the bar for further hawkish surprises is quite high. We agree that the Fed will likely front-load a good portion of its planned tightening this year, and we agree that a 50 basis point hike is likely next month and also possibly in June. However, it is quite possible that the Fed will ultimately raise rates over the coming year at a slower pace than investors currently anticipate, which would lower yields at the front end of the curve. Chart I-9The Bar For Further Hawkish Surprises From The Fed Is Quite High May 2022 May 2022 If short-maturity yields are flat or trend modestly lower over the coming year, then a significant further rise in long-maturity yields would likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors or the Fed. We believe that such a shift will eventually occur, as the economic justification for long-maturity bond yields well below trend rates of economic growth disappeared in the latter half of the last economic expansion. However, we noted in last month’s Special Report that a low neutral rate outlook has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed, and is only likely to change once the Fed funds rate rises meaningfully and a recession does not materialize.4 BCA’s fixed-income team currently recommends that investors maintain a neutral duration stance; the Bank Credit Analyst service is more inclined to recommend a modestly short stance. However, the key point for investors is that another significant rise in long-maturity bond yields is unlikely over the coming year, which is positive for economic activity and investor sentiment. The Pandemic Will Recede In Importance, Supporting Services Spending Chart I-10COVID Hospitalizations And Deaths Remain Low In The DM World COVID Hospitalizations And Deaths Remain Low In The DM World COVID Hospitalizations And Deaths Remain Low In The DM World While the pandemic is clearly not over in China (discussed below), it is likely to continue to recede in importance in the US and other highly vaccinated, and relatively highly exposed DM economies. Despite the fact that confirmed cases of COVID-19 have risen in the DM world in March and April, Chart I-10 highlights that there has been very little increase in ICU patients or deaths. A recent study from the US CDC suggests that 58% of the US population overall and more than 75% of younger children have been infected with the SARS-COV-2 virus since the start of the pandemic.5 When combined with a vaccination rate close to 70%, that signals an extraordinarily high national immunity to severe illness from the disease. Chart I-11 also highlights that deliveries of Pfizer’s Paxlovid continue to climb in the US, a drug that seemingly works against all known variants and has been found to reduce hospitalizations from COVID significantly if taken within the first five days of symptoms. Given that the decline in services spending that we showed in Chart I-4 has been clearly linked to the pandemic, we expect that a slowing pandemic will continue to support services spending. Goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, but the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-World War II economic environment (Chart I-12). This underscores that a continued recovery in services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend will provide a ballast to overall consumer spending as goods spending continues to normalize. Chart I-11Paxlovid To The Rescue! Paxlovid To The Rescue! Paxlovid To The Rescue! Chart I-12Real Services Spending Will Continue To Be A Forceful Driver Of US Economic Activity Real Services Spending Will Continue To Be A Forceful Driver Of US Economic Activity Real Services Spending Will Continue To Be A Forceful Driver Of US Economic Activity What Could Go Wrong The US Will Likely Experience A Recession Scare Chart I-13US Housing Affordability Has Cratered, In Large Part Due To Surging House Prices US Housing Affordability Has Cratered, In Large Part Due To Surging House Prices US Housing Affordability Has Cratered, In Large Part Due To Surging House Prices Despite our view that the US economy will avoid a recession over the coming year, it seems likely that investors will experience a recession scare at some point over the coming 6 to 12 months. Even though it has recently moved back into positive territory, the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set the scene for a recessionary overtone to any visible weakness in the US macro data over the coming months. We noted above that the manufacturing and goods-producing sectors of the US economy are likely to slow as spending returns to services. More importantly, the extremely sharp increase in mortgage rates will likely cause at least a temporary slowdown in US housing activity, even if that slowdown does not ultimately prove to be contractionary.Chart I-13 highlights that the recent increase in mortgage rates will cause US housing affordability to deteriorate back to 2007 levels. While rising mortgage rates will be the proximate cause of this deterioration in affordability, panel 2 highlights that the real culprit has been a significant increase in house prices relative to income. There is strong evidence pointing to the fact that US real residential investment has been too weak since the global financial crisis (GFC).6 We agree that high prices will likely spur additional housing construction (which will support growth). But over the nearer-term, the sharp deterioration in affordability may imply that house price appreciation will have to fall below the rate of income growth, which would represent a very sharp correction in house price gains that would almost assuredly appear recessionary for a time. The European Economy May Contract We have discussed the risk of a European recession in past reports, and noted that it would be almost certain to occur in a scenario in which Russia’s energy exports to Europe were to be completely cut off. We continue to see this as an unlikely scenario, although the odds have increased significantly of late in light of Russia’s halt of gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland and Germany’s apparent acceptance of an oil embargo against Russia. However, Chart I-14 highlights that a recession, at least a technical one, may occur in Germany even if its imports of Russian natural gas are not interrupted. The chart shows that the German IFO business climate indicator for manufacturing has deteriorated more than the Markit PMI has, and panel 2 highlights that IFO-reported service sector sentiment is considerably worse than what was suggested by the Markit services PMI. Chart I-15 highlights that European stocks are not fully priced for a European recession, either in relative or absolute terms. This underscores the risk to global equities if real euro area growth falls meaningfully below current consensus expectations of 1.9% this year. Chart I-14German Business Sentiment Suggests A Possible Recession German Business Sentiment Suggests A Possible Recession German Business Sentiment Suggests A Possible Recession Chart I-15Euro Area Stocks Are Not Fully Priced For A European Recession Euro Area Stocks Are Not Fully Priced For A European Recession Euro Area Stocks Are Not Fully Priced For A European Recession Omicron Will Continue To Spread In China Table I-2The Ports Of Shanghai and Ningbo Are Quite Important To Chinese Trade Flows May 2022 May 2022 Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have surged in China over the past two months, and it is now clear that the country’s zero-tolerance policy will fail to contain the spread of the disease. We initially downgraded the odds of our above-trend growth scenario in our January report specifically in response to the risk that the Omicron variant of the virus posed to China.7 That risk that is now manifesting itself most acutely in Shanghai, but also increasingly in other coastal and northeastern provinces. Chart I-16COVID Restrictions In China Are Causing Significant Delays In Suppliers' Delivery Times COVID Restrictions In China Are Causing Significant Delays In Suppliers' Delivery Times COVID Restrictions In China Are Causing Significant Delays In Suppliers' Delivery Times China’s COVID surge has two implications for the global economic and financial market outlook. The first is that the surge has led to increased port congestion and shipping delays, which clearly threaten to cause a further rise in global shipping costs. We have noted in past reports that shipping costs from China to the West Coast of the US surged following the one month shutdown of the port of Yantian last year. Table I-2 highlights that the ports of Shanghai and nearby Ningbo handle nearly 30% of China’s total ocean shipping volume. Chart I-16 highlights that road traffic restrictions in the Yangtze River Delta have caused significant delays in suppliers’ delivery times, further raising the risk of bottlenecks that may take months to clear. Chart I-17China's Battle With Omicron Further Raises The Risk Of A Euro Area Recession China's Battle With Omicron Further Raises The Risk Of A Euro Area Recession China's Battle With Omicron Further Raises The Risk Of A Euro Area Recession The second implication of China’s COVID surge is that China’s contribution to global growth is at risk of declining significantly further, at least for a time. If Chinese economic activity slows sharply in response to the lockdowns and a further spread of the disease, we fully expect Chinese policymakers to provide further stimulus to support household income in line with what occurred in DM countries two years ago. In addition, some investors have argued that reduced commodity demand from China is actually desirable in the current environment, as it would further reduce inflationary pressure in the US and other developed economies. However, Chart I-17 highlights that Chinese import growth has already slowed very significantly, which has clearly impacted euro area exports. European exports to China are not predominantly commodity-based, and it is yet unclear whether the form of stimulus that Chinese policymakers will introduce will be particularly import-intensive. As such, China’s failure to contain Omicron further adds to the risk of the European recession we noted above, and threatens our view that US headline inflation will trend lower this year. Inflation Expectations May Unanchor Despite Slowing Inflation We discussed above that US inflation will decelerate this year and that this may allow the Fed to raise interest rates at a slower pace than currently expected by market participants. One risk to this view is the possibility that inflation expectations may unanchor to the upside, despite an easing in inflation. Even though inflation expectations have not trended in a different direction than actual inflation since the GFC, Chart I-18 highlights that this has occurred in the past (from 2001-2006). In our view, the level of inflation that is likely to prevail over the coming two years will be an extremely important determinant of whether inflation expectations break above their post-2000 range. For now, Chart I-18 highlights that the Fed’s expectation for core inflation this year is reasonable, but it remains an open question whether core inflation will decelerate below 3% next year as the Fed is forecasting. This is notable, because US core PCE inflation peaked at a rate of 2.6% during the 2002-2007 economic expansion, which is the period when stable long-dated inflation expectations were prevalent. Chart I-19 highlights that market-based inflation expectations are currently challenging or have risen above their 2004-2014 average. We noted in last month’s report that long-dated household inflation expectations will be historically low, even if inflation decelerates in line with what near-dated CPI swaps are forecasting. Chart I-18Inflation Expectations May Still Unanchor Even If The Inflation Rate Comes Down Inflation Expectations May Still Unanchor Even If The Inflation Rate Comes Down Inflation Expectations May Still Unanchor Even If The Inflation Rate Comes Down Chart I-19Market-Based Inflation Expectations May Soon Rise Above Pre-GFC Range Market-Based Inflation Expectations May Soon Rise Above Pre-GFC Range Market-Based Inflation Expectations May Soon Rise Above Pre-GFC Range   The bottom line for investors is that a slowing of inflation over the coming several months may not be enough to prevent long-term inflation expectations from rising. That raises the risk of an even more aggressive pace of interest rates than currently expected by investors, because the Fed is determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1970s when rising inflation expectations led to a wage-price spiral that required years of comparatively tight monetary policy to correct. By contrast, the Fed will view a temporary income-statement recession stemming from a sharp rise in interest rates as the lesser of two evils. A recession to prevent a long-lasting wage-price spiral would also probably be better for investors over the longer run, but a recession would clearly imply a significant decline in risky asset prices at some point over the coming two years were it to occur. Investment Conclusions Chart I-20Despite The Risks Facing Europe, Euro Area Stocks Are Not A Clear Underweight Candidate Despite The Risks Facing Europe, Euro Area Stocks Are Not A Clear Underweight Candidate Despite The Risks Facing Europe, Euro Area Stocks Are Not A Clear Underweight Candidate From the perspective of allocating to risky assets, the most important question for investors to answer is whether the US is likely to experience a recession over the coming year. As we noted above, in our view the answer is “no”, which implies that US earnings growth will remain positive and that investors should not be underweight stocks within a global multi-asset portfolio. It is true that earnings can decline outside of the context of a recession, but we discuss in Section 2 of our report that this has almost always been associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. The factors that have historically been associated with a nonrecessionary decline in profit margins may occur later this year, but our indicators so far point more to flat margins rather than a significant decline. For now, investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6 to 12 month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. Within a global equity allocation, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional allocation. The larger risk of a recession in Europe than in the US would normally imply that investors should be overweight US stocks, but euro area stocks have already underperformed global stocks significantly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Chart I-15 highlighted that they will underperform further if euro area growth turns negative. It is not clear, however, if that risk warrants an underweight stance today, especially considering the enormous valuation advantage offered by euro area stocks versus their US counterparts and the fact that the euro has already fallen to a five-year low (Chart I-20). Chart I-21Favor A Neutral Stance Towards Cyclical Stocks Versus Defensives Favor A Neutral Stance Towards Cyclical Stocks Versus Defensives Favor A Neutral Stance Towards Cyclical Stocks Versus Defensives Within the dimensions of the equity market, Chart I-21 highlights that the outperformance of cyclicals versus defensives was already late at the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that the uptrend in relative performance has seemingly ended. Still, a moderately overweight stance toward stocks overall does not especially support an underweight stance toward cyclicals; therefore, we recommend a neutral stance over the coming year. We continue to recommend that investors (modestly) favor value stocks over growth stocks on the basis of better value and as a hedge against potentially higher long-maturity yields, although we acknowledge that most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Despite their recent underperformance, we continue to favor global small-cap stocks over their large-cap peers, as they are now unequivocally inexpensive and have seemingly already priced in a likely recession scare in the US later this year (Chart I-22). Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance despite our forecast that long-maturity bond yields will not increase much this year. We are wary of recommending a neutral duration stance given the possibility that investors or the Fed may upwardly revise their neutral rate expectations earlier than we anticipate; however, investors are also likely to see long-maturity yields come down for a time in response to a housing market slowdown over the coming several months. More nimble investors should be neutral duration, and should test a long stance if US data releases begin to exhibit meaningfully negative surprises. Finally, while we are bearish toward the dollar on a 6- to 12-month time horizon, it is likely to strengthen over the near term. Chart I-23 highlights that our composite technical indicator for the US dollar is now clearly in overbought territory. We expect that a downtrend will begin once the war in Ukraine reaches a durable conclusion and clarity about the economic impact of the spread of Omicron in China – and the likely policy response – emerges. Chart I-22The Selloff In Small Caps Seems Overdone The Selloff In Small Caps Seems Overdone The Selloff In Small Caps Seems Overdone Chart I-23US Dollar And Indicator The Dollar Is Ripe For A Major Pullback Beyond Likely Near-Term Strength US Dollar And Indicator The Dollar Is Ripe For A Major Pullback Beyond Likely Near-Term Strength US Dollar And Indicator The Dollar Is Ripe For A Major Pullback Beyond Likely Near-Term Strength   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 28, 2022 Next Report: May 26, 2022 II. The US Equity Market: A Fundamental, Technical, And Value-Based Review All four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to a three decade low, our Technical Indicator has broken into negative territory, our Valuation Indicator still signals extreme equity pricing, and our Speculation Indicator does not yet support a contrarian buy signal. Still, we do not expect a US recession over the coming year, which implies that S&P 500 revenue growth will stay positive. Nonrecessionary earnings contractions are rare, and are almost always associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. Our new profit margin warning indicator currently suggests the odds of falling margins are low, although the risks may rise later this year. Stocks are extremely expensive, but rich valuations are being driven by extremely low real bond yields, rather than investor exuberance. Valuation is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly over the coming year unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical analysis of stock prices has a long and successful history at boosting investment performance, which ostensibly suggests that investors should be paying more attention to technical conditions in the current environment. However, technical trading rules have been less helpful in expansionary environments when inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated (as is currently the case). As such, the recent technical breakdown of the US equity market may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio associated with these economic and financial market regimes. For now, we see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6 to 12 months. Rising odds of a recession, declining profit margins, and a large increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market, the risks of which should be monitored closely by investors. In Section 1 of our report, we reviewed why a recession in the US is unlikely over the coming 6 to 12 months. However, we also highlighted that the risks to the economic outlook are meaningful and that an aggressively overweight stance toward risky assets is currently unwarranted. During times of significant uncertainty, investors should pay relatively more attention to long-term economic and financial market indicators with a reliable track record. In this report we begin by briefly reviewing the message from our US Equity Indicators, and then turn to a deeper examination of the top-down outlook for earnings, the determinants of rich valuation in the US stock market, and whether investors should rely on technical indicators in the current environment. We conclude that, while an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market, we generally see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. Aside from tracking the risk of a recession, investors should be closely attuned to signs of a contraction in profit margins or shifting neutral rate expectations as a basis to reduce equity exposure to below-benchmark levels. A Brief Review Of Our US Equity Indicators Chart II-1Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Chart II-1 presents our US Equity Indicators, which we update each month in Section 3 of our report. We highlight our observations below: Chart II-1 shows that our Monetary Indicator has fallen to its lowest level since 1995, when the Fed surprised investors and shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction. The indicator is most acutely impacted by the speed of the rise in 10-year Treasury yields and a massive surge in the BCA Short Rate Indicator to levels that have not prevailed since the late 1970s (Chart II-2). Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, which we have traditionally interpreted as a sign to sell stocks. The indicator has been dragged lower by a deterioration in stock market breadth across several tracked measures and by weak sentiment (Chart II-3). The momentum component of the indicator is fractionally positive but is exhibiting clear weakness. Our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history, despite the recent sell-off in stock prices. Our Speculation Indicator arguably provides the least negative signal of our four indicators, at least from a contrarian perspective. In Q1 2021, the indicator nearly reached the all-time high set in March 2000, but it has since retreated significantly and has exited extremely speculative territory. While this may eventually provide a positive signal for stocks, equity returns have historically been below average during months when the indicator declines. Thus, the downtrend in the Speculation Indicator still points to weakness in stock prices, at least over the nearer term. Chart II-2Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-3All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling In summary, all four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction, which clearly argues against an aggressively overweight stance favoring equities within a multi-asset portfolio. At the same time, we reviewed the odds of a US recession over the coming year in Section 1 of our report and argued that a recession is not likely over the coming 12 months. Thus, one key question for investors is whether a nonrecessionary contraction in earnings is likely over the coming year. We address this question in the next section of our report, before turning to a deeper examination of the relative importance of equity valuation and technical indicators. Gauging The Risk Of A Nonrecessionary Earnings Contraction Chart II-4Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Based on S&P data, there have been five cases since 1960 when 12-month trailing earnings per share fell year-over-year, while the economy continued to expand (Chart II-4). Sales per share growth remained positive in four of these cases (panel 2), underscoring that falling profit margins have been mostly responsible for these nonrecessionary earnings declines. We have noted our concern about how elevated US profit margins have become and have argued that a significant further expansion is not likely to occur over the coming 12-24 months.8 To gauge the risk of a sizeable decline in margins over the coming year, we construct a new indicator based on the seven instances when S&P 500 margins fell outside the context of a recession. This includes two cases when margins fell but earnings did not (because of buoyant revenue growth). We based the indicator on these five factors: Changes in unit labor cost growth to measure the impact of wage costs on firm profitability; Lagging changes in commodity prices as a proxy for material costs; The level of real short-term interest rates as a proxy for borrowing costs; Changes in a sales growth proxy to measure the impact of operating leverage on margins; And changes in the ISM manufacturing index to capture any residual impact on margins from the business cycle. Chart II-5The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low Chart II-5 presents the indicator, which is shaded both for recessionary periods and the seven nonrecessionary margin contraction episodes we identified. While the indicator does not perfectly predict margin contractions outside of recessions, it did signal 50% or greater odds of a margin contraction in four of the seven episodes we examined, and signals high odds of a contraction in margins during recessions. Among the three cases in which the indicator failed to indicate falling margins during an expansion, two of those failures were episodes when earnings growth did not ultimately contract. The inability to explain the 1997-1998 margin contraction is the most relevant failure of the indicator, in addition to two false signals in 1963 and 1988. Still, the approach provides a useful framework to gauge the risk of falling profit margins, and the results provide an interesting and somewhat surprising message about the relative importance of the factors we included. We would have expected that accelerating wages would have been the most significant factor explaining nonrecessionary profit margin declines. Wages were highly significant, but they were the second most important factor behind our sales growth proxy. Lagged commodity prices were the third most significant factor, followed by real short-term interest rates. Changes in the ISM manufacturing index were least significant, underscoring that our sales growth proxy already captures most of the effect of the business cycle on profit margins. This suggests that operating leverage is an important determinant of margins during economic expansions, and that investors should be most concerned about declining profit margins when both revenue growth is slowing significantly and wage growth is accelerating. The indicator currently points to low odds of a nonrecessionary margin contraction, but this is likely to change over the coming year. We expect that all five of the factors will evolve in a fashion that is negative for margins over the coming twelve months: While the pace of its increase is slowing, median wage growth continues to accelerate, even when adjusting for the fact that 1st quartile wage growth is growing at an above-average rate (Chart II-6). Combining the latter with higher odds of at or below-trend growth this year implies that unit labor costs may rise further over the coming twelve months. Analysts expect S&P 500 revenue growth to slow nontrivially over the coming year (Chart II-7). Current expectations point to growth slowing to a level that would still be quite strong relative to what has prevailed over the past decade; however, accelerating wage costs in lockstep with decelerating revenue growth is exactly the type of combination that has historically been associated with falling margins during economic expansions. Chart II-6Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Chart II-7...