Consumer

Highlights There is a high risk of a global demand shortfall in 2022. This is because consumer demand for services will remain well below its pre-pandemic trend… …while the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth. Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Fractal analysis: Overweight gas distribution. Feature Chart of the WeekSpending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? Spending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? Spending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? With inflation surging, you would be forgiven for thinking that global demand is red-hot. Sadly, global demand is not red-hot. Two years after the pandemic began, the lynchpin of demand – consumer spending on services – remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, US consumer spending on services is around $420 billion, or 5 percent, below where it should be (Chart I-1). A similar story holds true in the UK and France (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Chart I-3...And France ...And France ...And France Still, overall US consumer spending is on trend. Just. But only thanks to an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Begging the question, what will happen when the stimulus ends? If overall stimulated spending is just on trend while spending on services is in deficit, it means that spending on goods is in a mirror-image $420 billion surplus. Which, given the smaller share of spending on goods, equates to 8 percent above where it should be. One misconception is that the surplus in goods spending is concentrated in durables. While this was true six months ago, two-thirds of the current surplus is in nondurables, dominated by clothing and shoes, food and drink at home, and games, toys and hobbies (Chart I-4). Chart I-4US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn Looking ahead, if the demand for goods crashes back to earth, as seems to be happening now, then the demand for services will have to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend. Otherwise there will be a deficit in aggregate demand. So, the crucial question for 2022 is, will services spending catch up to its pre-pandemic trend? Services Spending Will Remain Well Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Many people believe that the deficit in US services spending is due to the underspend in bars, restaurants, and hotels. In fact, this is another misconception. The underspending on ‘food services and accommodations’ is now a negligible $30 billion out of the $420 billion deficit. In which case, where is the deficit? Surprisingly, the biggest component is a $160 billion underspend on health care (Chart I-5). In particular, the spending on ‘outpatient physician services’ levelled off a year ago well below its pre-pandemic level (Chart I-6). A plausible explanation is that many doctor’s appointments have shifted to online, requiring much lower spending. The result is that health care consumption has slowed its convergence to the pre-pandemic trend, implying that a deficit could be persistent. Chart I-5US Underspend On Health Care ##br##Is $160 Bn US Underspend On Health Care Is $160 Bn US Underspend On Health Care Is $160 Bn Chart I-6US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend A second major component of the deficit is a $110 billion underspend on recreation services, as consumers have shunned the large or dense crowds in amusement parks, sports centres, spectator sports, and theatres. Some of this shunning of crowds will be long-lasting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn A third major component of the deficit is a $60 billion underspend on public transportation, as people have likewise shunned the personal proximity required in mass transit systems and aeroplanes. Some of this shunning of transport that requires personal proximity will also be long-lasting (Chart I-8). Chart I-8US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn Worryingly, the recent spending on both recreation services and public transportation has stopped converging with the pre-pandemic trend. Admittedly, this might be a blip due to the delta wave of the pandemic, and spending could re-accelerate once this wave subsides. On the other hand, it would be prudent to assume that the delta wave was not the last wave of the pandemic and that further waves could arrive in 2022. Pulling all of this together, large parts of services spending will remain persistently below their pre-pandemic trend. Eventually, new and innovative types of services will plug this deficit, but this will take time. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that, at the end of 2022, US consumer spending on services will still be below its pre-pandemic trend by at least $200 billion, or 2.5 percent. Other major economies, like the UK and France, will suffer similar deficits. Goods Spending Will Crash Back To Earth Let’s now switch to the other side of the ledger, and assess to what extent the underspend in services can be countered by an overspend in goods. Spending on durables is already crashing back to earth. A surplus of $500 billion in March has collapsed to $140 billion now, and we fully expect it to fall back to zero. The reason is that durables, by their very definition, provide long-duration utility. Meaning that there are only so many cars, smartphones, and gadgets that any person can own. But what about the current $280 billion surplus on nondurables – can that be sustained? The biggest component of the nondurables surplus is a $85 billion, or 20 percent, overspend on clothes and shoes. Some of this overspend is justified by a wardrobe transition to the post-pandemic way of working and living. But clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurable, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that once the wardrobe transition is complete, we do not expect people to spend 20 percent more on clothes and shoes than they did before the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-9US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn A second major component of the nondurables surplus is a $75 billion, or 7 percent, overspend on food and beverages at home. To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspending on eating and drinking out. But given that this underspend on eating and drinking out has almost normalised, we expect the overspend on eating and drinking at home to fade (Chart I-10). Chart I-10US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn A third major component of the nondurables surplus is a $45 billion, or 16 percent, overspend on recreational items: games, toys, hobbies, and pets and pet products (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspend on recreation services involving crowds, which will last. Hence, we expect the nondurable surplus on recreational items also to last, to the benefit of the animal care sector and the interactive (electronic) entertainment sector. Chart I-11US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn Chart I-12Spending On Pets Is ##br##Booming Spending On Pets Is Booming Spending On Pets Is Booming Pulling all of this together, we expect the $140 billion surplus on durables to disappear fully, and the $280 billion surplus on nondurables to fade to well below $200 billion. Therefore, given that the deficit on services is likely to be above $200 billion, there is a high risk of a consumer demand deficit in 2022. Four Investment Conclusions The ultra-long end of the bond market is figuring out that without sustained above-trend demand, you cannot get sustained inflation. And to repeat, if demand is barely on trend after an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus, then what will happen when the stimulus ends? All of which leads to four investment conclusions: Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Gas Distribution Is Oversold Finally, one of the paradoxes of skyrocketing natural gas prices is that it has badly hurt the gas distributors which, for the most part, have not been able to pass on the higher prices in full to end users. The resulting margin squeeze has caused a sharp recent underperformance, which is now fragile on its 65-day/130-day composite fractal structure (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Gas Distribution Is Oversold Gas Distribution Is Oversold Gas Distribution Is Oversold Given this fractal fragility combined with the recent correction in natural gas prices, a recommended trade would be to overweight global gas distribution versus banks, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Bank of Canada: Rising inflation, high capacity utilization, and monetary policy constraints will force the Bank of Canada to taper further and move up the timing of its first rate hike to H1/2022. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global government bond portfolios. Also, upgrade Canadian real return bonds to neutral within the underweight allocation to better reflect the mixed signals from our suite of Canadian inflation breakeven indicators. Bank of England: Markets have aggressively shifted UK interest rate expectations, with a rate hike now expected before year-end. We expect that outcome to occur, but the vote will be close. Stay underweight UK Gilts in global bond portfolios. Maintain a curve steepening bias that would win if a hike is delayed to 2022 or, counterintuitively, even if the Bank of England does indeed hike in November or December - longer-term UK yields are still too low relative to the likely peak in Bank Rate. Feature Chart of the WeekAn Inflation Shock For Bond Yields An Inflation Shock For Bond Yields An Inflation Shock For Bond Yields Steadily climbing inflation expectations, fueled by rising energy prices and persistent supply-chain disruptions, remain a thorn in the side of global bond markets. 