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow ​​​​​​ Although these are less impactful factors, the lagged effect of the recent surge in commodity prices will also weigh on margins over the coming year, as will rising real interest rates and a likely slowdown in manufacturing activity in response to slower goods spending. In addition to our new indicator, we have two other tools at our disposal to track the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year. First, Chart II-8 illustrates that an industry operating margin diffusion index does a decent job at leading turning points in S&P 500 profit margins, despite its volatility. And second, Chart II-9 highlights that changes in the sales and profit margin diffusion indexes sourced from the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations Survey have predicted turning points in operating sales per share and margins over the past decade. Chart II-9 does suggest that profit margins may not rise further, but flat margins are not likely to be a threat to earnings growth over the coming year if a recession is avoided (as we expect). Chart II-8Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Chart II-9...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes ...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes ...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes     The conclusion for investors is that the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year are elevated and should be monitored, but are seemingly not yet imminent. In combination with expectations for slowing revenue growth, this implies, for now, that earnings growth over the coming year will be low but positive. Valuation, Interest Rates, And The Equity Risk Premium As noted above, our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US Equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history. Our Valuation Indicator is a composite of different valuation measures, and we sometimes receive questions from investors asking about the seemingly different messages provided by these different metrics. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that equity valuation has almost, but not fully, returned to late-1990 conditions based on the Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio, but is seemingly more expensive based on the Price/Book (P/B) and especially Price/Sales (P/S) ratios. In our view, this apparent discrepancy is easily resolved. Relative to the P/E ratio, both the P/B and especially P/S ratios are impacted by changes in aggregate profit margins, which have risen structurally over the past two decades because of the rising share of broadly-defined technology companies in the US equity index (Chart II-11). Barring a major shift in the profitability of US tech companies over the coming year, we do not see discrepancies between the P/E, P/B, or P/S ratios as being particularly informative for investors. As an additional point, we also do not see the Shiller P/E or other cyclically-adjusted P/E measures as providing any extra information about the richness or cheapness of US equities today, as these measures tend to move in line with the 12-month forward P/E ratio (Chart II-12). Chart II-10US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics Chart II-11Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis In our view, rather than focusing on different measures of valuation, it is important for investors to understand the root cause of extreme US equity prices, as well as what factors are likely to drive equity multiples over the coming year. As we have noted in previous reports, the reason that US stocks are extremely overvalued today is very different from the reason for similar overvaluation in the late 1990s. Charts II-13 and II-14 present two different versions of the equity risk premium (ERP), one based on trailing as reported earnings (dating back to 1872), and one based on twelve-month forward earnings (dating back to 1979). Chart II-12The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation Chart II-13The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average… The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average The ERP accounts for the portion of equity market valuation that is unexplained by real interest rates, and the charts highlight that the US ERP is essentially in line with its historical average based on both measures, in sharp contrast to the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. This underscores that historically low interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic growth are the root cause of extreme equity overvaluation in the US (Chart II-15), meaning that very rich pricing can be thought of as “rational exuberance.” Chart II-14…In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s ...In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s ...In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s Chart II-15US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low     Chart II-16The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index Over the longer term, the risks to US equity valuation are clearly to the downside, as we detailed in our October 2021 report.9 But over the coming 6 to 12 months, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up in the US. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, a significant further rise in long-maturity bond yields will likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors and the Fed, which we think is more likely a story for next year than this year. And Chart II-16 highlights that the ERP has historically been well explained by the sum of unemployment and inflation (the Misery Index), which should come down over the coming several months as inflation moderates and the unemployment rate remains low. To conclude, it is absolutely the case that US equities are extremely expensive, but this fact is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical Analysis Amid A Shifting Economic Regime Technical analysis of financial markets, and especially stocks, has a long history. It has also provided disciplined investors with significant excess returns over time. A simple stock / bond switching rule based on whether stock prices were above their nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month has significantly outperformed since the 1960s, earning an average excess annual return of 1.3% relative to a 60/40 stock/bond benchmark portfolio (Chart II-17). This outsized performance has come at the cost of only a minor increase in portfolio volatility. Ostensibly, then, investors should be paying more attention to equity technical conditions in the current environment, which we noted above are not positive. Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, and the S&P 500 has clearly fallen back below its 200-day moving average. However, Chart II-17 presented generalized results over long periods of time. Over the past two decades, investors have been able to rely on a durably negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields to help boost portfolio returns from technically-driven switching rule strategies. Chart II-18 highlights that this correlation has been much lower over the past two years than has been the case since the early 2000s, raising the question of whether similar switching strategies are viable today. In addition, there is the added question of whether technical analysis is helpful to investors during certain types of economic and financial market regimes, such as high inflation environments. Chart II-17Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Chart II-18Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated To test whether the message from technical indicators may be relied upon today, we examine the historical returns from a technically-driven portfolio switching strategy during nonrecessionary months under four conditions that reflect the economic and political realities currently facing investors: months when both stock and bond returns are negative; months of above-average inflation; months of above-average geopolitical risk; and the 1970s, when the Misery Index was very elevated. In all the cases we consider, the switching rule is simple: whether the S&P 500 index was above its nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month. If so, the rule overweights equities for the subsequent months; if not, the rule overweights a comparatively risk-free asset. We consider portfolios with either 10-year Treasurys or 3-month Treasury bills as the risk-free asset, as well as a counterfactual scenario in which cash always earns a 1% annual rate of return (to mimic the cash returns currently available to investors). Table II-1 presents the success and whipsaw rate of the trading rule. Table II-2 presents the annualized cumulative returns from the strategy. The tables provide three key observations: As reflected in Chart II-17, both Tables II-1 and II-2 highlight that simple technical trading rules have historically performed well, and that outperformance has occurred in both recessionary and nonrecessionary periods. Relative to nonrecessionary periods overall, technical trading rules have underperformed during the particular nonrecessionary regimes that we examined. It is the case not only that these strategies have performed in inferior ways during these regimes, but also that they were less consistent signals in that they generated significantly more “whipsaws” for investors. Among the four nonrecessionary regimes that we tested, technical indicators underperformed the least during periods of above-average geopolitical risk, and performed abysmally during nonrecessionary (but generally stagflationary) months in the 1970s. Table II-1During Expansions, Technically-Driven Switching Rules Underperform… May 2022 May 2022 Table II-2…When Inflation Is High And When Stocks And Bonds Lose Money May 2022 May 2022 The key takeaway for investors is that technical analysis is likely to be helpful for investors to improve portfolio performance as we approach a recession but may be less helpful in an expansionary environment in which inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated. Investment Conclusions Echoing the murky economic outlook that we detailed in Section 1 of our report, our analysis highlights that an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market. On the one hand, all four of our main equity indicators are currently providing a bearish signal, and the risk of a nonrecessionary contraction in S&P 500 profit margins over the coming year is elevated – albeit seemingly not imminent. On the other hand, our expectation that the US will not slip into recession over the coming year implies that revenue growth will stay positive, which has historically been associated with expanding earnings. In addition, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up, and the recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500 may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio that appears to exist in expansionary environments in which inflation is high and the stock price / bond yield correlation is near-zero or negative. Netting these signals out, we see our equity indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. The emergence of a recession, declining profit margins, and a significant increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market. We will continue to monitor these risks and adjust our investment recommendations as needed over the coming several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate III. Indicators And Reference Charts As discussed in this month’s Section 2, BCA’s equity indicators do not paint an optimistic picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is at its weakest point in almost three decades, our valuation indicator continues to highlight that stocks are overvalued, and both our sentiment and technical indicators have broken down. An eventual easing in the latter two measures will ultimately prove positive for equities, but this will likely happen only once they reach extremes. Investors should be at most modestly overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are likely pricing in too much of an increase in earnings per share over the coming year. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises have rolled over considerably, although there is no meaningful sign yet of a decline in the level of forward earnings. Earnings growth is more likely than not to be positive over the coming year, but will be modest. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance towards cyclicals versus defensives, as well as a neutral regional equity stance. Euro area stocks are not a clear underweight candidate despite the risk of a European recession. Within a fixed-income portfolio, the 10-Year Treasury Yield has very little further upside over the coming year, arguing for a modestly short duration stance. We do not believe that the Fed will end up raising rates to a level higher than investors are forecasting over the coming year. Commodity prices continue to rise in a broad-based fashion following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain significantly overbought. We expect oil and food prices to come down over the coming year, but there is a risk to that assessment. Russia aggression has very likely sped up Europe’s decarbonization timeline, suggesting that investors should be tactically, cyclically, and structurally bullish on industrial metals prices. US and global LEIs have rolled over from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries. Leading and coincident indicators remain decently strong, and we do not expect a recession in the US over the coming year. However, the odds of a stagflationary-lite outcome of above-target inflation and at-or-below-trend growth have increased because of the war. 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 Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, and "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see US Investment Strategy/ US Bond Strategy Special Report "Gauging The Risk Of Recession: Slowdown Or Double-Dip?" dated August 16, 2010, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Clarke, KE, JM Jones, Y Deng, et al. Seroprevalence of Infection-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies — United States. September 2021–February 2022. 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "January 2022," dated December 23, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?” dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms,” dated September 30, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Dear Client, In lieu of our weekly report next week, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday with my colleague Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist, on the implications of stagflation on European assets and global FX markets. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. Kind regards, Chester Executive Summary The Yen And Interest Rates The Yen And Interest Rates The Yen And Interest Rates The Japanese yen is in liquidation. The historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in selling pressure, before placing fresh bets. This exhaustion is likely to occur once global bond yields stabilize (Feature chart), and energy price inflation abates. A move lower in these two key variables would catalyze an explosive rebound in the yen, on the back of very cheap valuations and a large net short speculative position. The Bank of Japan will not meaningfully pivot soon. The reason is that downside risks to the Japanese economy supersede the risk of an inflation overshoot. What Japan needs is stronger fiscal spending, that would offset deficient domestic demand. That said, Japan is also one of the best candidates for generating non-inflationary growth, a bullish backdrop for the currency. Our 2022 target for the yen is 110. Our sense is that most of the downside risks are well understood by markets, while upside surprises are much underappreciated. RECOMMENDATIONS INCEPTION LEVEL inception date RETURN Short chf/JPY 135 2022-04-21 - Bottom Line: The yen has undershot. According to our in-house PPP models, the Japanese currency is undervalued by 35%. Historically, an investor buying the yen at such undervalued levels has made 6% per year over the subsequent 5 years. Feature The yen’s move in recent weeks has been explosive. Since early March, the yen has collapsed by 11%, pushing USD/JPY from around 115 to a nudge below 130. Over the last year, the yen is down 16%. In retrospect, a chart formation since 1990 suggests this is a classic liquidation phase that is unlikely to reverse until fundamentals shift. The two key drivers of yen weakness have been higher global yields, and elevated energy prices. Chart 1 shows that the yen has been perfectly tracking the US 10-year Treasury yield. Yield curve control (YCC) is leading to a capitulation of both domestic and foreign investors, fleeing from Japanese bonds towards external bond markets. Looking out the curve, investors do not expect the Bank of Japan to lift rates higher than 50 bps until 2028 (Chart 2). Chart 1The Yen And Interest Rates The Yen And Interest Rates The Yen And Interest Rates Chart 2The BoJ Is Expected To Stay Dovish The BoJ Is Expected To Stay Dovish The BoJ Is Expected To Stay Dovish Meanwhile, higher energy costs are also putting selling pressure on the yen as merchants sell JPY to pay for more expensive imports in US dollars.    Is Selling Pressure Exhausted? Chart 3A Technical Profile Of The Japanese Yen A Technical Profile Of The Japanese Yen A Technical Profile Of The Japanese Yen The key question for investors is whether the carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase. The answer depends on the time horizon. Daily traders, reconciling positions every few hours, should continue shorting the yen. Exhaustion in selling pressure is likely to manifest itself through a few technical patterns, most notably, a consolidation phase. Chart 3 suggests that reversals in the yen have tended to pass through a period of indigestion, allowing investors enough time to play on a reversal. We are not there yet.  That said, for longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 4). Since JPY became freely floating, selloffs have been around 15%-20% especially during major events (the Asian financial crisis or the manufacturing recession the last decade, for example). The last major selloff was around Abenomics in 2012, a pivotal event. Chart 4The Yen Drawdown Has Matched Previous Capitulation Phases The Yen Drawdown Has Matched Previous Capitulation Phases The Yen Drawdown Has Matched Previous Capitulation Phases Speculators are also very short JPY and sentiment is quite depressed. This is bullish from a contrarian perspective. Low rates in Japan have led to the proliferation of carry trades. While these are likely to persist, the bulk of investors have already jumped on this bandwagon. A stabilization and/or reversal in US Treasury yields could flush out stale shorts in the yen (Chart 5). If, as we expect, the greenback does weaken in the second half of this year, that will also support the yen. Chart 5Sentiment On The Yen Is Very Depressed Sentiment On The Yen Is Very Depressed Sentiment On The Yen Is Very Depressed Japan’s Economic Outlook The yen tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is exiting a recession (Chart 6). Part of the reason why the yen has been so weak is because economic growth in Japan has been anemic. While the external sector has been benefiting from a global trade boom, the domestic sector has been under siege from the pandemic, until recently. Chart 6The Yen Tends To Rebound When The Japanese Economy Recovers The Yen Tends To Rebound When The Japanese Economy Recovers The Yen Tends To Rebound When The Japanese Economy Recovers It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains 5% below the pre-pandemic trend. Shinkansen passenger volumes are still down 42% this year after an even bigger collapse last year. Inbound tourists, a meaningful source of demand, has collapsed from about 25% of the overall Japanese population before the pandemic to zero today. These dire statistics are likely to reverse. The manufacturing PMI is ticking higher. The number of daily new COVID-19 cases has dramatically rolled over. This will be a welcome fillip to much subdued consumer and business sentiment. 2% Inflation = Mission Impossible? The BoJ is likely to get its wish of 2% inflation in the coming months. However, it will prove fleeting. The overarching theme for Japan is an aging and declining population which has put a lid on consumer prices (Chart 7). This will support real interest rates. Inflation does not tend to accelerate on the island until the output gap is fully closed. That has yet to occur. Meanwhile, the political push to cut mobile phone prices has been a drag on CPI. Mobile phone charges alone have cut around 1.2%-1.5% from the core core measure of Japanese inflation, according to the BoJ. This has been a structural trend. As a result, long-term inflation expectations in Japan remain anchored near 1%, even though the rest of the world is seeing a price boom (Chart 8). The revealed preference is for low/stable prices. Chart 7Demographics Are Weighing On Japanese##br##Inflation Demographics Are Weighing On Japanese Inflation Demographics Are Weighing On Japanese Inflation Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations In Japan Are Rising, But Muted Long-Term Inflation Expectations In Japan Are Rising, But Muted Long-Term Inflation Expectations In Japan Are Rising, But Muted Clearly, the Bank of Japan would like this to change, as it aims for a persistent 2% inflation target. That said, it will be unable to adjust monetary settings aggressively. The BoJ already owns over 50% of Japanese government bonds, and that has made the market very illiquid. As a result, ownership as a share of GDP is nearing attrition (Chart 9). Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyThe Yen In 2022 Arguably, the BoJ could widen the target band for yield curve control, while lowering short rates further below zero, but that is unlikely to do much for inflation expectations. It could also expand its 0% bank loan scheme beyond renewable industries, and/or small/medium-sized firms, but the problem in Japan is a lack of demand. The currency remains the sole policy lever for the BoJ. Unfortunately, for a small, open economy, the BoJ has less control over the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998 (Chart 10). That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. Intervention this time around will not assuage the whale of carry traders. Chart 9The BoJ Has Not Been Aggressively Buying Government Bonds The BoJ Has Not Been Aggressively Buying Government Bonds The BoJ Has Not Been Aggressively Buying Government Bonds Chart 10The MoF Could Soon ##br##Intervene The MoF Could Soon Intervene The MoF Could Soon Intervene A falling yen would allow some pass-through inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year to generate 1% inflation in Japan (Chart 11). Meanwhile, a policy based on depreciating your currency could lead to a crisis of confidence, especially vis-à-vis Japanese trade partners. Our model for core core inflation suggests that all the weakness in the currency will only boost this print to 0.5% in the coming months (Chart 12). Chart 11Currency Weakness Will Only Temporarily Help Boost Inflation Currency Weakness Will Only Temporarily Help Boost Inflation Currency Weakness Will Only Temporarily Help Boost Inflation Chart 12Core CPI Will Not Meaningfully ##br##Recover Core CPI Will Not Meaningfully Recover Core CPI Will Not Meaningfully Recover What Japan needs is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Putting it all together, real rates are unlikely to fall very much in Japan. This is very positive for the yen in a world with deeply negative real rates. As demand recovers, and the Japanese economy generates non-inflationary growth, the currency should find a solid footing. Why Valuation Matters Chart 13The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap Japan is running a big trade deficit on the back of high energy prices. A cheap currency at least increases Japan’s competitiveness. This is particularly the case since the boom in external demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth. According to our PPP models, the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around 35% (Chart 13). Why valuations matter is because an investor who buys the yen today can expect to make 6% a year over the next half decade, based on the historical correlation between valuation and subsequent currency returns (Chart 14). This will especially be the case if Japanese inflation keeps lagging inflation in the US. As we argued at the beginning of this report, US yields will need to stabilize before long yen positions make sense on a tactical basis (Chart 15). Chart 14Valuation Matters For The Japanese Yen Valuation Matters For The Japanese Yen Valuation Matters For The Japanese Yen Chart 15Global Yields Need To Stabilize For The Yen To Bounce Global Yields Need To Stabilize For The Yen To Bounce Global Yields Need To Stabilize For The Yen To Bounce The Yen As A Safe Haven The yen still appears to have the best correlation with a rising VIX (Chart 16). In a world of slowing global growth and the potential for equity market turbulence, this bodes well for long yen positions. That said, the carry on this position will be unbearable especially if the Federal Reserve continues to sound hawkish. The better play on potential yen strength is a short CHF/JPY position. Historically, these currencies have tended to move together. However, more recently, the CHF has risen substantially versus the JPY, suggesting some mean reversion is due (Chart 17). Chart 16The Yen Remains A Good Hedge The Yen Remains A Good Hedge The Yen Remains A Good Hedge Chart 17Go Short CHF/JPY Go Short CHF/JPY Go Short CHF/JPY Strategically, we were stopped out of our short USD/JPY position at 128, initiated at 124. Our 2022 target for the yen is 110. Our sense is that most of the downside risks are well understood by markets, while upside surprises are much underappreciated. Tactically, we will wait for the consolidation phase we outlined earlier in this report, before initiating fresh positions.   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