10-year US TIPS breakevens have climbed to a 15-year high of 2.7%, while breakevens on 10-year German inflation-linked bonds are at a 9-year high of 2%. Rising inflation expectations are keeping upward pressure on nominal bond yields in the major developed economies, as markets start to slowly reprice the pace and timing of future interest rate increases (Chart of the Week). Market expectations on interest rates, however, can adjust much more quickly when policymakers change their tune. We have already seen that recently in smaller countries like Norway and New Zealand. Rate hikes delivered by the Norges Bank and Reserve Bank of New Zealand over the past month - which were telegraphed well in advance by the central banks – were a negative shock that pushed up bond yields in those countries. The next central bank “liftoff” within the developed economies is expected to occur in the UK and Canada, according to pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves (Table 1). In this report, we consider the outlook for monetary policy and government bond yields in both countries, which represent two of our highest conviction underweight recommendations. Table 1Markets Are Pulling Forward Rate Hikes UK & Canada: Next Up For A Rate Hike? UK & Canada: Next Up For A Rate Hike? Canada: Watch For A Bond Bearish Policy Shift In Canada, given the economic backdrop and policy constraints, we believe the Bank of Canada (BoC) will have to deliver on the hawkish market-implied path for interest rates, which calls for an initial rate hike to occur in Q2/2022 – much sooner than the central bank’s current messaging on liftoff. Chart 2ACanadian Inflation Not Looking So "Transitory" Anymore Canadian Inflation Not Looking So 'Transitory' Anymore Canadian Inflation Not Looking So 'Transitory' Anymore First on the BoC’s mind is inflation. Canadian CPI inflation came in at 4.4% year-over-year in September, blowing through analyst expectations and hitting an 18-year high (Charts 2A and 2B). The CPI-trim, a measure of core inflation which strips out extreme price movements, hit 3.4% year-over-year, the highest reading since 1991. All eight major components of the CPI rose on a yearly basis. On an annualized monthly basis, the energy-driven Transportation aggregate declined and less volatile components like Shelter (+1.1%) and Clothing (+0.7%) led the pack in terms of their contribution to the overall figure.   Chart 2 The data show that inflationary pressures are clearly broadening out in the Great White North, no longer constrained to “transitory” sectors. The effect of this inflationary pressure is also starting to make its mark on consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment According to the BoC Survey of Consumer Expectations, the 1-year-ahead forecast of inflation reached a series high of 3.7% in Q3/2021 (Chart 3). While longer-term inflation expectations are more subdued, that doesn’t mean that inflation is not a worry for the Canadian consumer. With inflation expected to run much higher than expected wage growth (+2%) over the next year, consumers expect a decline in their real purchasing power. Correspondingly, consumer confidence is taking a hit—the Bloomberg/Nanos consumer sentiment index has fallen 7.3 points since the July peak. Canadian businesses are much more upbeat. The overall summary indicator from the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey for Q3/2021 climbed to the highest level in the 18-year history of the series (Chart 4). Firms reported continued expectations of strong demand, but with capacity constraints starting to weigh on sales - a quarter of firms surveyed reporting that a lack of capacity and skills will have a negative impact on sales over the next twelve months. In response, more companies are planning on increasing capital expenditure and hiring over the next year (Chart 4, middle panel). More than half of firms surveyed by the BoC indicated that investment spending will be higher over the next two years compared to typical pre-pandemic levels. Chart 4Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints However, hiring plans will likely face difficulty, given the large share of firms (64%), reporting more intense labor shortages (Chart 4, bottom panel). A net 50% of respondents now expect wage growth to accelerate over the coming year, driven by a need to attract and retain workers amid strong labor demand. With regards to inflation, the BoC Business Outlook Survey measures the share of respondents that expect inflation over the next two years to fall within four different ranges—below 1%, between 1% and 2%, between 2% and 3%, and above 3% (Chart 5). We can “back out” a point estimate of expected inflation for Canadian firms by assigning a specific level to each of these ranges – 0.5, 1.5%, 2.5%, and 3.5%, respectively – and using the shares of respondents to calculate a weighted average expected inflation rate for the next two years.1 Based on this estimate, Canadian business inflation expectations have bounced rapidly since the 2020 trough and are now at all-time highs. The BoC has already begun to respond to the normalization of the economy and rising inflationary pressures indicated by its business survey by tapering the pace of its bond buying program. The Bank is now targeting weekly bond purchases of C$2bn, down from C$5bn at the start of the program and with another reduction expected at this week’s policy meeting (Chart 6). The size of the balance sheet has also fallen in absolute terms, driven by the Bank drawing down its holdings of treasury bills to virtually zero while also ending pandemic emergency liquidity programs. Chart 5Putting A Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Putting a Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Putting a Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Chart 6The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC now owns a massive 36.5% of Canadian government bonds outstanding – a share acquired in a very short time for this pandemic-era stimulus program. Thus, tapering now is not only necessary from a forward guidance perspective, signaling an eventual shift to less accommodative monetary policy and rate hikes, but also to ensure liquidity in the Canadian sovereign bond market. The remaining BoC tapering will be fairly quick, setting up the more important shift to the timing of the first rate increase. The Canadian OIS curve is currently pricing in BoC liftoff in April 2022, ahead of the BoC’s current guidance of a likely rate hike in the second half of the year (Chart 7). Given the developments on the inflation front, we are inclined to side with the market’s assessment of an earlier hike. Chart 7 In the longer run, rates might even be able to rise further than discounted in swap curves. The real policy rate, calculated as the policy rate minus the BoC’s CPI-trim measure, is negative and a significant distance from the New York Fed’s Q2/2020 estimate of the natural real rate of interest (R-star) for Canada of 1.4%. Admittedly, those estimates have not been updated by the New York Fed for over a year, given the uncertainties over trend growth and output gap measurement created by the pandemic shock. The BoC’s own estimates for the neutral nominal policy interest rate - last updated in April 2021 and therefore inclusive of any structural impacts of the pandemic on potential growth - range from 1.75% to 2.75%.2 The OIS forward curve expects the BoC to only lift rates to 2% in the next hiking cycle, barely in the lower end of the BoC’s neutral range of estimates. After subtracting the mid-point of the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target, presumably a level of inflation consistent with a neutral policy rate, the BoC’s implied real policy rate range is -0.25% to +0.75%. The current level of the real policy rate is near the bottom of that range. Thus, real rates, and the real bond yields that track them over time, have room to rise if the BoC begins to hike rates at a faster pace, and to a higher level, than the market expects. We see this as a likely outcome given the extent of the Canadian inflation overshoot and the robust optimism evident in Canadian business sentiment, thus justifying our current negative view on Canadian government bonds. To think about this mix of rising inflation expectations and increased BoC hawkishness down the road, and its implication for the Canadian inflation-linked bond market, we turn to our Canadian comprehensive breakeven indicator (Chart 8). This indicator combines three measures, on an equal-weighted and standardized basis, to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Going forward, we will be using the Canadian Business Outlook Survey measure of inflation expectations, introduced in Chart 5, for this indicator. Chart 8Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Two out of three measures point towards Canadian breakevens having further upside. Firstly, they are cheap under our fair value model, where the rise in breakevens has lagged the yearly growth in oil prices. Secondly, breakevens are a long distance away from the survey-based business inflation expectations. However, both forces are more than counteracted with Canadian headline inflation nearly two standard deviations from the BoC’s target, which indicates that the central bank must step in to address high realized inflation. Given these diverging signals on the upside potential for breakevens, we see a neutral allocation to Canadian linkers as more appropriate for the time being Bottom Line: Rising inflation, high capacity utilization, and monetary policy constraints will force the Bank of Canada to taper further and move up the timing of its first rate hike to H1/2022. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global government bond portfolios. Also, upgrade Canadian real return bonds to neutral within the underweight allocation to better reflect the mixed signals from our suite of Canadian inflation breakeven indicators. Will The BoE Actually Hike By December? Chart 9UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness We downgraded our recommended stance on UK government bonds to underweight on August 11 and, since then, Gilts have severely underperformed their developed market peers (Chart 9).3 We had anticipated that the Bank of England (BoE) would be forced to shift their policy guidance in a less dovish direction because of rising UK inflation expectations. Yet we have been surprised by how quickly the BoE has shifted to an open discussion about the potential for imminent interest rate hikes. The BoE’s new chief economist, Huw Pill, commented in the Financial Times last week that UK inflation will likely hit, or even exceed, 5% by early next year, and that the November 4 Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) was “live” with regards to a potential rate hike.4 This followed BoE Governor Andrew Bailey’s comment that the Bank “will have to act” to contain rising inflation expectations. Mixed signals on economic momentum are not making the BoE’s decisions any easier. The preliminary October Markit PMIs ticked higher for both manufacturing and services, but remain below the peak seen last May. At the same time, UK consumer confidence has fallen since August, thanks in part to rapidly rising inflation that has reduced the perceived real buying power of UK consumers. High Inflation Might Last Longer Chart 10Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation The BoE’s last set of economic forecasts, published in August, called for headline inflation to temporarily climb to 4% by year-end, before gradually returning to the central bank’s 2% target level in 2022. Yet the BoE’s newfound nervousness over inflation is well-founded, for a number of reasons (Chart 10): The domestic economic recovery has led to a robust labor market, with job vacancies relative to unemployment fully recovering to pre-COVID levels. The 3-month moving average of wage growth remains elevated at 6.9%, although the BoE believes some of that increase could be due to compositional issues related to the pandemic. The BoE is projecting that the UK output gap is narrowing rapidly and would be fully closed in the second half of 2022. This suggests growing underlying inflation pressures were already in place before the latest boost to inflation from global supply-chain disruptions. UK energy costs are soaring, particularly for natural gas which remains the main source for UK electricity production. UK natural gas inventories are the lowest within Europe, yet the supply response from major providers has been slow to develop – most notably, Russia, which is seeking regulatory approval to begin shipping gas through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. While natural gas prices have stopped rising, for now, inadequate supplies during an expected cold UK winter could keep the upward pressure on UK inflation from energy. UK house price inflation remains well supported, even with the recent expiration of the stamp duty reductions initiated as a form of pandemic economic stimulus. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the ratio of UK home sales to inventories is still quite elevated (bottom panel). Given a still-favorable demand/supply balance, and low borrowing costs, UK house price inflation will likely not cool as much as the BoE would prefer to see. Stay Defensive On UK Rates Exposure The combination of rising UK inflation and increasingly hawkish BoE comments has resulted in a rapid upward repricing of UK interest rate expectations over the past few months (Chart 11). Markets now expect the BoE to raise Bank Rate to 1%, from the current 0.1%, by late 2022. More interesting is what is discounted after that. The OIS curve is pricing in no additional rate increases in 2023 and a rate cut in 2024. In other words, the market now believes that the BoE is about to embark on a policy mistake with rate hikes that will need to be quickly reversed. Chart 11Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error We think there is a risk of a more aggressive-than-expected BoE tightening cycle. The surge in UK inflation expectations is not trivial nor “transitory”. Looking at survey-based measures of expectations like the YouGov/Citigroup survey, or market-based measures like CPI swaps, inflation is expected to reach at least 4% both in the short-term and over the longer-run (Chart 12). If Bank Rate were to peak at a mere 1%, as indicated in the OIS curve, that would still leave UK real interest rates in deeply negative territory even if there was a pullback in inflation expectations. We expect the votes on whether to hike rates at either the November or December MPC meetings to be close. There will be a new Monetary Policy Report published for the November 4 meeting, which will include a new set of economic and inflation forecasts that will give the BoE a platform to signal, or deliver, a rate hike. In the end, we think that the senior leadership on the MPC has already revealed too much of its hawkish hand, and a rate hike will occur by year-end. Looking beyond liftoff into 2022, we still see markets pricing in too shallow a path for Bank Rate over the next couple of years, leaving us comfortable to maintain our underweight stance on UK Gilts. With regards to positioning along the Gilt yield curve, however, we see the potential for more curve steepening even if after the BoE begins to lift rates. The implied path for UK real interest rates, taken as the gap between the UK OIS forwards and CPI swap forwards, shows that markets expect the BoE to keep policy rates well below expected inflation for well into the next decade (Chart 13). At the same time, the wide current gap between the actual real policy rate (Bank Rate minus headline inflation) and the New York Fed’s most recent estimate of the UK neutral real rate (r-star) suggests that the Gilt curve is far too flat (bottom panel). Chart 12The BoE Cannot Ignore This The BoE Cannot Ignore This The BoE Cannot Ignore This Perversely, this creates a situation where the UK curve steepeners can be an attractive near-term hedge to an underweight stance on UK Gilts. Chart 13 If the BoE does not deliver on the strongly hinted rate hike in November or December, the Gilt curve can steepen as shorter-maturity Gilt yields fall but longer-dated yields remain boosted by high inflation expectations.However, if the BoE does hike and more tightening is signaled, longer-term yields will likely rise more than shorter-term yields as the market prices in a higher future trajectory for policy rates. Bottom Line: Stay underweight UK Gilts in global bond portfolios, but maintain a curve steepening bias that would win if a hike is delayed to 2022 or, counterintuitively, even if the Bank of England does indeed hike in November or December - longer-term UK yields are still too low relative to the likely peak in Bank Rate. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For this calculation, we exclude firms that did not provide a response to the BoC Business Outlook Survey. 2 The Bank of Canada’s Staff Analytical Note on neutral rate estimation can be found here: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/04/staff-analytical-note-2021-6/ 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy and European Investment Strategy Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4https://www.ft.com/content/bce7b1c5-0272-480f-8630-85c477e7d69 Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Inflation in the US and many other countries is likely to follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows over the remainder of the decade. Goods inflation will ease in 2022, while energy price pressures will abate. This suggests that we are currently near the top of those two steps. Any decline in inflation will be short-lived, however. Tight labor markets will bolster wages. Rent inflation is also poised to pick up, especially in the US. The Fed and other central banks will face political pressure to keep interest rates low in order to suppress debt-servicing costs. This could lead to overheating. While we are not as bullish on stocks as we were at the start of the year, the combination of low interest rates and above-trend growth over the next 12 months will support equities. Investors should favor cyclicals, value stocks, small caps, and non-US markets. The Stairway To Higher Inflation In past reports, we argued that global inflation had reached a secular bottom and would begin to reaccelerate (see here, here, and more recently here). While it is still too early to be certain, recent developments appear to have vindicated that view. The path to structurally higher inflation is likely to be a bumpy one. We have generally contended that the shift to a more inflationary regime would follow a “two steps up, one step down” pattern, characterized by a series of higher highs and higher lows for inflation. In thinking about the inflation process, it is useful to distinguish between transitory shocks and structural forces. Unfortunately, much of the recent discussion about inflation has been politically charged, with one camp arguing that high inflation is entirely transitory (mainly due to pandemic disruptions) and another camp arguing that it is entirely structural in nature (big budget deficits, QE, and “dollar debasement” are often cited). The idea that both transitory shocks and structural forces may be driving inflation seems to generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in peoples’ minds. Our view is that transitory shocks have pushed up inflation, but that structural forces (both policy and non-policy related) are playing an important role too. In other words, we think that we are near the top of those metaphorical two steps. The next step for inflation is likely down, even though the longer-term trend is to the upside. Team Transitory Is Right About One Thing During most recessions, cyclically-sensitive durable goods spending falls, while the service sector serves as a ballast for the economy. The pandemic flipped this pattern on its head (Chart 1). While durable goods spending did dip briefly, it came roaring back due to generous stimulus payments and stay-at-home restrictions which cut many households off from the services they normally purchase. In March of this year, US real consumer durable spending was 27% above its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2A and 2B). Chart 1Unlike During Most Recessions, Durable Goods Spending Spiked Due To Stimulus Checks And Stay-At-Home Restrictions Unlike During Most Recessions, Durable Goods Spending Spiked Due To Stimulus Checks And Stay-At-Home Restrictions Unlike During Most Recessions, Durable Goods Spending Spiked Due To Stimulus Checks And Stay-At-Home Restrictions Chart 2ADurable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (I) Durable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (I) Durable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (I) Chart 2BDurable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (II) Durable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (II) Durable Goods Spending Has Begun To Normalize, But Durable Goods Prices Keep Rising Due To Supply Bottlenecks (II)     Durable goods spending has retreated since then, however. As of August, it was only 8% above its trendline. Supply-chain bottlenecks have curbed durable goods spending over the past eight months. A tell-tale sign of a supply shock is when spending declines and prices nonetheless rise. Between January 2020 and March 2021, durable goods spending increased at an annualized rate of 29% while prices rose at an annualized pace of 2%. Since March 2021, durable goods spending has fallen at an annualized pace of 28%, but price inflation has accelerated to 15% (Chart 3). Chart 3 Even more than other categories of durable goods, vehicle production has been stymied by supply-chain disruptions. Motor vehicles and auto parts represent about 40% of the durable goods sold in the US and accounted for nearly two-thirds of the decline in real durable goods spending between March and August. The downward trend in vehicle sales continued in September, with unit sales declining by 7.2% on the month. In the US, vehicle sales are now back to where they were in 2011 when the unemployment rate was 9%. In the euro area, they are below their sovereign debt crisis lows (Chart 4). The chip shortage hampering vehicle production will abate in 2022. However, vehicle prices are likely to come down only slowly. Auto inventories in the US are only a third of what they were prior to the pandemic (Chart 5). Until dealers are able to rebuild inventories, they will have little incentive to cut prices. Chart 4The Chip Shortage Has Caused Auto Sales To Tumble The Chip Shortage Has Caused Auto Sales To Tumble The Chip Shortage Has Caused Auto Sales To Tumble Chart 5Dealer Inventories Have Collapsed Dealer Inventories Have Collapsed Dealer Inventories Have Collapsed   Energy Price Pressures Should Abate, But Probably Not As Fast As Investors Expect Investors believe the recent surge in energy prices will reverse. The futures curves for oil, natural gas, and coal are all in steep backwardation (Chart 6). We agree that energy price pressures are likely to abate in 2022. However, as we discussed last week, the odds are that prices do not fall as quickly as anticipated. This concern is especially acute in Europe, where La Niña could lead to another cold winter and uncertainty abounds over the status of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Looking beyond the next 12 months, the risk is that years of declining investment in the oil and gas sector lead to continued energy shortages during the remainder of the decade. In 2020, 12% of global energy production came from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and hydro. The IEA estimates that this share will rise to 20% in 2030. However, the IEA also reckons that the global economy will still need about 5% more oil and natural gas than it consumes now (Table 1). Given the reluctance of many countries to invest in nuclear power generation, the phase-out of carbon-based fuels may take longer than expected. Chart 6 Table 1Oil And Gas Consumption Will Not Peak Until The Next Decade The Inflation Outlook: Two Steps Up, One Step Down The Inflation Outlook: Two Steps Up, One Step Down   Near-Term Upside For Rents Despite increasing home prices in most economies, rent inflation decelerated in the first year of the pandemic (Chart 7). More recently, however, the rental market has begun to heat up. US rents rose by 0.5% in September, the fastest monthly growth since the 2006 housing boom (Chart 8). The Zillow rent index, which looks only at units turning over, has spiked (Chart 9). Chart 7Rent Inflation Is Bouncing Back After Falling During The Pandemic Rent Inflation Is Bouncing Back After Falling During The Pandemic Rent Inflation Is Bouncing Back After Falling During The Pandemic Chart 8More Upside To Rent Inflation More Upside To Rent Inflation More Upside To Rent Inflation   Strong job growth, the end of the nationwide eviction moratorium, and the loosening of regulations freezing rents in a number of US cities and states are all contributing to higher rent inflation. A shortage of homes is also putting upward pressure on home prices and rents. After having surged during the Great Recession, the homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to record low levels (Chart 10). Chart 9Newly Listed Apartments Are Being Marked Up Sharply Newly Listed Apartments Are Being Marked Up Sharply Newly Listed Apartments Are Being Marked Up Sharply Chart 10The Home Vacancy Rate Is Very Low The Home Vacancy Rate Is Very Low The Home Vacancy Rate Is Very Low In addition to encouraging more construction, higher home prices could indirectly boost inflation through the wealth effect. According to the Federal Reserve, homeowner equity increased by $4.1 trillion, or 21%, between 2019Q4 and 2021Q2. Empirical estimates of the wealth effect suggest that consumption rises between 5 and 8 cents for every additional dollar in housing wealth. For the US, this would translate into 0.9%-to-1.4% of GDP in incremental annual consumption since the start of the pandemic. Higher Nominal Income Growth Would Make Housing More Affordable Chart 11Many Developed Economies Feature Overheated Housing Markets Many Developed Economies Feature Overheated Housing Markets Many Developed Economies Feature Overheated Housing Markets The housing wealth effect would turn negative if home prices were to fall. While this is less of a risk in the US where housing is still reasonably affordable in many states, it is more of a risk in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden where home prices have reached stratospheric levels in relation to incomes and rents (Chart 11). Not only would a decline in nominal home prices curb construction and consumer spending, but it would also potentially undermine the financial system by reducing the value of the collateral backing mortgage loans. To support spending and preclude an outright fall in home prices, central banks would likely keep interest rates at fairly low levels. Low rates, in turn, would incentivize governments to maintain accommodative fiscal policies. The IMF expects the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit to be 2% of GDP larger in advanced economies in 2022-26 compared to 2014-19 (Chart 12). Chart 12 The combination of low interest rates and loose fiscal policies will help drive nominal income growth, thus allowing for improved home affordability without the need for a disruptive decline in home prices. As Japan’s experience demonstrates, a deflationary environment is toxic for the property market and the financial system. Labor Markets Getting Tighter There is little doubt that the US labor market is heating up. Even though there are 5 million fewer people employed now than at the start of the pandemic, the job vacancy rate is near record high levels and workers are displaying few misgivings about quitting their jobs (Chart 13). Part of the apparent tightness in the US labor market stems from pandemic-related factors. Although enhanced federal unemployment benefits have expired, households are still sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings (Chart 14). This cash cushion has allowed workers to be choosy in entertaining job offers. In addition, decreased immigration flows and a spate of early retirements have decreased labor supply. Chart 13 Chart 14 More recently, the introduction of vaccine mandates has caused some disruptions to the labor market. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Although many of them will reconsider, the anecdotal evidence suggests that some will not. In one glaring example, 4.6% of workers resigned from a rural hospital in upstate New York, causing the maternity ward to temporarily suspend operations. Prospects For A Wage-Price Spiral Chart 15Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly So far, much of the pick-up in wage growth has been confined to the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 15). Wage pressures are likely to become more broad-based over time as the unemployment rate continues to decline. A full-blown wage-price spiral would worry the Fed. However, such a spiral does not appear imminent. While respondents to the University of Michigan survey in October expected inflation to reach 4.8% over the next 12 months, they anticipated inflation of only 2.8% over a 5-to-10-year horizon (Chart 16). This is not much higher than their pre-pandemic expectations and is lower than the 3.0% figure reported for September. Chart 16Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels It is easy to dismiss households’ beliefs about future inflation as being largely irrelevant. However, these beliefs do influence spending decisions. For example, a record share of households say that this is a bad time to buy a car (Chart 17). The top reason given is that prices are too high. In other words, many households are deferring the purchase of a vehicle in the hopes of getting a better deal. Automobile demand would be a lot higher now if households thought that prices would keep rising, as this would incentivize them to buy a car before prices rose even more. Chart 17Households Think That This Is The Worst Time Ever To Buy A Car Households Think That This Is The Worst Time Ever To Buy A Car Households Think That This Is The Worst Time Ever To Buy A Car Chart 18Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s What should be acknowledged is that inflation expectations tend to be governed by complex social feedback loops, which makes the relationship between slack and inflation highly non-linear. The experience of the 1960s provides a pertinent example. The US unemployment rate reached NAIRU in 1962. However, it was not until 1966, when the unemployment rate was two percentage points below NAIRU, that inflation expectations became unhinged. Within the span of ten months, both wage growth and CPI inflation doubled, with the latter reaching 6% by the end of the decade (Chart 18). The lesson is clear: While long-term inflation expectations are well anchored today, there is no guarantee they will stay that way indefinitely. Is this a lesson that the Fed will heed? Like Larry Summers, we have our doubts, suggesting that the long-term risks to inflation are to the upside. Fighting The Last War Just as military generals are prone to fighting the last war, the same is true of economic policymakers. Central bankers have been staring down the barrel of the deflationary gun for over two decades. In the 1960s, policymakers prioritized high employment over low inflation. With memories of the Great Depression still fresh in their minds, they kept policy rates too low for too long. This time around, policymakers have an additional reason to drag their heels in raising rates: government debt is very high. Higher borrowing costs would force governments to shift spending from social programs to pay off bondholders. Needless to say, that would not be very popular with most voters. Reducing debt-to-GDP ratios via higher nominal income growth will prove to be more politically palatable than fiscal austerity. Investment Conclusions The path to high interest rates is lined with low interest rates. Structurally higher inflation will eventually lead to higher nominal interest rates, but not before an extended period of negative real rates. Chart 19Neither The Fed Nor The Markets Think The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is All That High Neither The Fed Nor The Markets Think The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is All That High Neither The Fed Nor The Markets Think The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is All That High Neither the Fed nor the markets think the neutral rate of interest is all that high (Chart 19). We think the neutral rate is higher than widely believed. However, this will not become apparent until the unemployment rate falls well below its full employment level. For now, the Fed’s leadership will want to avoid rocking the boat by turning more hawkish. While the US 10-year Treasury yield will trend higher over time, it will pause at around 1.8% in the first half of next year as the unwinding of pandemic-related bottlenecks leads to a “one step down” for inflation. The ECB and the Bank of Japan are even more reluctant to tighten monetary policy than the Fed. Some developed economy central banks like those of the UK, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand are more inclined to normalize monetary conditions. That said, they too will be constrained by the fear that going it alone in raising rates will put undue upward pressure on their currencies. While we are not as bullish on stocks as we were at the start of the year, the combination of low interest rates and above-trend growth over the next 12 months will support equities. As we discussed in our recent strategy outlook, investors should favor cyclicals, value stocks, small caps, and non-US markets. Bitcoin Trade Update After being up as much as 50%, our short Bitcoin trade got stopped out for a loss. We remain bearish on Bitcoin and have decided to reinstate the trade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Image Special Trade Recommendations Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores Image

Next week is the BCA Annual Conference, at which I will debate Professor Nouriel Roubini on ‘The Outlook For Cryptocurrencies’. I will make the passioned case for cryptos, and Nouriel will make the passioned case against. I do hope that many of you can join the debate, as well as the other insightful sessions at the conference. As such, there will be no report next week and we will be back on October 28. Highlights The anomaly of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The anomaly is that state intervention protected services prices from a massive (and continuing) negative demand shock. Absent the state intervention, there would not be the current ‘inflation crisis’. On a 6-12-month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Natural gas, plus industrial metals versus industrial metal equities. Feature Chart of the WeekServices Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Chart of the Week...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? The great writers, artists, and musicians tell us that the most profound messages often come from what is not said, not painted, and not played. What does not happen is sometimes more significant than what does happen. In this vein, we believe that the real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. The real story is that while goods and commodity prices have reacted exactly as would be expected to a positive demand shock, services prices have not reacted as would be expected to the mirror-image negative demand shock. The Anomaly Is Not Goods Prices, It Is Services Prices The following analysis quantifies the impact of the pandemic on different parts of the economy by examining the deviations of current spending and prices from their pre-pandemic trends. The analysis uses US data simply because of its timeliness and granularity, but the broad patterns and conclusions apply equally to most other developed economies. Looking at the overall economy, we know that, thus far, we have experienced neither a lasting negative demand shock from the pandemic, nor a lasting positive demand shock from the ensuing stimulus. We know this, because current spending is not far short of its pre-pandemic trend. The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. Yet when we drill down to the components of spending, we see a different story. The pandemic and its policy response unleashed a massive and unprecedented displacement of spending from services to goods (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods By March 2021, while US spending on services was still below its pre-pandemic trend by $700 billion, or 8 percent, the displacement of those dollars of spending had boosted spending on the smaller durable goods component by 26 percent. Suffice to say, a 26 percent excess demand for durable goods cannot be satisfied by a modern manufacturing sector that utilises just-in-time supply chains and negligible spare capacity! As surging demand met relatively fixed supply, the price of durable goods skyrocketed to the current 11 percent above its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational It follows that the inflation in durables prices is the perfectly rational outcome of a classic positive demand shock – meaning, surging demand in the face of limited supply. What is much less rational is that a massive negative demand shock for services has had almost no negative impact on services prices. This is the untold story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ which requires further explanation. Government Intervention Prevented A Collapse In Services Prices If the pandemic had unleashed a classic negative demand shock for services, then services prices would have collapsed. We know this because in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC), services prices fell below their pre-GFC trend exactly in line with the decline in services demand. But in the aftermath of the pandemic’s massive negative shock for services spending, services prices have remained on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart of the Week). The question is, how? The answer is that this was not a classic negative demand shock. The reason that service spending collapsed was that a large swathe of services – such as leisure and hospitality – became unavailable because of mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. In this case, there was no point in reducing prices to reattract demand from durable goods because nobody could buy these services anyway! In effect, while the goods sector remained subject to market forces, a large swathe of the service sector came under state intervention, and was no longer subject to market forces. Meanwhile, statisticians continued to record the seemingly unaffected price of eating out or going to the theatre, even though most restaurants and entertainment venues were shuttered, making their prices meaningless. Absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. Absent state intervention, these service providers would have had to reduce their prices to attract wary consumers amid a pandemic. This we know from Sweden, the one major economy that did not have any mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. While leisure and hospitality have remained largely open, Sweden’s services prices have declined markedly from their pre-pandemic trend – in sharp contrast to the unchanged trend in the US (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Hence, while inflation now stands at a sedate 2 percent in Sweden, it stands at a hot 5 percent in the US. If the US (and other country) governments had not intervened in the services sector, then the evidence from the GFC in 2008 and Sweden today strongly suggests that services prices would be below their pre-pandemic trend, offsetting goods prices that are above their pre-pandemic trend. The result would be that the overall price level would be on, or close to, its pre-pandemic trend. Just as overall spending is on its pre-pandemic trend. To repeat the key message of this analysis, the anomaly in most economies is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The price surge is the perfectly rational response to a positive demand shock. The anomaly is that services prices did not react negatively to a negative demand shock (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6), as they did post-GFC and post-pandemic in non-interventionist Sweden. Chart I-5The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices ##br##Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... Chart I-6...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall The untold story is that, absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. What Happens Next? The surging demand for durables is correcting. Since March, it is already down by 15 percent but requires a further 7 percent decline to reach its pre-pandemic trend, which we fully expect to happen. After all, there are only so many smartphones and used cars that you can own! Meanwhile, as manufacturers respond with a lag to recent high prices, expect a tsunami of durables supply to hit in 6-12 months just as demand has fallen off a cliff. The result will be a major threat to any durable good or commodity price that has not already corrected. As a salutary warning of what lies ahead, witness the recent 75 percent crash in lumber prices. The same principle applies to non-durables such as food and energy. Non-durables spending is likely to fall back to its pre-pandemic trend, and non-durables prices are likely to follow. Again, outside a short-lived surge in demand from, say, a very cold winter, there is only so much energy and food that you can consume. For services, there are two opposing forces. The inflationary force is that the recent inflation in goods will transmit into wages and therefore into services prices. Against this, the deflationary force is that structural changes, such as hybrid home/office working, mean that services spending will struggle to make the near 6 percent increase to reach its pre-pandemic trend. Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Pulling these effects together, we reiterate three investment recommendations on a 6-12 month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market (Chart I-7). Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Chart I-7As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme The surge in natural gas prices in both Europe and the US has reached a point of extreme fragility on its 130-day fractal structure. Hence, if the tight fundamentals show the slightest signs of abating, natural gas prices would be vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Elsewhere, we see an arbitrage opportunity between industrial metal prices, which are still close to highs, and industrial metal equities, which have plunged by 20 percent since May. The relationship between the underlying metal prices and the metals equities sector is now stretched versus its history, and on its composite 65/130-day fractal structure (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched Hence, the recommended trade is to go short the LMEX Index/ long nonferrous metals equities. One way to implement the long side of the pair is through the ETF PICK. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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  

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story October 2021 October 2021 Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021 Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021 The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021 Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021 Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021 Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021 Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021 Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. 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 Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Economy – We find the leading arguments for why households’ excess savings won’t be spent to be wanting: US households do not commonly demonstrate the detached foresight that Ricardian equivalence takes as given and the trauma-will-change-behavior thesis fails to account for the absence of widespread financial trauma. Markets – Public equities account for a record portion of household wealth, but their share gains are not a sign of a budding mania: Our analysis of the Fed’s Flow of Funds data argues that much of equities’ relative share gains have been driven by structural rather than cyclical factors. Strategy – It would be premature to shift to defensive asset allocation settings if monetary policy is going to remain accommodative for another three years: The rate hike progression envisioned by FOMC participants’ dot-plot projections suggests policy won’t become tight until late 2024 at the earliest. Feature The US Investment Strategy team has been at the more bullish end of the continuum within BCA, and among the broader strategist community, since the spring of 2020. Our view was premised on the idea that the fiscal and monetary policy responses to the pandemic were (and would continue to be) so large that they would overwhelm its adverse effects on the economy and markets. That view came to pass as Congress augmented the CARES Act’s fiscal largesse with two subsequent rounds of direct payments to households earning up to $100,000 per adult and a renewed federal supplement to unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. With the expiration of the UI benefit program at the beginning of the month and the Fed poised to end asset purchases by the middle of next year, clients have begun to ask if our underlying bullish premise still applies. We believe that it does, on the grounds that policy remains on an emergency footing even though the emergency has passed. The fiscal transfers may have ended, but their full effect has yet to be felt. They will support the economy on an ongoing basis as households direct their excess pandemic savings toward consumption. No one knows for sure how much of the excess savings will be spent or when, but the arguments citing Ricardian equivalence or consumer trauma as impediments to consumption are flawed. What If Today’s Income Is Taxed Tomorrow? British classical economist David Ricardo is best known to introductory economics students for comparative advantage, but he also posited that deficit spending may fail to boost aggregate demand because taxpayers, anticipating that they will be tapped in the future to repay state loans, may increase savings to cover future taxes. Despite its theoretical appeal, empirical data in support of Ricardian equivalence is elusive. Two centuries and an ocean removed from Ricardo’s England, we submit that Americans are not known for parsimony, studied caution or a tendency to see the glass as half-empty. Although American households began to rebuild savings after the global financial crisis, an additional dollar has tended to burn a hole in their pockets ever since the baby boomers began reaching adulthood (Chart 1). Chart 1The Searing Trauma Of The Depression Weighed On Consumption Decisions The Searing Trauma Of The Depression Weighed On Consumption Decisions The Searing Trauma Of The Depression Weighed On Consumption Decisions Even if Americans were wont to consider future tax burdens, it may be rational for the households who received the fiscal transfers to assume they will largely escape them unless their relative income surges. Per the most recent adjusted gross income (AGI) distribution data (for tax year 2018), 70% of taxpayers earn $75,000 or less (Chart 2). Single taxpayers meeting that threshold (and married taxpayers earning $150,000 or less) received the full amount of the economic impact payments authorized by the CARES Act and subsequent legislation. That bottom 70% paid just 5.1% of AGI in federal taxes (Chart 3), and the current political climate points in the direction of an increasingly progressive tax system, so they may not have to worry about being called upon to cover the expanding deficit down the road. Chart 2The Income Distribution Is Top Heavy ... Post-Traumatic Bliss Post-Traumatic Bliss Chart 3…But So Is The Tax Burden Post-Traumatic Bliss Post-Traumatic Bliss The (Not So Traumatic) Economic Trauma Of COVID-19 While we are confident that Ricardian equivalence will not act as an impediment to consumption, the ultimate disposition of households’ excess pandemic savings is unknown. Our working assumption has been that half of the savings will be spent across 2021 and 2022. Though we do not have any close antecedents for what households might do with a savings windfall equivalent to 10% of a year’s GDP amassed over a thirteen-month span, we reject the notion that those who experienced COVID-19 will behave like the many shell-shocked survivors of the Great Depression who became lifelong precautionary savers. However terrible the human cost of COVID, it did not ravage American households’ financial position; as the Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed, their balance sheets flourished, allowing the vast majority of them to escape any sense of financial trauma. Per the Flow of Funds, American household wealth grew by nearly $6 trillion in the second quarter, extending the last five quarters’ gains to $31 trillion since financial markets cratered when the pandemic burst forth in the first quarter of 2020. The 22% annualized five-quarter gain is nearly four standard deviations above the mean and blows away 4Q03 through 4Q04’s 14% second-place mark by two full standard deviations (Chart 4, top panel). The current run sets a record even when it’s stretched to six quarters to include 1Q20, the worst quarter in series history, and the five- and six-quarter gains are also pacesetters after adjusting for inflation (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Recessions Aren't So Bad When Congress And The Fed Throw Everything They Have At Them Recessions Aren't So Bad When Congress And The Fed Throw Everything They Have At Them Recessions Aren't So Bad When Congress And The Fed Throw Everything They Have At Them Changes in household net worth lead consumption growth with a two-quarter lag (Chart 5), though the four quarters before the most recent one (the red dots with negative consumption growth) were notable outliers. 2Q21 consumption was just a little more than a percentage point below the best-fit line, however, so it is closing in on its modeled value and we expect it will overshoot it in coming quarters upon the release of pent-up demand. We do not believe that the pandemic will dampen household spending simply because the broad mass of consumers did not experience financial trauma on a scale that would alter future behavior. As household wealth and income data have shown, this recession has been a boon for most Americans. Chart 5Consumption Overshoots Are On The Way Post-Traumatic Bliss Post-Traumatic Bliss Chart 6Fiscal Shock And Awe Post-Traumatic Bliss Post-Traumatic Bliss We additionally reject the notion that households have learned a lesson that will make them want to hold more savings. The financial lesson of the pandemic seems to be that policymakers will do their utmost to shelter them from calamity. Between the economic impact payments (Chart 6, top panel) and the UI benefit supplement (Chart 6, middle panel), Congress directly sent nearly $1.5 trillion to US households to offset $300 billion of lost wages (Chart 6, bottom panel). COVID-19 inflicted terrible distress on those who lost loved ones and witnessed or experienced near fatal suffering, but it boosted the lower three quartiles of households who received transfers and the top decile of households who reveled in the financial markets’ advance. Those who experienced it will not hoard their pennies and shun debt like many of the Depression’s survivors; they are more likely to have experienced post-traumatic bliss than stress when it comes to their financial outlook. Too Much Of A Good Thing? We periodically check in on the Flow of Funds for insight into the evolution of households’ asset allocations and the share of net worth accounted for by homes. Directly owned equities and mutual funds have taken share from the other major categories throughout the pandemic run (Chart 7) and now account for a record share of household financial assets after having surpassed their 2000 highs (Chart 8, top panel). It is sensible to approach any equity milestone that invokes the dot-com bubble with some trepidation, but structural factors go a long way toward explaining the new allocation peak. The financialization of the economy has steadily advanced since the Flow of Funds data began to be compiled in 1951, promoting public equity ownership, and consolidation has supported the transfer of commercial ownership from mom-and-pop operations to corporate interests, many of which are publicly traded. Overall equity in businesses as a share of household net worth is merely in line with its ‘50s levels (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7The Running Of The Bulls The Running Of The Bulls The Running Of The Bulls Chart 8From Mom And Pop To Broad And Wall From Mom And Pop To Broad And Wall From Mom And Pop To Broad And Wall Home price appreciation has picked up, but it is not out of the ordinary (Chart 9). Home equity gains have outstripped home price gains, relative to each series’ history, testifying to prudent behavior on the part of borrowers and lenders. The low aggregate mortgage loan-to-value ratio (Chart 10) suggests that slowing home price appreciation, or even an outright decline, would not be a source of economic instability. Chart 9Home Price Gains Are Not Out Of The Ordinary ... Home Price Gains Are Not Out Of The Ordinary ... Home Price Gains Are Not Out Of The Ordinary ... Chart 10... And Leverage Levels Are Not A Concern ... And Leverage Levels Are Not A Concern ... And Leverage Levels Are Not A Concern The Fed Signals That Tapering Is Near Though the FOMC did not adjust the pace of its asset purchases last week, it indicated that tapering will most likely begin after its November meeting. Chair Powell noted that the economy has made substantial further progress toward reaching the committee’s inflation goal and expressed that “many” members feel that it has made substantial progress toward achieving its full employment objective as well, going so far as to volunteer his personal view that the employment test has been “all but met.” Per the committee’s discussions, the purchases will likely end around the middle of next year if the economy progresses in line with its expectations. The committee would not be talking about reducing the accommodation it’s providing the economy if it weren’t secure in the sense that it is on solid footing. Powell expressed satisfaction with the evolution of inflation expectations (Chart 11) and although the real GDP forecast for this year was lowered in the summary of economic projections (the “dots”), next year’s forecast was raised and slightly higher inflation expectations imply that nominal GDP growth will remain quite robust. A shift in two members’ fed funds rate projections brought the median member’s liftoff date to 2022 from 2023, in line with our view. Chart 11The Fed Has Succeeded In Firming Up Inflation Expectations The Fed Has Succeeded In Firming Up Inflation Expectations The Fed Has Succeeded In Firming Up Inflation Expectations The chair reiterated that tapering – slowing the pace of accommodation – and hiking the fed funds rate – slowing the economy – are distinct actions subject to separate criteria. We see liftoff as a more significant action than tapering, but much will depend on the pace at which the committee lifts the fed funds rate. It is too soon to speculate on the pace, but we stress that the big move for financial markets will occur once the policy rate exceeds the neutral rate. If the latter is somewhere around 2%, the rate hike pace embedded in the dots suggests that it may take until the end of 2024 or early 2025 before monetary policy becomes restrictive. Investment Implications If monetary policy is not going to become tight for another three years, it is premature to shift a portfolio to more defensive settings, especially for anyone sharing our three-to-twelve-month cyclical timeframe. Growth will be robust in the near term, supported by the income boost that the lower three quartiles of taxpayers received from fiscal transfers and the way wealthier households cleaned up as financial asset prices soared. We expect that a hearty portion of the newly minted wealth will be spent, as Ricardian equivalence requires a longer attention span than Americans typically exhibit, and the pandemic was largely trauma-free for most households from a financial perspective. The clearest policy lesson that a citizen should have taken from COVID is that Congress and the Fed have his/her back in a big way. We are staying the course with our risk-friendly asset allocation recommendations.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Economy – The inflation question is unresolved, and it will remain that way for the rest of the year: August’s CPI report had something for everyone and ensured the debate will continue. Doves could celebrate the month-over-month decline while hawks could argue that upward inflation pressures are no longer a transitory phenomenon. Markets – Elevated valuations make equities vulnerable, but a little turmoil in China is not likely to trigger a de-rating wave: The demise of large Chinese property developer Evergrande may cause some upheaval in China but it is not likely to ruffle the S&P 500, corporate bonds or other US spread product. Strategy – Policymakers continue to hold the key. As long as the Fed is still easing, and households direct some of their excess savings to consumption, risk assets should outperform: We still think Goldilocks is far more likely that a too-cold or a too-hot outcome. Feature We continue to view the prospects for financial markets and the economy through a Goldilocks-and-the-two-tails lens, with the idea that equities and credit will thrive against a backdrop of supercharged growth and ongoing policy support (Figure 1). The Fed’s unusually pro-cyclical stance will prolong the macro sweet spot for risk assets and ensure positive excess returns provided growth doesn’t flop (the too-cold left tail), or the inflation genie doesn’t get out of the bottle (the too-hot right tail). Though both flanks pose a risk to our base-case Goldilocks scenario, we deem overheating to be the bigger concern. Unless a vaccine-resistant variant reestablishes COVID-19 as a mortal threat to the broad population, we think it is unlikely that growth will tumble below trend this year or next. Figure 1Goldilocks And The Two Tails Watching Both Flanks Watching Both Flanks One does not need to be a sworn devotee of rugged individualism to harbor some misgivings about the magnitude and scope of the direct transfers to American households or the broader fiscal effort to combat the economic effects of the pandemic. Egged on by support amounting to 25% of a year’s output, it remains entirely possible that aggregate demand might overwhelm productive capacity. The emergence of rolling bottlenecks in the spaces that were most crimped by COVID has focused attention on the threat of overheating, but the more lasting risk emanates from spaces that cannot be dismissed as unduly influenced by the pandemic. We have been closely monitoring the path of consumer prices and will continue to do so, but the ultimate outcome remains unclear. Though a Goldilocks macro backdrop remains our base-case expectation, it is far from assured. In this week’s report, we consider three potential disruptions: too much inflation, a change in the Fed’s policy course and a credit shock from China. We do not think that any of the potential disruptions is likely to change the picture in a material way and we therefore reiterate our view that investors with a twelve-month timeframe ought to maintain at least an equal weight exposure to equities and credit in a multi-asset portfolio. Fitting The August CPI Tile Into The Inflation Mosaic The pace of consumer price increases cooled in August, according to the headline and core CPIs. Both measures came in below market expectations, and the leading month-over-month series (Chart 1, dashed line) decelerated more than their year-over-year counterparts (Chart 1, solid line). Although the data were encouraging on their face, the ongoing inflation debate is nowhere near resolved. COVID continues to play havoc with the spaces it impacted most heavily, defying simple interpretations of aggregate CPI data. Base effects have warped year-over-year data once the peak pandemic months of last spring and summer entered the equation. As category-by-category analyses of the April CPI release showed, the lion’s share of the aggregate core CPI increase was powered by new and used cars and a handful of badly disrupted services like air travel, car rental, lodging and in-person entertainment. Chart 1Inflation Seems To Have Peaked Inflation Seems To Have Peaked Inflation Seems To Have Peaked Chart 2A Stunning Reversal On Used-Car Lots A Stunning Reversal On Used-Car Lots A Stunning Reversal On Used-Car Lots The semiconductor-driven production squeeze pushed up new car prices and took used car prices along for the ride as consumers turned to them as a ready substitute. Used car prices then rose even more as rental car companies frantically reversed 2020’s culling of their fleets to meet revived 2021 demand (Chart 2). By July, however, several of those categories had come off the boil and began to make more modest contributions to month-over-month core CPI growth. In August, they turned into headwinds, limiting core CPI’s sequential gain to just 0.1%. While the core index grew at its slowest rate since February, the segments that weren’t as heavily affected by the pandemic – the gray portion of the stacked bars in Chart 3 – experienced their largest price increases of the year. Those core categories less sensitive to transitory pandemic factors have eased a bit on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4, bottom panel) but the leading month-on-month measure suggests they will turn higher going forward. Chart 3Passing The Baton Watching Both Flanks Watching Both Flanks Shelter costs account for 41% of the core CPI basket and though spiking hotel rates (Chart 5, second panel) have made an outsized contribution to their bounce off the bottom (Chart 5, top panel), the much weightier owners’ equivalent rent and primary residence cost measures have begun to hook up (Chart 5, third panel). Series that impact the supply and demand balance for residences, like the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 5, fourth panel) and the National Multifamily Housing Council’s measures of apartment market activity (Chart 5, fifth panel), suggest that the key rent series will continue moving higher. Chart 4Transitory Factors Are Abating ... Transitory Factors Are Abating ... Transitory Factors Are Abating ... Chart 5... But Rents Are Rising ... But Rents Are Rising ... But Rents Are Rising The bottom line is that the August CPI report, like much of the economic data in this particularly uncertain time, offered evidence to support opposing interpretations. We will simply have to wait and see how the data evolve over the rest of the year to gain a good read on its future trajectory. We expect that inflation will continue to come down from its summer peak while remaining comfortably above the Fed’s effective 2.3-2.5% core CPI target. Such a move will underscore that its inflation criteria have been met and focus investor attention squarely on the labor market’s progress toward regaining full employment. Much Ado About Nothing The bond market has cottoned on to the fact that the labor market, not consumer price inflation, is the swing factor for monetary policy settings, and the 10-year Treasury note has essentially ignored the core CPI breakout (Chart 6). Equities have evinced little concern, reflecting the causal relationship we noted last week. High inflation by itself is not kryptonite for stocks; the restrictive monetary policy measures the Fed eventually imposes in response to high inflation are. Inflation’s market importance thus turns on the tipping point at which it heralds restrictive monetary policy. Chart 6Treasuries Are On Board With The Transitory View Treasuries Are On Board With The Transitory View Treasuries Are On Board With The Transitory View A Fed that believes elevated inflation readings are transitory is a Fed that will wait to restrain the economy to contain them. A Fed that is determined to let the economy run hot so as to nurture broad-based strength in the labor market is a Fed with a less sensitive inflation reaction function than has prevailed since Paul Volcker’s tenure. The same goes for a Fed that has made no secret of its desire to reset inflation expectations higher. Putting it all together, the Fed appears determined to wait until it sees the whites of inflation’s eyes before it takes action that will undermine economic growth. Our view that the Fed’s inflation reaction function has become less sensitive is independent of the identity of the chair. The revised statement on longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy was issued by the entire FOMC, and investors should not be distracted by the quadrennial reappointment parlor game, which has settled on a contest between chair Powell and board member Brainard. Although Brainard has won progressives’ admiration for her advocacy of tighter bank supervision, policy would not be materially different under her stewardship than it would be under Jay Powell’s. Monetary policy will be accommodative for a long time regardless of who is chairing the FOMC on February 1st and the Biden administration’s nomination decision will not have lasting market implications. Could A Messy Evergrande Unwind Trip Up The US Bull? The financial press last week was filled with stories about the dire condition of Evergrande Property Group (Chart 7), one of China’s largest property developers. As noted in several of last week’s reports, Evergrande is the world’s most indebted developer and its leverage burden is not news to dollar bond investors, who have increasingly required outsized yields to lend to the company.1 All three major credit rating agencies have downgraded it to the equivalent of CC, reflecting their view that default is imminent. Though a technical default may be certain, per reports that Evergrande will fail to make scheduled interest and principal payments due this week, the ultimate ripple effects are unknown. As our Emerging Markets Strategy team has noted, a broad range of outcomes are possible. At the most benign end of the continuum, the event could mark a crescendo of concerns that have been weighing on sentiment and activity, and trigger policy stimulus that produces economic and market inflections. At the other end, Evergrande could intensify the existing credit crunch, sparking a wave of self-reinforcing defaults and bankruptcies, culminating in a systemic event on the order of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. Absent government intervention, the defaults will be messy. Most of the company’s assets are in the form of unfinished properties that will require additional capital and know-how before they can be monetized. Even its portfolios of completed properties may not be easy to sell in a residential market that was already slowing (Chart 8). The pall its troubles have cast over the property market will make things worse by prodding other liquidity-constrained developers to slash prices to move their own inventories. Chart 7Boom And Bust Boom And Bust Boom And Bust Chart 8Not Exactly A Seller's Market Not Exactly A Seller's Market Not Exactly A Seller's Market Our China strategists believe that the government wants to make an example out of Evergrande to impose some discipline on investors and developers. Despite repeated warnings, it has remained on the wrong side of the three red lines policy makers recently established to rein in property market excesses. Some onshore investors may be bailed out, but party officials will have no qualms about leaving offshore investors holding the bag. As China goes, so too do small neighboring economies reliant on its appetite for imports. Resource economies like Brazil, Chile and Australia that export iron ore, copper and other base metals to feed the China construction and infrastructure juggernaut could slow. Suppliers of machinery and specialized manufactured components like Japan and Europe could also feel a bit of a chill. While the US is not immune to disruptions in the rest of the world, it is a comparatively closed economy that is generally less susceptible to external troubles and has minimal financial links with the Middle Kingdom. A review of the 2020 10-Ks for the SIFI banks and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confirmed that the American banking system has minimal direct exposures to China and Hong Kong. Only Citigroup, which operates a meaningful commercial banking franchise in Hong Kong, has direct cross-border exposures that amount to as much as 1% of assets (Table 1). Table 1SIFI Exposures To China And Hong Kong Watching Both Flanks Watching Both Flanks The bottom line is that we do not view Evergrande as China’s Lehman. Policymakers may want to make an example of it but not to the point that they will stand by in the face of a broad contagion. Even if it did produce a credit event that rippled across Asian EM markets and tempered investors’ enthusiasm for risk assets more generally, US markets would benefit in a relative sense befitting the dollar’s status as a defensive currency, Treasuries’ status as the predominant risk-free asset and the S&P 500’s low-beta nature. The fall of an overextended Chinese property developer is unlikely to push the US out of Goldilocks and into too-cold territory. Investment Implications Inflation will trigger a policy change once it stays high enough for long enough to trigger the Fed’s recalibrated reaction function. Markets will sniff out a policy change ahead of time and could even catalyze a policy change if the bond vigilantes awaken from their long hibernation. When we reiterate our constructive view on markets and the economy over a three-to-twelve-month timeframe, we are reiterating our assessment that markets will not begin to prepare for the policy change within the next twelve months and that growth will appear as if it will remain on an above-trend trajectory for some time beyond. We are confident that the next twelve months will remain “safe” from a policy and a growth perspective. We have much less conviction about the next six to twelve months following next September and are acutely aware that the outlook for the second half of 2022 and the first half of 2023 will exert a meaningful influence next summer. We will adjust our views based on the incoming data, but we do think the first three to six months of our cyclical timeframe will be conducive to risk asset outperformance and therefore reiterate our recommendation to overweight equities and credit while sharply underweighting Treasuries.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Per Evergrande’s annual reports, its average annual interest rate on outstanding debt on 12/31/20 was 9.49%, up from 8.99% on 12/31/19, 8.13% on 12/31/18 and 8.09% on 12/31/17.