Highlights There is no evidence of a decline in US corporate credit or bank lending spreads over the past few decades, meaning that any excess savings effect structurally depressing interest rates is occurring in the Treasury market. We note the possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower government bond yields, by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. To investigate the impact that excess savings may be having on bond yields, we define historical periods of abnormal yields based on the gap between long-maturity Treasury yields and the potential rate of economic growth. This reflects our view that potential growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. Since 1960, there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent, but the first two seem to be easily explained by the stance of US monetary policy rather than by a savings/investment imbalance. The excess savings story better fits the facts after 2000. We do find evidence that a global savings glut lowered bond yields during the early-2000s, and it may have even modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, the effect of the global savings glut was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so for cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than as a result of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, as long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion despite a reduction in savings and significantly stronger growth. The historical impact of FOMC meetings on the structural decline in long-maturity US Treasury yields strongly implies that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a lower average Fed funds rate. It is our view that the Fed has a backward-looking neutral rate outlook, informed by an incomplete understanding of the economic circumstances of the latter half of the last expansion. A low neutral rate narrative has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and we regard this as the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This phenomenon is only likely to dissipate once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. While the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Feature Chart II-110-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years For many investors, one of the most striking features of the pandemic, especially over the past year, is how low US long-maturity government bond yields have remained in the face of the highest headline consumer price inflation in four decades (Chart II-1). To many investors, this has provided even further evidence of a structural “excess savings” effect that has kept interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic activity. The theory of secular stagnation, revived by Larry Summers in late 2013, is a related concept, but many investors believe that interest rates will remain low even in a world in which the US economy is growing at or even above its trend. The fundamental basis for this view is the idea that over the longer term, the real rate of interest is determined by the balance (or imbalance) between desired savings and investment, and that advanced economies have and will continue to experience excess savings – defined as a chronically high level of desired savings relative to the investment opportunities available. According to this view, in order for the actual level of savings to equal investment, interest rates must fall. Chart II-2Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) This report challenges the view that excess savings are mostly responsible for the current level of long-term bond yields in the US. We agree that excess savings have played a role in explaining changes in long-term bond yields at different points over the past 20 years; we also agree that it is normal for interest rates in advanced economies to trend down over time in response to a demographically-driven decline in potential growth. But our goal is not to explain the downtrend in interest rates over time. Instead, we aim to explain the gap between the level of long-term bond yields today and the prevailing rate of economic activity, or consensus forecasts of the trend rate of growth (Chart II-2). We do not believe that this gap is economically justified, nor do we believe that it is driven by excess savings. We conclude that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate outlook is the primary factor anchoring US Treasury yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This is only likely to change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize; it suggests that investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Excess Savings And Interest Rates: Defining A “Mechanism Of Action” Households, businesses, and governments can directly purchase debt securities in capital markets, but they do not typically provide loans directly to borrowers. Direct lending usually occurs through the banking system, which means that excess savings would only lower interest rates in the economy through one of the following ways: By lowering the Fed funds rate By lowering long-maturity government bond yields relative to the Fed funds rate, by reducing either the term premium or investors’ expectations for the average Fed funds rate in the future By lowering corporate bond yields relative to duration-matched government bond yields By lowering lending rates on bank loans relative to banks’ cost of borrowing Charts II-3-II-5 highlight that there is no evidence of a structural decline in corporate credit spreads or bank lending rates relative to the Fed funds rate, so we can rule out this effect as a mechanism of action for excess savings to have structurally lowered interest rates. Chart II-6 highlights that interest paid on bank deposits lags the Fed funds rate, so we can also rule out the idea that excess deposits force the Fed to keep the effective Fed funds rate low. Chart II-3No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads… No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads This means that if excess savings are depressing interest rates in the US, that the effect is truly occurring in the Treasury market. As noted, this could occur by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. Related Report  The Bank Credit AnalystR-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks All of these effects are certainly possible. Keynes’ paradox of thrift highlights that excess savings can manifest itself as a chronic shortfall in aggregate demand, which would persistently lower the Fed funds rate as the Fed responds to a long period of high unemployment. This could also lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields in a scenario in which the Fed repeatedly engages in asset purchases to help stabilize aggregate demand. As well, domestic excess savings could lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields, as aging savers directly purchase government securities as part of their retirement portfolios. Finally, foreign capital inflows could also cause this effect, especially if they originate from countries with chronic current account surpluses that use an increase in US dollar reserves to purchase long-maturity US government securities. Table II-1 summarizes these possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower US government bond yields. With these mechanisms in mind, we review the past 60 years to identify periods of “abnormal” bond yields, with the goal of understanding whether excess savings appear to explain major gaps. Table II-1Possible Mechanisms Of Action For Excess Savings To Lower Long-Term Government Bond Yields April 2022 April 2022 Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7 shows the difference between nominal 10-year US Treasury yields and nominal potential GDP growth. Panel 2 shows an alternative version of this series using the ten-year median annualized quarterly growth rate of nominal GDP in lieu of estimates of potential growth, which highlights a generally similar relationship. This approach to defining “abnormal” long-maturity bond yields reflects our view that the potential rate of economic growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. To see why, given that GDP also effectively represents gross domestic income, an interest rate that is persistently below the potential growth rate of the economy would create a strong incentive to borrow on the part of households and especially firms. Chart II-7 makes it clear that the relationship has been mean-reverting over time, but that there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent. The first episode occurred from 1960 to the late 1970s, and saw government bond yields average well below the prevailing rate of economic growth. We do not see this period as having been caused by an excess of desired savings relative to investment. As we discussed in our November Special Report,1 this gap represented a period of persistently easy monetary policy which contributed to excessive aggregate demand and a structural rise in inflation. The second major episode is also easily explained, as it occurred in response to the first. Following a decade of high inflation, Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 1979 to combat inflationary expectations, which led to a two-decade period of generally tight monetary policy. Like the first period, this was not caused by an imbalance between desired savings and investment. The third episode has prevailed since the late-1990s, and has seen a negative yield/growth gap on average – albeit one that has been smaller than what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. From 2000 to 2007, the gap was generally negative, although it turned positive by the end of the economic cycle. It was modestly negative on average from 2008 to 2010, and only became persistently negative starting in 2011. The gap fell to a new low during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remains wider today than at any point during the last economic recovery. It is these post-2000 periods of a persistently negative yield/growth gap that should be closely investigated for evidence of an excess savings effect. The Global Savings Glut As noted, prior to 2000, the yield/growth gap in the US seems clearly explained by the Fed’s monetary policy stance, not by an excess savings effect. So the question is whether there is any evidence of excess savings having caused this negative gap since 2000. In our view, the answer is yes, but the effect was relatively small compared to what prevails today. We do find evidence of a global savings glut during the early-2000s. Chart II-8 highlights that the private and external sector savings/investment balances in China and emerging markets more generally were persistently positive during the 2000s. Chart II-9 highlights that multiple estimates of the term premium declined around that time – especially during Greenspan’s “conundrum” period of between 2004 and 2005. Chart II-8There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-9The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys Chart II-10 breaks down the components of the 10-year yield into the 5-year yield and the 5-year/5-year forward yield, and highlights that the negative correlation between the two components lasted for only one year. Overall, the 10-year Treasury yield was lower than potential growth for roughly two years as a result of the global savings glut effect.       Chart II-10Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude This was a significant event, and it may even have modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, it was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess Savings And US Household Deleveraging Chart II-11Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart II-11 highlights that, relative to June 2007 levels, the vast majority of the cumulative decline in the 10-year Treasury yield has occurred because of a decline in implied long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate, rather than a major decline in the term premium. The chart also shows that almost all the decline in implied long-term interest rate expectations since 2007 occurred during the 2008/2009 recession. This normally occurs during a recession as investors price in a low average Fed funds rate at the short end of the curve; the anomaly is that these expectations remained permanently low even as the economy recovered and as the Fed raised interest rates from 2015 to 2018. To us, Chart II-11 also underscores that the Fed’s asset purchases are not the main culprit behind low long-maturity bond yields today, given that the decline in long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate persisted even as the Fed stopped purchasing assets in 2014. It is not difficult to see why investors lowered their long-term Fed funds rate expectations in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, even as economic recovery took hold. Chart II-12 highlights that the “balance sheet” nature of the 2008/2009 recession unleashed the longest period of US household deleveraging in the post-WWII period, and Chart II-13 highlights that this occurred despite extremely low interest rates – and in contrast to other countries like Canada that did not experience the same loss in household net worth. Chart II-12Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-13The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008     Given that interest rates represent the price of borrowing, it is entirely unsurprising that a US balance sheet recession led to a persistent period in which credit growth was essentially unresponsive to interest rates, as households struggled to rebuild wealth lost during the recession and were unable to, or uninterested in, releveraging. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate of interest fell during that period, which we agree did occur. It is also accurate to characterize the US as having experienced a sharp increase in desired savings over that period, as highlighted by the explosion in the US private sector financial balance in the initial years of the last economic recovery (Chart II-14). Chart II-14Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. So excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so because of cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than because of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, because while Chart II-14 shows that this excess savings effect eventually waned in importance, long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-15Growth Was Historically Weak Last Cycle, But Only Because Of The First Few Years Of The Expansion April 2022 April 2022 Chart II-15 highlights that the cumulative annualized growth in real per capita GDP during the last economic cycle was significantly below that of the average of previous expansions, but this was only the case because of the very slow growth period between 2008 and 2014. Per capita growth during the latter half of the expansion was comparable to that of previous expansions, and this occurred while the Fed was raising interest rates. And yet, investors only modestly raised their long-term interest rate expectations during that period. In our view, it is this fact that holds the key to understanding why investors’ long-term rate expectations are still low today. An Alternative Explanation For Today’s Extremely Low Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-16Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Chart II-16 highlights that, since 1990, all of the structural decline in US 10-year Treasury yields has occurred within a three-day window on either side of FOMC meetings. This strongly suggests that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a low average Fed funds rate, which is consistent with how similar 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields are in relation to published FOMC and market participant estimates of the average longer-run Fed funds rate (as shown in Chart II-2). This raises the important question of why the Fed did not revise up its expectation for the neutral rate during or following the second half of the last economic expansion, when growth was much stronger than during the first half. In our view, one of the clearest articulations of the Federal Reserve’s understanding of the neutral rate of interest was presented in a 2015 speech by Lael Brainard at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Brainard noted the following: “The neutral rate of interest is not directly observable, but we can back out an estimate of the neutral rate by relying on the observation that output should grow faster relative to potential growth the lower the federal funds rate is relative to the nominal neutral rate. In today’s circumstances, the fact that the US economy is growing at a pace only modestly above potential while core inflation remains restrained suggests that the nominal neutral rate may not be far above the nominal federal funds rate, even now. In fact, various econometric estimates of the level of the neutral rate, or similar concepts, are consistent with the low levels suggested by this simple heuristic approach.”2 Chart II-17The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... Given how the Fed determines the neutral rate is, two factors explain why the Fed’s estimates of the neutral rate have not increased (and, in fact, fell modestly in March). First, core inflation remained below 2% from 2015-2019, despite the fact that the economy was clearly growing at an above-trend pace during this period in the face of Fed rate hikes. We have noted in previous reports the role that the 2014 collapse in oil prices had on household inflation expectations. The latter were already vulnerable to a disinflationary shock, given how negative the output gap had been in the first half of the expansion.3 We do not think that the decline in inflation expectations that occurred following the 2014 collapse in oil prices reflects a low neutral rate, but rather we believe that the Fed saw this as a conundrum that supported the expectation of a low average Fed funds rate. The second event explaining the Fed’s persistently low long-term rate expectations is the fact that the Fed was forced to cut interest rates in 2019, which we believe it saw as confirmation that the stance of monetary policy had become either meaningfully less easy or openly tight. From the Fed’s point of view, this perspective was also supported by recessionary indicators, such as the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve (Chart II-17), and popular (but now discontinued) econometric estimates of the real neutral rate of interest, such as those calculated by the Laubach-Williams model (panel 3). Chart II-18...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity However, this view entirely ignores the fact that the US and global economies were negatively impacted in 2018 and 2019 by a politically-motivated nonmonetary shock to aggregate demand: the China-US trade war, which also impacted or targeted several major advanced economies. Chart II-18 highlights that global trade uncertainty exploded during this period, which severely damaged business confidence around the world and caused a slowdown in global industrial production. Tighter Chinese policy also likely contributed to the slowdown in global activity, but the bottom line is that factors other than US monetary policy contributed to economic weakness during this period, and that it is incorrect to infer from the 2018/2019 experience that interest rates rose to or exceeded the neutral rate of interest. In short, it is our view that the Fed has simply become backward-looking in how it perceives the neutral rate of interest; it has not yet observed a period when the Fed funds rate has risen to its estimate of neutral but is unambiguously still easy. Fixed-income investors, having demonstrably anchored their own assessments to those of the Fed over the past 30 years, have had no basis to come to a meaningfully different conclusion. We believe that the Fed’s backward-looking low neutral rate outlook has now become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will probably only change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. As a final point, we clearly acknowledge that private savings increased massively during the pandemic. Investors who are inclined to see excess savings as the primary driver of low bond yields will point to this fact. But this was a forced increase in savings, rather than a desired one. The rise in household sector savings occurred mostly because of a substantial reduction in services spending, as pandemic restrictions and forced changes in behavior prevented the consumption of many services. The household savings rate has already returned to its pre-pandemic level in the US, and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have risen to a higher point than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. US households are likely to deploy a portion of their enormous stock of excess savings, as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, which is one of the main reasons to expect that the US economy will not succumb to a recession over the coming 12-18 months – and why investors and the Fed may soon be presented with evidence that warrants an increase in their long-term interest rate expectations. Investment Conclusions There are two important investment implications of the view that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate projection is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long end of the maturity spectrum. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, the first implication is that investors will likely be faced with a recession scare as the 2-10 yield curve durably inverts and as rate sensitive sectors of the economy, such as housing, inevitably slow in response to the extremely sharp rise in mortgage rates that has occurred over the past three months. We believe that it is ultimately the level of interest rates that matters for economic activity, rather than the change in interest rates. Large changes over short periods of time, however, create a degree of uncertainty about the trajectory of rates that temporarily impacts economic activity. This underscores that investors should not maintain an aggressively overweight stance toward global equities in a multi-asset portfolio, as it is likely that concerns about corporate profits will increase significantly at some point this year. The second investment implication is that US long-maturity bond yields could increase to much higher levels over the coming 12-24 months than many investors expect, in a scenario in which pandemic-driven price pressure dissipates, real wages recover, and no major politically-driven nonmonetary policy shocks emerge. We acknowledge that long-term interest rate expectations are unlikely to change until hard evidence of the economy’s capacity to tolerate interest rates above the Fed’s implied current estimate of the neutral rate emerges. This is a case, however, when we believe that investors should heed the now-famous words of Rüdiger Dornbusch: “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” As such, while the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Lael Brainard, Normalizing Monetary Policy When The Neutral Rate Is Low, December 2015 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary For the Fed, maintaining its credibility with a long sequence of rate hikes that does not crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market is akin to the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds. And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal trading watchlist: US interest rate futures, 3-year T-bond, Canada versus Japan, AUD/KRW, and EUR/CHF. Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Bottom Line: The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Feature Amid the uncertainties of the Ukraine crisis, there is one certainty. The latest surge in energy and grain prices is a classic supply shock. Prices have spiked because vital supplies of Russian and Ukrainian energy and grains have been cut. This matters for central banks, because to the extent that they can bring down inflation, they can do so by depressing demand. They can do nothing to boost supply. In fact, depressing demand during a supply shock is a sure way to start a recession. But what about the inflation that came before the Ukraine crisis, wasn’t that due to excess demand? No, that inflation came not from a demand shock, but from a displacement of demand shock – as consumers displaced their firepower from services to goods on a massive scale. This matters because central banks are also ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-1 looks like a seismograph after a huge earthquake, and in a sense that is exactly what it is. The chart shows the growth in spending on durable goods, which has just suffered an earthquake unlike any in history. Zooming in, we can see the clear causality between the surges in spending on durables and the surges in core inflation. The important corollary being that when the binge on durables ends – as it surely must – or worse, when durable spending goes into recession, inflation will plummet (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Chart I-2The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes But, argue the detractors, what about the uncomfortably high price inflation in services? What about the uncomfortably high inflation expectations? Most worrying, what about the recent surge in wage inflation? Let’s address these questions. Underlying US Inflation Is Running At Around 3 Percent In the US, the dominant component of services inflation is housing rent, which comprises 40 percent of the core consumer price index. Housing rent combines actual rent for those that rent their home, with the near-identically behaving owners’ equivalent rent (OER) for those that own their home. Given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation. Housing rent inflation closely tracks the tightness of the jobs market, because you need a job to pay the rent. With the unemployment rate today at the same low as it was in 2006, rent inflation is at the same high as it was in 2006: 4.3 percent. In other words, given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given its dominance in core inflation, rent inflation running at 4.3 percent would usually be associated with core inflation running at around 3 percent – modestly above the Fed’s target, rather than the current 6.5 percent (Chart I-4). Confirming that it is the outsized displacement of spending into goods, and its associated inflation, that is giving the Fed and other central banks a massive headache. Yet, to repeat, monetary policy is ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-4Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Still, what about the surging expectations for inflation? Many people believe that these are an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like early-2008 or now, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words: Inflation expectations are nothing more than a reflection of the last six months’ inflation rate (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Turning to wage inflation, with US average hourly earnings inflation running close to 6 percent, it would appear to be game, set, and match to ‘Team Inflation.’  Except that this is a flawed argument. To the extent that wages contribute to inflation, it must come from the inflation in unit labour costs, meaning the ratio of hourly compensation to labour productivity. After all, if you get paid 6 percent more but produce 6 percent more, then it is not inflationary (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary In this regard, US unit labour costs increased by 3.5 percent through 2021, and slowed to just a 0.9 percent (annualised) increase in the fourth quarter.2 Still, 3.5 percent, and slowing, is modestly above the Fed’s inflation target, and could justify a slight nudging up of the Fed funds rate. But it could not justify the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing. The Fed Is Praying For A ‘Hail Mary’ Fortunately, the bond market understands all of this. How else could you say 7 percent inflation and 2 percent long bond yield in the same breath?! This is crucial, because it is the long bond yield that drives rate-sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing and construction. And it is the long bond yield that sets the level of all asset prices, including real estate and stocks. Although the Fed cannot admit it, the central bank also understands all of this and hopes that the bond market continues to ‘get it.’ Meaning that it hopes that the long end of the interest rate curve does not lift too far and crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market. So why is the Fed hiking the policy interest rate? The answer is that there will be a time in the future when it does need to lift the entire interest rate curve, and for that it will need its credibility intact. Not hiking now could potentially shred the credibility that is the lifeblood of any central bank. Still, to maintain its credibility without crashing the economy the Fed will have to make the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. For our non-American readers, the Hail Mary is a high-risk desperate move with little hope of completion. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. To sum up, the likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental analysis in the preceding sections, the strong trend in both the 18 month out US interest rate future and the equivalent 3 year T-bond has reached the point of fragility that has identified previous turning-points in 2018 and 2021 (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). This week we are also adding to our watchlist the commodity plays Canada versus Japan and AUD/KRW, whose outperformances are vulnerable to reversal. From next week you will be able to see the full watchlist of investments that are vulnerable to reversal on our website. Stay tuned. Finally, the underperformance of EUR/CHF has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has identified the previous major turning-points in 2018 and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Chart I-9The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-10The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-11Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Russia is escalating its aggressiveness in Ukraine, marked by the shelling of a nuclear power station, troop reinforcements, and rhetorical threats of nuclear attack. Global financial markets will continue to suffer from negative news arising from this event until Russia achieves its aims in eastern Ukraine. Private sector boycotts on Russian commodity exports are imposing severe strains on the Russian economy, provoking it to apply more pressure on Ukraine and the West. Western governments are losing the ability to control the pace of strategic escalation, a dangerous dynamic. Moscow’s demand for security guarantees from Finland and Sweden will lead to a further escalation of strategic tensions between Russia and the West. During the Cold War the US and USSR saw a “balance of terror” due to rapidly expanding nuclear arms, which prevented them from waging war against each other. Today the same balance will probably prevent nuclear war but a nuclear scare that rattles financial markets may be required first. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.1% Bottom Line: Russia’s aggressiveness toward the US and Europe, including nuclear threats and diplomatic demands, will continue to escalate until it achieves its core military objectives. Investors should stick to safe havens and defensive equity markets and sectors on a tactical basis. Book profits on tactical trade long Japan/Germany industrials at close of trading on March 4. Feature Russian military forces shelled the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station on March 4, causing a fire. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that “essential equipment” was not damaged and that the facility possessed adequate containment structures to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Local authorities said the facility was “secured.” This incident, which may or may not be settled, should be added to several others to highlight that Russia is escalating its aggression in Ukraine and global financial markets face more bad news that they will be forced to discount. Signposts For Further Escalation Map 1 shows the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with icons for the nuclear power plants. Map 1War In Ukraine, Status Of Russian Invasion As Of March 2, 2022 Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) To understand the end-game in Ukraine – and why we think the war will escalate and are keeping open our bearish trade recommendations – we need to review our net assessment for this conflict: Our 65% “limited invasion” scenario included the seizure of strategic territory east of the Dnieper river and all of the southern coastline. Energy trade would be exempt from sanctions, saving Europe from a recession and limiting the magnitude of global energy shock. We gave 10% odds to a “full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine” (deliberate wording) because we viewed it as highly unlikely that Russia would invade the mountainous and guerilla-happy far west, the ethnic Ukrainian core. Energy trade would be sanctioned, delivering a global energy shock and European recession. A handful of clients have criticized us for not predicting that Russia would attack Kiev and for not defining a full-scale invasion as one that involved replacing the government. We never gave a view on whether Russia would invade Kiev. It is not clear that the focus on Kiev is warranted since the US and EU had committed to powerful sanctions in the event of any invasion at all. This fixed price of invasion may have given Moscow the perverse incentive to invade Kiev. Either way, Russia invaded Kiev and eastern Ukraine and the US and EU imposed crippling sanctions but exempted the energy trade. Thus anything that breaks off energy trade between the EU and Russia – and any Russian attempt to invade the west of the country to Poland – should be seen as a significant escalation. Unfortunately there are signs that the energy trade is being disrupted. Any westward campaign to Poland will be delayed until Putin sacks Kiev and controls the east and south of Ukraine, at which point he will be forced either to invade the west to cut off the supply lines of the insurgency or, more likely, to negotiate a ceasefire that partitions Ukraine. Global investors will not care about the war in Ukraine as long as strategic stability is achieved between Russia and the West. But that is far away. Today, as Russia’s economic situation deteriorates, Putin is escalating on the nuclear front. Bottom Line: Russia’s showdown with the West is escalating. Good news for the Ukrainians will lead to bad news for financial markets. Global investors should not view the situation as stabilized and should maintain safe haven trades and defensive equity positioning. Energy Boycotts Will Antagonize Russia Chart 1Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) So far Russia has not conducted a full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine. The reason is that it does not have the necessary military forces, as we have highlighted. Russia is limiting its invasion force to around 200,000 troops while Ukraine consists of 30 million prime age citizens (Chart 1). Unless Russia massively reinforces its troops, it does not have the basic three-to-one troop ratio that is the minimum necessary to invade, conquer, and hold the entire country. However, Russia is likely to increase troop sizes. We are inclined to believe that Russia has started shifting troops from its southern and eastern military districts to reinforce the Ukraine effort, according to the Kyiv Independent, citing the Ukrainian armed forces’ general staff. Apparently it aims to conquer the east and then either invade further west or negotiate a new ceasefire with greater advantage. Investors should not accept the consensus narrative in the western world that Russia is losing the war in the east. Russia is encountering various difficulties but it is gradually surrounding and blockading Ukraine and cutting its power supply. It is capable of improving its supply lines and increasing the size and destructiveness of its forces. Remember that the US took 20 days to sack Baghdad in 2003. Russia has only been fighting for nine days. Having incurred crippling economic sanctions, Putin cannot afford to withdraw without changing the government in Kiev. The odds of Ukraine “winning” the war are low, while the odds of Russia dramatically intensifying its efforts are high. This is why new developments on the energy front and worrisome: Chart 2Energy Trade Remains The Fulcrum Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) While western governments refrained from sanctioning Russian energy as predicted, private companies are boycotting Russian energy to avoid sanctions and unpopularity. Estimates vary but about 20% of Russian oil exports could be affected so far.1 Russian oil will make its way to global markets – Russian, Chinese, and other third parties will pick up the slack – but in the meantime the Russian economy is suffering more than expected due to the cutoff. Energy is the vital remaining source of Russian economic stability and Russo-European relations (Chart 2). If it fails then Russia could grow more desperate while Europe’s economy would fall into recession and Europe would become less stable and less coordinated in its responses to the conflict. These private boycotts make it beyond the control of western governments to control the pace and intensity of pressure tactics, since it is politically impractical to demand that companies trade with the enemy. Bottom Line: With the rapidly mounting economic pressure, it should be no surprise that Russia is escalating its threats – it is under increasing economic pressure and wants to drive the conflict to a quick decision in its favor. Russia’s Nuclear Threats And Putin’s Mental State Russia is terrorizing Ukraine and the western world with threats of either nuclear missile attacks or a nuclear meltdown. Putin put the country’s nuclear deterrent forces on “special combat status” on February 27. His forces began shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on March 4. Russia is also demanding security guarantees from Finland and Sweden, which are becoming more favorable toward joining the NATO alliance.2 Their lack of membership in NATO, while maintaining a strong military deterrent with defense support from the US, was a linchpin of stability in the Cold War but is now at risk. They will retain the right to choose their alliances at which point Russia will need to threaten them with attack. Since Russia cannot plausibly invade them with full armies while invading Ukraine, it may resort to nuclear brinksmanship. The western media is greatly amplifying a narrative in which Russia’s actions can only be understood in the context of Putin’s insanity or fanaticism. This may be true. But it is also suspicious because it saves the West from having to address the problem of NATO enlargement, which, along with Russia’s domestic weaknesses, contributed to Russia’s decision over the past 17 years to stage an aggressive campaign to control Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. There is a swirl of conspiracy theories in the news about Putin’s illnesses, age, vaccines, or psychology, none of which are falsifiable. Putin has an incentive to appear reckless and insane so that his enemies capitulate sooner. The decision to invade a non-NATO member, rather than a NATO member, suggests that he is still making rational calculations. Rational, that is, from the perspective of Russian history and an anarchic international system in which nation states that seek to survive, secure themselves, and expand their power. If Ukraine were to become a military ally of the US then Russian security would suffer a permanent degradation. Of course, Putin may be a fanatic and it is possible that he grows desperate or miscalculates. The western public (and global investors) will thus be reminded of the “balance of terror” that prevailed throughout the Cold War, in which the world lived and conducted business under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Today Russia has 1,588 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, contra the US’s 1,644. Both countries can deliver nuclear weapons via ballistic missiles, submarines, and bombers and are capable of destroying hundreds of each other’s cities on short notice (Table 1). While the US has at times contemplated the potential for nuclear attacks to occur but remain limited, the Soviet Union’s nuclear doctrine ultimately rejected the likelihood of limitations and anticipated maximum escalation.3 Table 1The Return Of The Balance Of Terror Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Ultimately the US and Russia avoided nuclear war in the Cold War because it entailed “mutually assured destruction” which violated the law of self-preservation. Neither Stalin nor Mao used nukes on their opponents, including when they lost conflicts (e.g. to Afghanistan and Vietnam). The US tied with North Korea and lost to Vietnam without using nukes. However in the current context the US has been wary of antagonizing Putin for fear of his unpredictable and aggressive posture. In response to Putin’s activation of combat-ready nuclear forces, the US called attention to its own nuclear deterrent subtly by canceling the regular test of a ballistic missile and issuing a press statement highlighting the fact and saying that it was too responsible to bandy in nuclear threats. Yet the autocratic nature of Putin’s regime means that if Putin ultimately does prove to be a lunatic then large parts of the world face existential danger. Our Global Investment Strategist Peter Berezin ascribes Russian Roulette odds to nuclear Armageddon – while arguing that investors should stay invested over the long run anyway. Sanctions on the Russian central bank have frozen roughly half of the country’s $630 billion foreign exchange reserves (Table 2). If the energy trade also stops, then the economy will crash and Putin could become desperate. Table 2Western Sanctions On Russia As Of March 4, 2022 Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Bottom Line: Global financial markets have yet to experience the full scare that is likely as Russia escalates its aggression and nuclear brinksmanship to ensure it achieves it strategic aims in Ukraine and prevents Finland from joining NATO. GeoRisk Indicators In March In what follows we provide our monthly update of our quantitative, market-based GeoRisk Indicators. Russian geopolitical risk is surging as the ruble and equity markets collapse (Chart 3). The violent swings of the underlying macroeconomic variables as Russia saw a V-shaped recovery from the COVID-19 lockdowns, then sharply decelerated again, prevented our risk indicator from picking up the full scale of the geopolitical risk until recently. But alternative measures of Russian risk show the historic increase more clearly – and it can also be demonstrated by reducing the weighting of the underlying macroeconomic variables relative to the USD-RUB exchange rate in the indicator’s calculation (Chart 4). Chart 3Russian GeoRisk Indicator Russian GeoRisk Indicator Russian GeoRisk Indicator Chart 4Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk This problem of dramatically volatile pandemic-era macro data skewing our risk indicators has been evident over the past year and is more apparent with some indicators than with others. China’s geopolitical risk as measured by the markets is starting to peak and stall but we do not recommend investors try to take advantage of the situation. China’s domestic and international political risk will remain elevated through the twentieth national party congress this fall. The sharp increase in commodity prices will amplify the problem. The earliest China’s political environment can improve substantially is in 2023 after President Xi Jinping cements another ten years’ in power (Chart 5). And yet that very process is negative for long-term political stability. Chart 5China GeoRisk Indicator China GeoRisk Indicator China GeoRisk Indicator British geopolitical risk is contained. It enjoys some insulation from the war on the continent, underpinning our long GBP-CZK trade and long UK equities trade relative to developed markets other than the United States (Chart 6). Chart 6United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator German and French geopolitical risk is being priced higher as expected (Charts 7 and 8). Of these two Germany is the more exposed due to the risk of energy shortages. France is nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered, and unlikely to see a change of president in the April presidential elections. Italian risk was already at a higher level than these countries but the Russian conflict and high energy supply risk will keep it elevated (Chart 9). Chart 7Germany GeoRisk Indicator Germany GeoRisk Indicator Germany GeoRisk Indicator Chart 8France GeoRisk Indicator France GeoRisk Indicator France GeoRisk Indicator Chart 9Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy GeoRisk Indicator Canada’s trucker strikes are over and the loonie will benefit from the country’s status as energy producer and insulation from geopolitical threats due to proximity with the United States (Chart 10). Chart 10Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canada GeoRisk Indicator Spain still has substantial domestic political polarization but this will have little impact on markets amid the Ukraine war. Spain is distant from the fighting and will act as a conduit for liquefied natural gas imports into Europe (Chart 11). Chart 11Spain GeoRisk Indicator Spain GeoRisk Indicator Spain GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s political risk will remain elevated due to its clash with China amid the emerging global conflict between democracies and autocracies as well as the country’s looming general election, which threatens a change of ruling party (Chart 12). However, as a commodity and LNG producer and staunch US ally the country’s risks are overrated. Chart 12Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia GeoRisk Indicator Markets are gradually starting to price the risk of an eventual China-Taiwan military conflict as a result of the Ukrainian conflict. China is unlikely to invade Taiwan on Russia’s time frame given the greater difficulties and risks associated with an amphibious invasion of a much more strategically critical territory in the world. But Taiwan’s situation is comparable to that of Ukraine and it is ultimately geopolitically unsustainable, so we expect Taiwanese assets to suffer a higher risk premium over the long run (Chart 13). Chart 13Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces a change of ruling parties in its March 9 general election as well as uncertainties emanating from China and a new cycle of provocations from North Korea (Chart 14). However these risks are probably not sufficient to prevent a rally in South Korean equities on a relative basis as China stabilizes its economy. Chart 14Korea GeoRisk Indicator Korea GeoRisk Indicator Korea GeoRisk Indicator Turkey’s international environment has gotten even worse as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and effective closure of the Black Sea to international trade. Turkey has invoked the 1936 Montreux Convention to close the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits to Russian warships, although it will let those ships return to home from outside the Black Sea. The Black Sea is highly vulnerable to “Black Swan” events, highlighted by the sinking of an Estonian ship off Ukraine’s coast in recent days. Turkey’s domestic political situation will also generate a political risk premium through the 2023 presidential election (Chart 15), as President Recep Erdogan’s reelection bid may benefit from international chaos and yet he is an unorthodox and market-negative leader, and if he loses the country will be plunged into factional conflict. Chart 15Turkey GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator South Africa looks surprisingly attractive in the current environment given our assessment that the government is stable and relatively friendly to financial markets, the next general election is years away, and the search for commodity alternatives to Russia amid a high commodity price context will benefit South Africa (Chart 16). Chart 16South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa GeoRisk Indicator India And Brazil: A Tale Of Two Emerging Markets Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have a minimal impact on the growth engines of India and Brazil. This is because Russia directly accounts for a smidgeon of both these countries trade pie. However, the main route through which this war will be felt in both markets is through commodity prices. Brazil by virtue of being a commodity exporter is better positioned as compared to India which is a commodity importer and is richly valued to boot. The year 2022 promises to be important from the perspective of domestic politics in both countries and will add to the policy risks confronting both EMs. Our Brazilian GeoRisk indicator has collapsed but is highly likely to recover and rise from here (Chart 17). Chart 17Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Commodity Price Spike – Advantage Brazil Politically India and Brazil have a lot in common today. The popularity ratings of their respective right-leaning heads of states, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India and President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have suffered over the last two years. The economic prospects of the median voter in both countries have weakened over the last year (Chart 18). Policymakers in both countries face a dilemma: they cannot stimulate their way out of their problems without an adverse market reaction since both countries are loaded with public debt. Chart 18Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Despite these commonalties, Brazil’s equity markets have outperformed relative to EMs whilst India has underperformed (Chart 19). On a tactical horizon, we expect this divergent performance to continue as the effects of the Russian invasion feed through commodity markets. Chart 19India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs ​​​​​ Commodity markets were tight even before the Russian invasion. The ongoing war will force inventories to draw across a range of commodities including oil, iron ore and even corn. Given that India is a net importer of oil whilst Brazil is a net commodity exporter, the current spike in commodity prices will benefit Brazil over India in the short term. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects supply responses from oil producers to eventually come through, thereby sending the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of 2022. Hence if Indian equities correct in response to the current oil spike or domestic politics (see below), then investors can turn constructive on India on a tactical horizon. Elections Stoke Policy Risks – In India And Brazil Results of key state elections in India will be announced on March 10, 2022. Of all the state elections, the results that the market will most closely watch will be those of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India. In a base case scenario, we expect the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) which rules this state, to cross the 50% seat share mark and retain power. But the BJP will not be able to beat the extraordinary 77% seat share it won at the 2017 elections in Uttar Pradesh. A sharp deviation from this benchmark may lead the BJP to focus on populism ahead of the next round of state elections due in 4Q 2022. At a time when the Indian government’s appetite to take on structural reforms is waning, we worry that such a populist tilt could perturb Indian equity markets. Also, general elections are due in India in 2024. If the latest state election results suggest that the BJP has ceded a high vote share to regional parties (such as the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh or Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab), then this would mean that regional parties can pose a credible threat to BJP’s ability to maintain a comfortable majority in 2024. In Brazil, some polls show that left-leaning former president Lula da Silva's lead on President Bolsonaro may have narrowed. While we expect Lula to win the presidential elections due in Brazil in October 2022, the road to victory will not be as smooth as markets expect. If the difference between the two competitors’ popularity stays narrow, then there is real a chance that President Bolsonaro will make a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He will resort to fiscal populism and attacks on Brazil’s institutions, potentially opening up institutional or civil-military rifts that generate substantially greater uncertainty among investors. Bolsonaro already appears to be planning a cut in fuel prices and a bill to further this could be tabled as soon as next week. He has coddled Russian President Putin to shore up his base of authoritarian sentiment at home. To conclude, investors must balance these two opposing forces affecting Brazilian markets today. On one hand are the latent policy risks engendered by a far-right populist who still has a few months left in office. On the other hand, in a year’s time Bolsonaro will likely be gone while Brazil stands to benefit as commodity prices rise and EM investors shift funds into commodity exporters like Brazil. Against this backdrop, we re-iterate our view that investors should take-on selective tactical exposure in Brazil. Risk-adjusted returns in Brazil at this juncture can be maximized by buying into sectors like financials as these sectors’ inherent political and policy sensitivity is low. Postscript: Is India’s Foreign Policy Reverting To Non-Alignment? India traditionally has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, carefully maintaining ties with both America and Russia through the Cold War. Things changed in the 2000s as Russia under President Putin courted closer ties with China while the US tried to warm up to India. India’s decision to join the newly energized US-led “quadrilateral” alliance in 2017 is a clear sign that India is gradually shedding its historical stance of neutrality and veering towards America. However, this thesis is being questioned as India, like China, is continuing to trade and transact with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, providing Russia with a lifeline as it suffers punishing sanctions from the US and European Union. India repeatedly abstained from voting resolutions critical of Russia at the United Nations in recent weeks. In other words, India’s process of transitioning over to the US alignment will be “definitive yet slow,” owing to reasons of both history and practicality. The former Soviet Union’s support played a critical role in helping India win several regional battles like the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Russia’s military and security influence in Central Asia makes it useful to India, which seeks a counter to Pakistan on its flank in Afghanistan. India sees Russia as a fairly dependable partner that cannot be abandoned until America is willing to provide much greater and more reliable guarantees and subsidies to India – through military support and beneficial trade deals. The backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade (Chart 20). India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline in the long term. But in the short term, as India tilts towards the US at a calibrated pace, India could remain a source of meaningful defense revenue for Russia. It is possible but not likely that the US would impose sanctions on India for maintaining this trade. Chart 20India Today Is A Key Buyer Of Russian Weapons Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) The fundamental long-term dynamic is that Russia has foreclosed its relations with the West and will therefore be lashed to China, at least until the Putin regime falls and a Russian diplomatic reset with the West can be arranged. In the face of this combined geopolitical bloc, India will gradually be driven to cooperate more closely with the United States. But India will not lead the transition away from Russia – rather it will react appropriately depending on the US’s focus and resolve in countering China and assisting India’s economy.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Energy Aspects long-term estimate. 2     Tzvi Joffre, “Russian FM repeats nuclear war rhetoric as invasion of Ukraine continues,” Reuters, March 3, 2022. 3     Jack L. Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture : Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations,” Rand Corporation, R-2154-AF (1977), argues that Soviet and American strategic cultures differ greatly and that the US should not be “sanguine about the likelihood that the Soviets would abide by American-formulated rules of intrawar restraint." Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades (2022) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar