Corporate

In this <i>Strategy Outlook</i>, we present the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.

Executive Summary An Optimal Control Policy An Optimal Control Policy An Optimal Control Policy We could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, but we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession. An optimal control approach to monetary policy tells us that the Fed should be willing to accept a significant increase in the unemployment rate to tame inflation. The implication is that the next recession may not be met with the dramatic easing of monetary policy we have become accustomed to. Short-maturity real yields remain deeply negative, but they will move into positive territory before the end of the economic cycle. Indicators of corporate balance sheet health are not flashing red, but they are moving in the wrong direction.   Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, maintain a defensive posture on corporate bonds and short 2-year TIPS.   The Return Of Optimal Control Bonds rallied into the close last week and, as of Monday morning, their gains have only been partially unwound. The 2-year Treasury yield is down to 3.07% from its recent high of 3.45% and the 10-year yield is down to 3.16% from its recent high of 3.49% (Chart 1). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope remains close to inversion at 9 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Increasingly, the message from the Treasury market is that the Fed is no longer playing catch-up to runaway inflation. Rather, the dominant market narrative is that the Fed may have to moderate its hiking pace to avoid an economic recession. With the unemployment rate at 3.6% and nonfarm payroll growth averaging +408k during the past three months, the US economy is clearly not in a recession today. That said, leading indicators are pointing to increased risk of a downturn within the next 12 months. For example, the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell sharply last week from 57.0 to 52.4 (Chart 2). The more widely tracked ISM Manufacturing PMI remains elevated at 56.1, but regional Fed surveys and trends in financial conditions suggest that the ISM could dip into contractionary territory during the next few months (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Treasury Yields Treasury Yields Treasury Yields Chart 2Recession Risk Is Rising Recession Risk Is Rising Recession Risk Is Rising This is obviously a tricky situation for the Fed as there is a risk that its two mandates of price stability and maximum employment could come into conflict. Not surprisingly, the Fed has a playbook for these sorts of situations, one that was described by Janet Yellen as “optimal control” in a 2012 speech.1 Under an optimal control approach to policymaking the Fed specifies a loss function that is based on deviations of inflation from its 2% target and of the unemployment rate from its estimated full employment level. Understanding that it will be impossible to perfectly achieve both of its objectives, the Fed attempts to set policy so that the output of the loss function is minimized. One example of a simple loss function was given by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard in a speech from 2014.2 That function is as follows: Distance From Goals = (π – π*)2 + (μ - μ*)2 Where: π = inflation π* = The Fed’s target inflation rate μ = the unemployment rate μ* = The Fed’s estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment Chart 3An Optimal Control Policy An Optimal Control Policy An Optimal Control Policy Let’s apply Bullard’s loss function to the present-day economic situation. The top panel of Chart 3 shows the square root of the function’s output. The Fed’s goal, of course, is to get that line as close to zero as possible. First, let’s see what happens if we input the median FOMC member’s forecast for core PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. That forecast has core PCE inflation falling to 4.3% by the end of this year and it has the unemployment rate edging up to 3.7%. Not surprisingly, this scenario leads to a modest improvement in Bullard’s loss function. Now let’s examine an alternative scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% by the end of the year but we set the loss function to remain at its current level. That outcome can be achieved even with the unemployment rate rising to 6.68%. This scenario is instructive. It tells us that, from an optimal control perspective, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an increase in the unemployment rate all the way up to 6.68% if it meant that inflation would fall back down to 4%. Why is this example important? It’s important because it gives us some perspective on what sort of labor market pain the Fed may be willing to tolerate to tame inflation. More specifically, there is a growing sense among some market participants that the US economy will soon fall into recession and that recessions are usually accompanied by Fed rate cuts. However, the magnitude of the increase in the unemployment rate that is shown in our alternative scenario would almost certainly be classified as a recession, but an optimal control perspective tells us that the Fed shouldn’t back away from tightening if that were to occur. The bottom line is that while we could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession within the next 6-12 months. Given where inflation is today, there are strong odds that the Fed would respond to a rising unemployment rate by simply tempering its pace of rate hikes or perhaps temporarily pausing. Optimal control tells us that we would need to see an extremely large employment shock for the Fed to consider reversing course and cutting rates. Investors should stick with ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration for the time being. A Quick Note On Real Yields   Chart 4Short 2-Year TIPS Short 2-Year TIPS Short 2-Year TIPS The 2-year real yield has risen to -0.70% from a 2021 low of -3.05%, but we have high conviction that it has further to run (Chart 4). At the press conference following the June FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Powell hinted that he viewed positive real yields across the entire Treasury curve as a reasonable intermediate-term goal. He then made similar claims when testifying before the Senate last week: It’s really only the very short end of the curve where our rates are still in negative territory from a real perspective. If you look further out, real rates are positive right across the curve and that’s really what you’re trying to achieve in a situation like this where we have 40 year highs in inflation.3 One way or another, we think it is highly likely that the Fed will achieve its goal of positive real yields across the entire curve. This could happen in a benign scenario where falling inflation expectations push short-maturity real yields higher. Or, it could happen in a more dramatic fashion where inflation expectations remain elevated but that only quickens the pace of Fed tightening. In that scenario, rising short-maturity nominal yields would drag real yields with them. Either way, investors should continue to hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Corporate Health Check-Up In prior reports we noted the extremely good condition of corporate balance sheets, while also suggesting that balance sheet health would deteriorate going forward.4  An updated read on the status of corporate balance sheets suggests that conditions are still favorable, but much less so than even a few months ago. We begin with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six financial ratios calculated from the US National Accounts data for the nonfinancial corporate sector. This indicator was deep in “improving health” territory at the end of 2021, but it moved close to neutral in 2022 Q1 (Chart 5). Ratings trends, meanwhile, send a similar message. Through the end of May, upgrades continued to dramatically outpace downgrades in the investment grade space (Chart 5, panel 2), but the rate of net upgrades slowed somewhat in high-yield (Chart 5, bottom panel). Digging deeper, we find that the main culprit behind the CHM’s recent jump is a large drop in the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Total Debt (Chart 6). This drop occurred because after-tax cash flows held roughly flat in Q1 but capital expenditures surged, causing free cash flow to dip (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 5Corporate Health Monitor Corporate Health Monitor Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Capex Surged In Q1 Capex Surged In Q1 Capex Surged In Q1 This trend is confirmed by another important indicator of corporate balance sheet health, the financing gap. The financing gap is the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings. A positive financing gap means that retained earnings are insufficient to cover capital expenditures and firms therefore have an incentive to tap debt markets. We see that the financing gap jumped sharply in Q1, from deeply negative into positive territory (Chart 7). Chart 7The Financing Gap Is Positive The Financing Gap Is Positive The Financing Gap Is Positive A positive financing gap on its own does not send a negative signal for corporate defaults. However, when a positive financing gap coincides with tightening lending standards, then an increase in the default rate becomes likely. For now, lending standards are close to unchanged (Chart 7, bottom panel), but there is a strong chance that continued Fed hiking will push them into ‘net tightening’ territory in the months ahead. Investment Implications Chart 8Attractive Value In HY Attractive Value In HY Attractive Value In HY Corporate balance sheet health isn’t quite flashing red, but it is certainly trending in the wrong direction. With continued Fed tightening likely to weigh on lending standards and interest coverage going forward, a defensive posture toward corporate bonds is warranted. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation (2 out of 5) to investment grade corporate bonds in US fixed income portfolios. We maintain a somewhat higher neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds for the time being. This is because high-yield valuation is quite attractive, and we see potential for some near-term spread tightening as inflation rolls over (Chart 8). That said, the sector’s long-term return prospects are not good, and we will consider turning more defensive should the average high-yield spread narrow to its 2017-19 average or should core inflation move closer to our 4% target.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/bullard/remarks/bullardowensborokychamberofcommerce17july2014final.pdf   3 https://www.c-span.org/video/?521106-1/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-testifies-inflation-economy 4 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary The recent pullback was all about a multiples contraction while strong earnings growth helped absorb the blow. With the multiple contraction phase complete, the S&P 500 performance is now all about earnings. Consensus still expects earnings to grow at 10% over the next 12 months, despite negative corporate guidance and a whole constellation of factors that present challenges to corporate profitability. We need to see downgrades or earnings will disappoint. Our brand-new model predicts that earnings growth will trend towards zero over the next three months. Earnings growth is a tug of war between rising input costs and corporate pricing power. There is a high likelihood of an earnings recession, even if an economic recession is unlikely over the next 12 months. Because growth is slowing not only in the US but also abroad. If an earnings recession does materialize, equities may have another leg down, perhaps another 5-8%. Earnings Growth Is A Tug Of War Between Rising Costs And Pricing Power Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Bottom Line: We forecast that earnings growth will undershoot consensus expectations and an earnings recession is likely.  Since the multiples contraction phase of the bear market is likely over, equities performance will be dictated by earnings growth.  In the short run, we expect equities to be range-bound, with rallies and pullbacks alternating.  In case of an earnings recession, equities may fall another 5-8%. Feature Related Report  US Equity StrategyMarginally Worse Ever since the Fed started hiking interest rates back in March, investors started worrying about the recession. The BCA house view is that a recession is unlikely over the next 12 months.  However, to us, of even greater concern is the likelihood of an earnings disappointment or even an outright earnings recession. We believe that earnings growth will slow dramatically. We wrote back in October 2021 report, “Marginally Worse”, that margins will contract at the beginning of the year – indeed, this prediction materialized during the Q1-2022 earnings season (Chart 1). Shrinking profit margins are likely to translate into flat to negative real earnings growth over the next 12 months. However, economic and earnings growth expectations remain elevated. As our readers may recall from the “Have We Hit Rock Bottom?” and “Fat and Flat” reports, we believe that for the markets to begin to heal, growth expectations need to come down and a negative outlook needs to get priced in. Chart 1Margins Are Contracting Margins Are Contracting Margins Are Contracting In this week’s report, we take a close look at the S&P 500 earnings growth expectations and provide our own estimate based on a simple regression model. We will also discuss implications for the US equity market. Sneak Preview: We estimate that earnings growth will trend towards zero over the next three to six months, consistent with current trends in US economic growth, inflation, corporate pricing power, monetary conditions, and the strength of the USD. Sell-off Driven By Multiples Contraction, Not Earnings Growth This year’s sell-off has been triggered by fears of an aggressive Fed, tighter monetary policy, and rising rates. However, decomposition of the total return demonstrates that the pullback was all about multiples contraction, while strong earnings growth helped absorb the blow (Chart 2). A pertinent question is what happens to the market when earnings growth softens? One may wonder whether the bad news has already been priced in, as multiples tend to front-run growth. A case in point is strong market performance in 2020 on the back of multiples expansion in anticipation of a post-pandemic rebound in earnings growth (Chart 3).  Chart 2Sell-off Was Driven By A Multiples Contraction Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Chart 3Multiples Lead Earnings Multiples Lead Earnings Multiples Lead Earnings With multiples down from 23x to 17x over the past two years, and the S&P 500 down by 19% from its January 2022 peak, arguably much of the upcoming earnings growth slowdown/contraction is priced in. Much but not all. The next chapter of the bear market will be driven by earnings growth. Earnings Growth Headwinds As we have pointed out on multiple occasions, it is confounding that, despite negative corporate guidance and a whole constellation of factors that present challenges to corporate profitability, earnings estimates for 2022 have been revised up (Chart 4) and stand at about 10% (Chart 5). However, at long last, upgrades are starting to moderate (Chart 6). We need to see downgrades. Chart 42022 Earnings Estimates Are Still Trending Up 2022 Earnings Estimates Are Still Trending Up 2022 Earnings Estimates Are Still Trending Up Chart 5Earnings Are Expected To Grow At 10% Earnings Are Expected To Grow At 10% Earnings Are Expected To Grow At 10% Chart 6Analysts Are No Longer Upgrading Analysts Are No Longer Upgrading Analysts Are No Longer Upgrading Chart 7Slowing Global Growth Has An Adverse Effect On The US Earnings Growth Slowing Global Growth Has An Adverse Effect On The US Earnings Growth Slowing Global Growth Has An Adverse Effect On The US Earnings Growth Since the beginning of 2022, there have been quite a few developments that will weigh on earnings growth: Slowing growth in the US and globally means sales growth is decelerating. This week, the World Bank downgraded global GDP growth from 4.1% to 2.9%. Global manufacturing PMI is also trending towards 50 (Chart 7). Consumer demand is weakening: Negative real wage growth saps consumers’ confidence and cuts into their purchasing power. Moreover, demand for goods is returning to the pre-pandemic trend, and retail sales, especially in real terms, are flagging (Chart 8). Demand for services remains strong, but the S&P 500 index is dominated by goods producers. Corporate pricing power is still strong but is showing signs of waning as many US consumers, distraught by the negative wage growth, are strapped for cash (Chart 9). Chart 8Retail Sales Are Contracting In Real Terms Retail Sales Are Contracting In Real Terms Retail Sales Are Contracting In Real Terms Chart 9Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Prices of raw materials have soared and supply disruptions are exacerbated by lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine. Companies’ COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) bills are skyrocketing. Nominal wage growth is 6% and is on the rise, affecting companies’ bottom lines. The dollar is strong: it has gained 15% since January 2021. This makes US goods more expensive and reduces companies’ earnings via the currency translation effect. These are the reasons why it is increasingly hard for companies to preserve margins and grow earnings – a commentary that we have heard repeatedly during earnings calls. According to Refinitiv, for Q2-2022, there have been 73 negative EPS preannouncements issued by S&P 500 corporations, compared to 42 positive EPS preannouncements (N/P=73/42=1.7). A year ago, in Q2-2021, the N/P ratio was 0.8, with more companies offering positive guidance. All of this points to weakening profitability. Refinitiv also estimates the earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 for Q2-2022 at 5.3%. If the energy sector is excluded, the growth rate declines to -1.9%. We believe growth will come to a halt or contract into the end of the year. We expect slower top-line growth and shrinking profit margins to translate into flat to negative real earnings growth over the next 12 months. Earnings Recessions Often Happen When The Economy Is Still Growing One may wonder if an earnings recession is even possible without an economic recession. In fact, that happened quite a lot in the past. Out of 27 earnings recessions since 1927, 11 did not coincide with economic recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Earnings Recessions And Economic Recession Often Don't Coincide Earnings Recessions And Economic Recession Often Don't Coincide Earnings Recessions And Economic Recession Often Don't Coincide The S&P 500 does not mirror the US economy, with the former dominated by larger companies, many of which are multinationals and more exposed to global demand and the USD than the broad economy. Also, services and consumer spending constitute roughly 70% of the US economy, while the index overrepresents manufacturing, technology, and goods-producing companies. With the S&P 500 being global in nature, quite a few earnings recessions were triggered by events abroad: The 2016 earnings recession was caused by the devaluation of the Chinese yuan; in 2012, one was triggered by a post-GFC double-dip recession in Europe; and the 1998 one was triggered by an Asian financial crisis. It is also often the case that a profit recession is a harbinger of economic recession. Both the 2000 dot-com crash and GFC economic recessions were preceded by earnings recessions, one starting in December 2000, and the other in August 2007. The 2019 earnings recession was brief and came hand in hand with widespread fears of the end of the business cycle. Hence, we believe that a confluence of factors both at home and abroad, as discussed above, makes an earning recession a high probability event. There is a high likelihood of an earnings recession, even if an economic recession is unlikely over the next 12 months, because of slowing growth not only in the US but also abroad. Modeling Earnings Growth Since we are distrustful of the consensus of 10% expected eps growth, we have built our own simple earnings growth forecast model to gauge what earnings growth rate we may expect over the next quarter. The model has five factors, each of which has fundamental relevance to earnings growth (Table 1): Table 1EPS Growth Forecast Model Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? ISM PMI is a gauge of US economic growth and a proxy for top-line growth. PPI stands for the change in input costs. Pricing Power is a BCA proprietary indicator and captures companies’ ability to pass costs onto their customers. HY Spreads indicate costs of borrowing and also the state of the economy (spreads tend to shoot up in a slowing economy). USD represents the ability of US multinationals to sell goods abroad. Roughly 35% of S&P 500 sales are outside the US. Each factor is calculated on a year-on-year percentage change basis, with a three-month lag to allow the effects of macroeconomic developments to get priced in. Adjusted R2 is 65%, which is a strong fit. All factors are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model forecasts that earnings growth will come down from 6% MoM as of April 2021 to 1.3% as of August 2022 (Chart 11). While this does not map directly to the “next 12 months” of eps growth, it does indicate that earnings growth is trending towards zero in nominal terms and will be outright negative in real terms. Further, while we are unable to predict earnings growth more than three months ahead, we do expect that it will reach zero and then shift into contraction territory into the balance of the year. Chart 11Model Predicts That Earnings Growth Will Be Flat Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards?   Looking closer at the key drivers of growth (Chart 12), we observe that there is a tug of war between pricing power and rising costs (PPI), with earnings growth falling as pricing power starts to give away ground. The other factors that have an adverse effect on earnings growth are slowing growth (ISM PMI), an appreciating dollar, and rising borrowing costs (HY spreads). Chart 12Earnings Growth Is A Tug Of War Between Rising Costs And Pricing Power Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? The model indicates that earnings growth is trending towards zero over the next three months. Price Target What does all of this mean for US equities?  If the multiple contraction phase is complete, the S&P 500 performance is now all about earnings.  If we expect earnings to grow only 0-3% in nominal terms, with the forward earnings multiple unchanged at roughly 18x, then the S&P 500 is likely to come down another couple of percentage points. If earnings contract 5%, the index may be down as much as 8%. If multiples contract another point to 17x and earnings contract by 5%, the market may be down as much as 15% (Table 2). Table 2The S&P 500 Target Scenario Analysis Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? For now, we are sticking with our “fat and flat” thesis expecting the S&P 500 performance to continue to trend down as rallies and pullbacks alternate. Earnings growth slowdown/shallow contraction is likely to result in another leg down of roughly 5-8%. Investment Implications Street forward earnings growth expectations are too high at 10% and need to be downgraded. There are multiple reasons why earnings growth will be underwhelming, ranging from slowing growth abroad to weaker demand for goods and rising wages at home. We anticipate that earnings growth will be flat to negative into the balance of the year. The multiple contraction phase of the bear market is over, and now equities performance will be dictated by earnings growth. If an earnings recession does materialize, equities may have another leg down, perhaps another 5-8%. Bottom Line We forecast that earnings growth will undershoot consensus expectations and that an earnings recession is likely. Since the multiple contraction phase of the bear market is likely over, equity performance will be dictated by earnings growth. In the short run, we expect equities to trend down, with rallies and pullbacks alternating. In the case of an earnings recession, equities may fall another 5-8%.     Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation Recommended Allocation: Addendum Is Earnings Recession In The Cards? Is Earnings Recession In The Cards?

Executive Summary Autocracy Hurts Productivity Autocracy Hurts Productivity Autocracy Hurts Productivity Over the next six-to-18 months, the Xi Jinping administration will “let 100 flowers bloom” – i.e., relax a range of government policies to secure China’s economic recovery from the pandemic. The first signs of this policy are already apparent via monetary and fiscal easing and looser regulation of Big Tech. However, investors should treat any risk-on rally in Chinese stocks with skepticism over the long run. Political risk and policy uncertainty will remain high until after Xi consolidates power this fall. Xi is highly likely to remain in office but uncertainty over other personnel – and future national policy – will be substantial. Next year China’s policy trajectory will become clearer. But global investors should avoid mistaking temporary improvements for a change of Xi’s strategy or China’s grand strategy. Beijing is driven by instability and insecurity to challenge the US-led world order. The result will be continued economic divorce and potentially military conflicts in the coming decade. Russia’s reversion to autocracy led to falling productivity and poor equity returns. China is also reverting to autocratic government as a solution to its domestic challenges. Western investors should limit long-term exposure to China and prefer markets that benefit from China’s recovery, such as in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Image Bottom Line: The geopolitical risk premium in Chinese equities will stay high in 2022, fall in 2023, but then rise again as global investors learn that China in the Xi Jinping era is fundamentally unstable and insecure. Feature Chart 1Market Cheers China's Hints At Policy Easing Market Cheers China's Hints At Policy Easing Market Cheers China's Hints At Policy Easing In 1957, after nearly a decade at the helm of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong initiated the “Hundred Flowers Campaign.” The campaign allowed a degree of political freedom to try to encourage new ideas and debate among China’s intellectuals. The country’s innovative forces had suffered from decades of foreign invasion, civil war, and repression. Within three years, Mao reversed course, reimposed ideological discipline, and punished those who had criticized the party.  It turned out that the new communist regime could not maintain political control while allowing liberalization in the social and economic spheres.1 This episode is useful to bear in mind in 2022 as General Secretary Xi Jinping restores autocratic government in China. In the coming year, Xi will ease a range of policies to promote economic growth and innovation. Already his administration is relaxing some regulatory pressure on Big Tech. Global financial markets are cheering this apparent policy improvement (Chart 1). In effect, Xi is preparing to let 100 flowers bloom. However, China’s economic trajectory remains gloomy over the long run – not least because the US and China lack a strategic basis for re-engagement. Chinese Leaders Fear Foreign Encroachments Mao’s predicament was not only one of ideology and historical circumstance. It was also one of China’s geopolitics. Chinese governments have always struggled to establish domestic control, extend that control over far-flung buffer territories, and impose limits on foreign encroachments. Mao reversed his brief attempt at liberalization because he could not feel secure in his person or his regime. In 1959, the Chinese economy remained backward. The state faced challenges in administration and in buffer spaces like Tibet and Taiwan. The American military loomed large, despite the stalemate and ceasefire on the Korean peninsula in 1952. Russia was turning against Stalinism, while Hungary was revolting against the Soviet Union. Mao feared that the free exchange of ideas would do more to undermine national unity than it would to promote industrialization and technological progress. The 100 flowers that bloomed – intellectuals criticizing government policy – revealed themselves to be insufficiently loyal. They could be culled, strengthening the regime. However, what followed was a failed economic program and nationwide famine. Fast forward to today, when circumstances have changed but the Chinese state faces the same geopolitical insecurities. Xi Jinping, like all Chinese rulers, is struggling to maintain domestic stability and territorial integrity while regulating foreign influence. Although the People’s Republic is not as vulnerable as it was in Mao’s time, it is increasingly vulnerable – namely, to a historic downshift in potential economic growth and a rise in international tensions (Chart 2). The Xi administration has repeatedly shown that it views the US alliance system, US-led global monetary and financial system, and western liberal ideology as threats that need to be counteracted. Chart 2China: Less Stable, Less Secure China: Less Stable, Less Secure China: Less Stable, Less Secure In addition, Russia’s difficulties invading Ukraine suggest that China faces an enormous challenge in attempting to carve out its own sphere of influence without shattering its economic stability. Hence Beijing needs to slow the pace of confrontation with the West while pursuing the same strategic aims. Xi Stays, But Policy Uncertainty Still High In 2022  2022 is a critical political juncture for China. Xi was supposed to step down and hand the baton to a successor chosen by his predecessor Hu Jintao. Instead he has spent the past decade arranging to remain in power until at least 2032. He took a big stride toward this goal at the nineteenth national party congress in 2017, when he assumed the title of “core leader” of the Communist Party and removed term limits from its constitution. This year’s Omicron outbreak and abrupt economic slowdown have raised speculation about whether Xi’s position is secure. Some of this speculation is wild – but China is far less stable than it appears. Structurally, inequality is high, social mobility is low, and growth is slowing, forcing the new middle class to compromise its aspirations. Cyclically, unemployment is rising and the Misery Index is higher than it appears if one focuses on youth employment and fuel inflation (Chart 3). The risk of sociopolitical upheaval is underrated among global investors. Chart 3AStructurally China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Chart 3BCyclically China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Cyclically China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Cyclically China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Yet even assuming that social unrest and political dissent flare up, Xi is highly likely to clinch another five-to-ten years in power. Consider the following points: The top leaders control personnel decisions. The national party congress is often called an “election,” but that is a misnomer. The Communist Party’s top posts will be ratified, not elected. The Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee select the members of the Central Committee; the national party congress convenes to ratify these new members. The Central Committee then ratifies the line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee, which is orchestrated by Xi along with the existing Politburo Standing Committee (Diagram 1). Xi is the most important figure in deciding the new leadership. Diagram 1Mechanics Of The Chinese Communist Party’s National Congress Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. There is no history of surprise votes. The party congress ratifies approximately 90% of the candidates put forward. Outcomes closely conform to predictions of external analysts, meaning that the leadership selection is not a spontaneous, grassroots process but rather a mechanical, elite-driven process with minimal influence from low-level party members, not to mention the population at large.2  The party and state control the levers of power: The Communist Party has control over the military, state bureaucracy, and “commanding heights” of the economy. This includes domestic security forces, energy, communications, transportation, and the financial system. Whoever controls the Communist Party and central government exerts heavy influence over provincial governments and non-government institutions. The state bureaucracy is not in a position to oppose the party leadership. Xi has conducted a decade-long political purge (“anti-corruption campaign”). Upon coming to power in 2012, Xi initiated a neo-Maoist campaign to re-centralize power in his own person, in the Communist Party, and in the central government. He has purged foreign influence along with rivals in the party, state, military, business, civil society, and Big Tech. He personally controls the military, the police, the paramilitary forces, the intelligence and security agencies, and the top Communist Party organs. There may be opposition but it is not organized or capable. Chart 4China: Big Tech Gets Relief ... For Now China: Big Tech Gets Relief ... For Now China: Big Tech Gets Relief ... For Now There are no serious alternatives to Xi’s leadership. Xi is widely recognized within China as the “core” of the fifth generation of Chinese leaders. The other leaders and their factions have been repressed. Xi imprisoned his top rivals, Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, a decade ago. He has since neutralized their followers and the factions of previous leaders Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Premier Li Keqiang has never exercised any influence and will retire at the end of this year. None of the ousted figures have reemerged to challenge Xi, but potential rivals have been imprisoned or disciplined, as have prominent figures that pose no direct political threat, such as tech entrepreneur Jack Ma (Chart 4).  Additional high-level sackings are likely before the party congress. China’s reversion to autocracy grew from Communist Party elites, not Xi alone. China’s slowing potential GDP growth and changing economic model raise an existential threat to the Communist Party over the long run. The party recognized its potential loss of legitimacy back in 2012, the year Xi was slated to take the helm. The solution was to concentrate power in the center, promoting Maoist nostalgia and strongman rule. In essence, the party needed a new Mao; Xi was all too willing to play the part. Hence Xi’s current position does not rest on his personal maneuvers alone. The party has invested heavily in Xi and will continue to do so. Characteristics of the political elite underpin the autocratic shift. Statistics on the evolving character traits of Politburo members show the trend toward leaders that are more rural, more bureaucratic, and more ideologically orthodox, i.e. more nationalist and communist (Chart 5). This trend underpins the party’s behavior and Xi’s personal rule. Chart 5China: From Technocracy To Autocracy Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Chart 6China: De-Industrialization Undermines Stability China: De-Industrialization Undermines Stability China: De-Industrialization Undermines Stability Xi has guarded his left flank. By cornering the hard left of the political spectrum Xi has positioned himself as the champion of poor people, workers, farmers, soldiers, and common folk. This is the political base of the Communist Party, as opposed to the rich coastal elites and westernizing capitalists, who stand to suffer from Xi’s policies. Ultimately de-industrialization – e.g. the sharp decline in manufacturing and construction sectors (Chart 6) – poses a major challenge to this narrative. But social unrest will be repressed and will not overturn Xi or the regime anytime soon. Xi still retains political capital. After centuries of instability, Chinese households are averse to upheaval, civil war, and chaos. They support the current regime because it has stabilized China and made it prosperous. Of course, relative to the Hu Jintao era, Xi’s policies have produced slower growth and productivity and a tarnished international image (Chart 7). But they have not yet led to massive instability that would alienate the people in general. If Chinese citizens look abroad, they see that Xi has already outlasted US Presidents Obama and Trump, is likely to outlast Biden, and that US politics are in turmoil. The same goes for Europe, Japan, and Russia – Xi’s leadership does not suffer by comparison.  Chart 7China’s Declining International Image Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. External actors are neither willing nor able to topple Xi. Any outside attempt to interfere with China’s leadership or political system would be unwarranted and would provoke an aggressive response. The US is internally divided and has not developed a consistent China policy. This year the Biden administration has its hands full with midterm elections, Russia, and Iran, where it must also accept the current leadership as a fact of life. It has no ability to prevent Xi’s power consolidation, though it will impose punitive economic measures. Japan and other US allies have an interest in undermining Xi’s administration, but they follow the US’s lead in foreign policy. They also lack influence over the political rotation within the Communist Party. The Europeans will keep their distance but will not try to antagonize China given their more pressing conflict with Russia. Russia needs China more than ever and will lend material support in the form of cheaper and more secure natural resources. North Korean and Iranian nuclear provocations will help Xi stay under the radar.  There is no reason to expect a new leader to take over in China. The Xi administration’s strategy, revealed over the past ten years, will remain intact for another five-to-ten years at least. The real question at the party congress is whether Xi will be forced to name a successor or compromise with the opposing faction on the personnel of the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. But even that remains to be seen – and either way he will remain the paramount leader. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has the political capability to cement another five-to-ten years in power. Opposing factions have been weakened over the past decade by Xi’s domestic political purge and clash with the United States. China is ripe for social unrest and political dissent but these will be repressed as China goes further down the path of autocracy. Foreign powers have little influence over the process. Policy Uncertainty Falls In 2023 … Only To Rise Again What will Xi Jinping do once he consolidates power? Xi’s administration has weighed heavily on China’s economy, foreign relations, and financial markets. The situation has worsened dramatically this year as the economy struggles with “A Trifecta Of Economic Woes” – namely a rampant pandemic, waning demand for exports, and a faltering housing market (Chart 8). In response the administration is now easing a range of policies to stabilize expectations and try to meet the 5.5% annual growth target. The money impulse, and potentially the credit impulse, is turning less negative, heralding an eventual upturn in industrial activity and import volumes in 2023. These measures will give a boost to Chinese and global growth, although stimulus measures are losing effectiveness over time (Chart 9).  Chart 8China's Trifecta Of Economic Woes China's Trifecta Of Economic Woes China's Trifecta Of Economic Woes Chart 9More Stimulus, But Less Effectiveness More Stimulus, But Less Effectiveness More Stimulus, But Less Effectiveness This pro-growth policy pivot will continue through the year and into next year. After all, if Xi is going to stay in power, he does not want to bequeath himself a financial crisis or recession at the start of his third term. Still, investors should treat any rally in Chinese equity markets with skepticism. First, political risk and uncertainty will remain elevated until Xi completes his power grab, as China is highly susceptible to surprises and negative political incidents this year (Chart 10). For example, if social unrest emerges and is repressed, then the West will impose sanctions. If China increases its support of Russia, Iran, or North Korea, then the US will impose sanctions.     Chart 10China: Policy Uncertainty And Geopolitical Risk To Stay High In 2022, Might Improve In 2023 China: Policy Uncertainty And Geopolitical Risk To Stay High In 2022, Might Improve In 2023 China: Policy Uncertainty And Geopolitical Risk To Stay High In 2022, Might Improve In 2023 Chart 11China Needs To Court Europe China Needs To Court Europe China Needs To Court Europe The regime will be extremely vigilant and overreact to any threats this year, real or perceived. Political objectives will remain paramount, above the economy and financial markets, and that means new economic policy initiatives will not be reliable. Investors cannot be confident about the country’s policy direction until the leadership rotation is complete and new policy guidance is revealed, particularly in December 2022 and March 2023. Second, after consolidating power, investors should interpret Xi’s policy shift as “letting 100 flowers bloom,” i.e., a temporary relaxation that aims to reboot the economy but does not change the country’s long-term policy trajectory. Economic reopening is inevitable after the pandemic response is downgraded – which is a political determination. Xi will also be forced to reduce foreign tensions for the sake of the economy, particularly by courting Europe, which is three times larger than Russia as a market (Chart 11). However, China’s declining labor force and high debt levels prevent its periodic credit stimulus from generating as much economic output as in the past. And the administration will not ultimately pursue liberal structural reforms and a more open economy. That is the path toward foreign encroachment – and regime insecurity. The US’s sanctions on Russia have shown the consequences of deep dependency on the West. China will continue diversifying away from the US. And, as we will see, the US cannot provide credible promises that it will reduce tensions. US-China: Re-Engagement Will Fail The Biden administration is focused on fighting inflation ahead of the midterm elections. But its confrontation with Russia – and likely failure to freeze Iran’s nuclear program – increases rather than decreases oil supply constraints. Hence some administration officials and outside observers argue that the administration should pursue a strategic re-engagement with China.3  Theoretically a US-China détente would buy both countries time to deal with their domestic politics by providing some international stability. Improved US-China relations could also isolate Russia and hasten a resolution to the war in Ukraine, potentially reducing commodity price pressures. In essence, a US-China détente would reprise President Richard Nixon’s outreach to China in 1972, benefiting both countries at the expense of Russia.4  This kind of Kissinger 2.0 maneuver could happen but there are good reasons to think it will not, or if it does that it will fall apart in one or two years. In 1972, China had nowhere near the capacity to deny the US access to the Asia Pacific region, expel US influence from neighboring countries, reconquer Taiwan, or project power elsewhere. Today, China is increasingly gaining these abilities. In fact it is the only power in the world capable of rivaling the US in both economic and military terms over the long run (Chart 12). Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently outlined the Biden administration’s China policy and declared that China poses “the most serious long-term challenge” to the US despite Russian aggression.5  Chart 12US-China Competition Sows Distrust, Drives Economic Divorce Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. While another decade of US engagement with China would benefit the US economy, it would be far more beneficial to China. Crucially, it would be beneficial in a strategic sense, not just an economic one. It could provide just the room for maneuver that China needs – at this critical juncture in its development – to achieve technological and productivity breakthroughs and escape the middle-income trap. Another ten-year reprieve from direct American competition would set China up to challenge the US on the global stage. That would be far too high of a strategic price for America to pay for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Ukraine has limited strategic value for the US and it does not steer US grand strategy, which aims to prevent regional empires from taking shape. In fact Washington is deliberately escalating and prolonging the war in Ukraine to drain Russia’s resources. Ending the war would do Russia a strategic favor, while re-engaging with China would do China a strategic favor. So why would the defense and intelligence community advise the Biden administration to pursue Kissinger 2.0? Chart 13US Unlikely To Revoke Trump Tariffs US Unlikely To Revoke Trump Tariffs US Unlikely To Revoke Trump Tariffs Biden could still pursue some degree of détente with China, namely by repealing President Trump’s trade tariffs, in order to relieve price pressures ahead of the midterm election. Yet even here the case is deeply flawed. Trump’s tariffs on China did not trigger the current inflationary bout. That was the combined Trump-Biden fiscal stimulus and Covid-era supply constraints. US import prices are rising faster from the rest of the world than they are from China (Chart 13). Tariff relief would not change China’s Zero Covid policy, which is the current driver of price spikes from China. And while lifting tariffs on China would not reduce inflation enough to attract voters, it would cost Biden some political credit among voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, and across the US, where China’s image has plummeted in the wake of Covid-19 (Chart 14).   Chart 14US Political Consensus Remains Hawkish On China Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Will China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. If Biden did pursue détente, would China be able to reciprocate and offer trade concessions? Xi has the authority to do so but he is unlikely to make major trade concessions prior to the party congress. Economic self-sufficiency and resistance to American pressure have become pillars of his support. Promises will not ease inflation for US voters in November and Xi has no incentive to make binding concessions because the next US administration could intensify the trade war regardless.  Bottom Line: The US has no long-term interest, and a limited short-term interest, in easing pressure on China’s economy. Continued US pressure, combined with China’s internal difficulties, will reinforce Xi Jinping’s shift toward nationalism and hawkish foreign policy. Hence there is little basis for a substantial US-China re-engagement that improves the global macroeconomic environment over the coming years. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Autocracy Hurts Productivity Autocracy Hurts Productivity Autocracy Hurts Productivity Xi Jinping will clinch another five-to-ten years in power this fall. To stabilize the economy, he will “let 100 flowers bloom” and ease monetary, fiscal, regulatory, and social policy at home. He will also court the West, especially Europe, for the sake of economic growth. However, he will not go so far as to compromise his ultimate aims: self-sufficiency at home and a sphere of influence abroad. The result will be a relapse into conflict with the West within a year or two. Ultimately a closed Chinese economy in conflict with the West will result in lower productivity, a weaker currency, a high geopolitical risk premium, and low equity returns – just as it did for Russia (Chart 15). Any short-term improvement in China’s low equity multiples will ultimately be capped. Over the long run, western investors should hedge against Chinese geopolitical risk by preferring markets that benefit from China’s periodic stimulus yet do not suffer from the break-up of the US-China and EU-Russia economic relationships, such as key markets in Latin America and Southeast Asia (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Latin America China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For ... Latin America China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For ... Latin America Chart 17China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Southeast Asia China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For ... Southeast Asia China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For ... Southeast Asia     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Modern scholarship has shown that Mao intended to entrap the opposition through the 100 Flowers Campaign. For a harrowing account of this episode, see Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), pp. 409-17. 2     “At least 8% of CPC Central Committee nominees voted off,” Xinhua, October 24, 2017, english.www.gov.cn. 3    Christopher Condon, “Yellen Says Biden Team Is Looking To ‘Reconfigure’ China Tariffs,” June 8, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 4       Niall Ferguson, “Dust Off That Dirty Word Détente And Engage With China,” Bloomberg, June 5, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 5    See Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State, “The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” George Washington University, Washington D.C., May 26, 2022, state.gov. Additionally, see President Joe Biden’s third assertion of US willingness to defend Taiwan against China, in a joint press conference with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan in Joint Press Conference,” Akasaka Palace, Tokyo, Japan, May 23, 2022, whitehouse.gov.

Executive Summary Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Bond yields in the developed world have ticked higher recently, due to a renewed increase in oil prices and the spillover effect from more hawkish policy expectations out of Europe. The competing forces of slowing global growth momentum and geopolitical uncertainty on one side, and high inflation with tightening monetary policies on the other, will keep global government bond yields rangebound over the next several months. UK investment grade corporate bonds now offer an intriguing combination of higher yields, attractive spread valuations and strong financial health. By maturity, shorter-maturity corporates offer the best value. At the industry level, spreads look most attractive for Financials. A hawkish Bank of England, both through rate hikes and upcoming outright sales of corporate debt the central bank has purchased via quantitative easing, remains a major headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Sectors most at risk to central bank sales are Water, Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Non-Cyclicals. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening. Trendless, Friendless Bond Markets Chart 1Recovering From The Ukraine War Shock... Recovering From The Ukraine War Shock... Recovering From The Ukraine War Shock... Although it may not feel like it given the ferocity of some daily price swings, many important financial markets have not moved all that much, cumulatively, since the first major shock of 2022 – the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. For example, the S&P 500 is only down around -2% from the pre-invasion level, while the VIX index of equity option volatility is at 24, seven points below the closing level on February 23 (Chart 1). The Bloomberg US investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 12bps above its pre-invasion level, down 20bps from the peak seen in mid-May. More recently, even US bond yields have shown signs of stabilization. The 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a 2.70-3.15% range since the start of April, while the MOVE index of US Treasury option volatility has fallen by one-quarter since its most recent peak in early May. Not all markets, however, have seen this kind of relative stability. Global oil prices are trading close to post-invasion highs, as are government bond yields in Germany and the UK. High-yield credit spreads in the US and Europe are both still around 50bps above where they were pre-invasion. The DXY US dollar index is 6% above the pre-invasion level, led by the USD/JPY currency pair that has appreciated to levels last seen in 2002. Given the mix of slowing global growth momentum and ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, but with persistent high inflation and tightening global monetary policy, it is unsurprising that financial markets are having a difficult time formulating a consistent message. This is especially true for global government bond yields. Chart 2Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Even as market-based inflation expectations have eased a bit in recent weeks, bond yields across the developed world have been unable to decline because markets continue to discount more rate hikes (Chart 2). Yet with such a significant amount of monetary tightening now priced in across all countries, global bond yields are more likely to stay rangebound over the next 3-6 months than begin a new trend. Chart 3DM Bond Yields Discounting Tight Monetary Policy DM Bond Yields Discounting Tight Monetary Policy DM Bond Yields Discounting Tight Monetary Policy 10-year government bond yields and 2-year-ahead interest rate expectations in overnight index swap (OIS) curves are trading in lockstep in the US, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia (Chart 3). This correlation indicates that longer-term bond yields have become a pure play on future policy rate expectations, rather than a reflection of rising inflation expectations as was the case in 2021. However, both yields and rate expectations are now trading close to, or even well above, plausible estimates of neutral nominal policy rates in all regions - including estimates provided by central bankers themselves. For example, in Australia, where the RBA just delivered a 50bp rate hike this week, markets are pricing in a peak Cash Rate between 3.5-4%, even with RBA Governor Philip Lowe stating that the neutral rate is likely in the 2-3% range – a view that we agree with. The situation is even more extreme in the euro area, with the euro area OIS curve now pricing in a peak policy rate between 1.5-2%, with most of that increase coming over the next 12 months. While we expect the ECB to fully exit the negative (deposit) rate era by September, rate hikes beyond that are far less likely given slowing euro area growth momentum and still-moderate euro area inflation beyond the spillover effects from energy costs. Only in the US are markets potentially underestimating the potential peak in the fed funds rate for this tightening cycle. Estimates of the longer-run (neutral) funds rate from the latest set of FOMC projections back in March ranged from 2.0-3.0%. Thus, the current level of 10-year bond yields, and 2-year-ahead rates discounted in the US OIS curve, are only at the top end of that range. It is possible that the Fed will have to raise rates to restrictive levels (i.e. above 3%) given the size of the current US inflation overshoot. More importantly, the US neutral rate is likely higher than the Fed thinks it is, possibly as high as 4% according to BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin. We continue to see the US as the one major government bond market where there is a risk that markets are underestimating the neutral policy rate. For that reason, we remain underweight US Treasuries in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. Don’t Dismiss The QT Effect One other factor that has likely kept global bond yields elevated, even as global growth has softened, has been the shift away from central bank asset purchases towards quantitative tightening (QT). As policymakers have moved to slow, or even stop, the buying of government bonds, the term premium component of longer-term bond yields has risen. The moves have been quite large. Using our own in-house estimates, the term premium on 10-year government bond yields have jumped by about 100bps on average in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Europe since the lows seen during the 2020 COVID global recession (Chart 4). The jump in term premiums is occurring at the same time as markets have moved to price in more rate hikes and a higher path for real interest rates (bottom panel). Chart 4Yields Repricing As QE Moves To QT Yields Repricing As QE Moves To QT Yields Repricing As QE Moves To QT ​​​​​​ Chart 5Stay Neutral Global Duration Exposure Stay Neutral Global Duration Exposure Stay Neutral Global Duration Exposure ​​​​​​ That combined effect of the upward repricing of term premiums – especially as more price-sensitive private investors replace the demand for bonds from price-insensitive central banks - but with less upward movement in already elevated interest rate expectations will keep longer-term bond yields in trading ranges during the “Global QT Phase” over at least the next six months and likely longer. That message is reinforced by our Global Duration Indicator, which is heralding a peak in global bond yield momentum over the latter half of 2022 (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios, with yields in the major developed markets likely to stay rangebound over the next few months. Assessing The Value In UK Investment Grade Corporates Chart 6A Big Jump In UK Investment Grade Corporate Yields A Big Jump In UK Investment Grade Corporate Yields A Big Jump In UK Investment Grade Corporate Yields Global credit markets have had a rough time in 2022, and UK corporate debt is no exception. The Bloomberg UK Corporate index of investment grade corporate debt has delivered a year-to-date total return of -11%, as the index yield-to-maturity rose 174bps to 4% - the highest level since 2014 (Chart 6). Relative to UK Gilts, the results have also been grim as corporate credit spreads have widened, with the Bloomberg UK corporate index realizing an excess return of -3% since the start of the year. We have maintained a neutral stance on UK corporate bond exposure in our global model bond portfolio during the selloff. This was the result of a relative value opinion, as we have concentrated our more defensive view on global investment grade corporate debt with an underweight to US corporates. However, after the significant repricing of UK investment grade credit, it is now a good time to reassess our opinion on the asset class. Spread Valuation From a pure spread valuation perspective, UK investment grade now looks more attractive. Our preferred valuation metric – 12-month breakeven spreads - shows that the UK investment grade corporate index spread, on a duration-adjusted basis, is now in the 75th percentile of its history over the past 25 years (Chart 7). Chart 7UK Corporate Spreads Now Offer Some Value UK Corporate Spreads Now Offer Some Value UK Corporate Spreads Now Offer Some Value We find 12-month breakevens to a useful spread valuation measure, as they show how much spreads would need to widen to make the expected one-year-ahead return on a credit product equal to that of a duration-matched position in government bonds. In other words, breakevens measure the spread “cushion” against excess return losses from spread widening. What makes the current attractive reading on UK investment grade spread valuation so interesting is that the absolute level of spreads is still relatively low. The Bloomberg UK investment grade corporate index spread is currently 170bps, but during previous episodes where the 12-month breakeven as near the top quartile ranking – as is currently the case – the index spread ranged from 200-350bps. The reason for that relates to the index duration which, at 7.3 years, is down 1.5 years from the 2020 peak and at the lowest level since 2011. Some of that lower duration is related to the convexity effect from higher corporate bond yields. But there has also been a reduction in the average maturity of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, with the index average maturity now at 10.4 years, down a full year lower over the past 12 months and the lowest average maturity since 1999. UK companies appear to have shortened up the maturity profile of their bond issuance, which helped reduce the riskiness (duration) of corporate bond returns to rising yields. Thus, the message from the 12-month breakevens is correct – UK investment grade corporate bond yields are attractive from a historical perspective, on a duration-adjusted basis. Chart 8UK Credit Curves Are Relatively Flat UK Credit Curves Are Relatively Flat UK Credit Curves Are Relatively Flat When looking within the UK investment grade universe, the messages on valuation are a bit more mixed. The UK credit curve is not particularly steep, when looking at the spread differences by credit rating within the benchmark index universe (Chart 8). There is a similar message when looking at 12-month breakevens broken down by credit rating, where there is little difference between the percentile rankings (Chart 9). However, the 12-month breakeven percentile rankings broken down by maturity buckets show that shorter-maturity bonds have noticeably higher percentile rankings than longer-maturity UK corporates (top panel). From a cross-country perspective, UK corporate breakeven percentile rankings are much higher than equivalent rankings for US corporates, but are lower than those of the euro area. Chart 9Shorter-Maturity UK Spreads Are More Attractive Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Corporate Financial Health Our top-down UK Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) - which uses data on non-financial corporate sector revenues, expenses and balance sheets taken from GDP accounts – has shown a very strong improvement in UK corporate financial health over the past few years (Chart 10). The biggest improvements are in the categories related to debt service, with interest coverage at the highest level since 2002 and debt coverage is at the highest level since 1999. Chart 10UK Corporates Can Withstand Higher Borrowing Rates UK Corporates Can Withstand Higher Borrowing Rates UK Corporates Can Withstand Higher Borrowing Rates ​​​​​​ Chart 11Stay Neutral UK Corporates Until The BoE Is Done Stay Neutral UK Corporates Until The BoE Is Done Stay Neutral UK Corporates Until The BoE Is Done ​​​​​ The message from our top-down UK CHM is similar to the conclusions from an October 2021 BoE report that analyzed the UK corporate sector from a financial stability perspective. In that report, the BoE used a bottom-up sample of 500 UK companies and concluded that corporate borrowing rates could rise as much as 400bps before the share of companies with a “distressed” interest coverage ratio below 2.5 would rise to the past historical peak. Within our top-down UK CHM, relatively wide corporate profit margins are also contributing to the strong reading on UK corporate health. Like the interest/debt coverage ratios, those margins provide some cushion to profits in the current environment of high inflation and elevated input costs for businesses. The all-in message from our UK CHM is that financial health is a fundamental tailwind for UK corporate bond performance. Monetary Policy Attractive spread valuations and strong financial health metrics would normally justify an overweight stance on any corporate bond market. However, the monetary policy cycle is also an important factor that drives corporate bond performance. Currently, with the BoE not only hiking rates but also moving to QT on asset purchases, monetary policy is a severe headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyIt’s Time To Flip The Script - Upgrade UK Gilts The annual growth rate of the BoE’s balance sheet has proven to be a reliable leading indicator of UK corporate bond annual excess returns. With the growth in the balance sheet set to turn negative in the latter half of 2022 (Chart 11), it will prove difficult for UK credit spreads to narrow in a way that will boost excess returns. The BoE’s aggressive (by its standards) rate hiking cycle, in response to UK inflation that is nearing 10% alongside a very tight labor market, remains a threat to UK economic growth that is already losing some momentum. As we discussed in a recent Special Report, the UK neutral interest rate is likely no more than 1.5-2%. If the BoE were to follow current market pricing and push Bank Rate toward 2.5%, this would be a restrictive policy stance that would likely result in a sharp growth slowdown if not a full-blown recession. Importantly, our UK Central Bank Monitor is showing signs of peaking (bottom panel), due to signs of slower economic growth and tightening financial conditions. A peak in UK inflation would help reduce the Monitor even further, and would likely correspond to a pause on BoE rate hikes – a necessary condition before we would upgrade our recommended stance on UK investment grade corporates to overweight. Some Final Thoughts On Industry Sector Valuation Our UK investment grade corporate sector valuation model is a cross-sectional analysis of individual industry/sector corporate credit spreads, after controlling for differences in duration, convexity and credit rating. The model is currently signaling that there are few compelling valuation stories with positive “risk-adjusted” spreads (Chart 12). Only Financials look cheap, while Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Capital Goods are all trading at expensive risk-adjusted spreads. Chart 12Not Many Compelling Values Within UK Corporates By Industry Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields An additional risk to UK corporate bond performance relates to the BoE’s decision to unwind its corporate bond portfolio. The BoE has announced that there will be outright sales from the corporate holdings accumulated over the past couple of years, with a goal of having the stock of debt fully unwound by the end of 2023. This is important for much of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, where the BoE holds between 8-10%, on average, of outstanding debt (Chart 13).1 Chart 13The BoE Has Become An Important Corporate Bondholder Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields When we compare our risk-adjusted spreads versus the BoE ownership share by sector, we conclude that Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Other Utilities offer the most unattractive combination of expensive spreads and high BoE concentration (Chart 14). We recommended underweight allocations to those sectors within an overall neutral allocation to UK corporates. Chart 14BoE Asset Sales Are A Major Risk For Some UK Corporate Sectors Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, given the mix of attractive valuations but tighter monetary policy. Favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      In Chart 13, we use the market capitalization of each sector from the Bloomberg UK corporate bond index in the numerator of all ratios shown, as a proxy for outstanding debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Mixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. A much better option would be to adopt measures that boost disposable income. Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales. A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. Go long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Bottom Line: China faces a number of economic woes, but these are fully discounted by the market. What has not been discounted is a broad-based stimulus program focused on income-support measures.   Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi next week. No doubt, the outlook for oil prices will feature heavily in my discussions. I will brief you on any insights I learn in my report on June 17. In the meantime, I am pleased to announce that Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, will be the guest author of next week’s Global Investment Strategy report. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Triple Threat The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Let us discuss each problem in turn.   Problem #1: China’s Zero-Covid Policy in the Age of Omicron Chart 1China’s Lockdown Index Remains Elevated China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes China was able to successfully suppress the virus in the first two years of the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron strain is challenging the government’s commitment to its zero-Covid policy. The BA.2 subvariant of Omicron is 50% more contagious than the original Omicron strain and about 4-times more contagious than the Delta strain. While 89% of China’s population has been fully vaccinated, the number drops off to 82% for those above the age of 60. And those who are vaccinated have been inoculated with vaccines that appear to be largely ineffective against Omicron. Keeping a virus as contagious as measles at bay in a population with little natural or artificial immunity is exceedingly difficult. While the authorities are starting to relax restrictions in Shanghai, China’s Effective Lockdown Index remains at elevated levels (Chart 1). A number of domestically designed mRNA vaccines are in phase 3 trials. However, it is not clear how effective they will be. Shanghai-based Fosun Pharma has inked a deal to distribute 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, but so far neither it nor Moderna’s vaccine have been approved for use. Our working assumption is that China will authorize the distribution of western-made mRNA vaccines later this year if its own offerings prove ineffectual. The Chinese government has already signed a deal to manufacture a generic version of Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which has been shown to cut the risk of hospitalization by 90% if taken within five days of the onset of symptoms. In the meantime, the authorities will continue to play whack-a-mole with Covid. Investors should expect more lockdowns during the remainder of the year.   Problem #2: Weaker Export Growth China’s export growth slowed sharply in April, with manufacturing production contracting at the fastest rate since data collection began. Activity appears to have rebounded somewhat in May, but the new export orders components of both the official and private-sector manufacturing PMIs still remain below 50 (Chart 2). Part of the export slowdown is attributable to lockdown restrictions. However, weaker external demand is also a culprit, as evidenced by the fact that Korean export growth — a bellwether for global trade — has decelerated (Chart 3).  Chart 2China’s Export Growth Has Rolled Over China's Export Growth Has Rolled Over China's Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart 3Softer Export Growth Is Not A China-Specific Phenomenon Softer Export Growth Is Not A China-Specific Phenomenon Softer Export Growth Is Not A China-Specific Phenomenon Spending in developed economies is shifting from manufactured goods to services. Retail inventories in the US are now well above their pre-pandemic trend, suggesting that the demand for Chinese-made goods will remain subdued over the coming months (Chart 4). The surge in commodity prices is only adding to Chinese manufacturer woes. Input prices rose 10% faster than manufacturing output prices over the past 12 months. This is squeezing profit margins (Chart 5). Chart 4Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Chart 5Surging Input Costs Are Weighing On The Profits Of Chinese Commodity Users Surging Input Costs Are Weighing On The Profits Of Chinese Commodity Users Surging Input Costs Are Weighing On The Profits Of Chinese Commodity Users A modest depreciation in the currency would help the Chinese export sector. However, after weakening from 6.37 in April to 6.79 in mid-May, USD/CNY has moved back to 6.66 on the back of the recent selloff in the US dollar. Chart 6The RMB Tends To Weaken When EUR/USD Is Rising The RMB Tends To Weaken When EUR/USD Is Rising The RMB Tends To Weaken When EUR/USD Is Rising We expect the dollar to weaken further over the next 12 months as the Fed tempers its hawkish rhetoric in response to falling inflation. Chart 6 shows that the trade-weighted RMB typically strengthens when EUR/USD is rising. Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Chief Currency Strategist, expects EUR/USD to reach 1.16 by the end of the year.   Problem #3: Flagging Property Market Chinese housing sales, starts, and completions all contracted in April (Chart 7). New home prices dipped 0.2% on a month-over-month basis, and are up just 0.7% from a year earlier, the smallest gain since 2015. The percentage of households planning to buy a home is near record lows (Chart 8). Chart 7The Chinese Property Market Has Been Cooling The Chinese Property Market Has Been Cooling The Chinese Property Market Has Been Cooling Chart 8Intentions To Buy A House Have Declined Intentions To Buy A House Have Declined Intentions To Buy A House Have Declined China’s property developers are in dire straits. Corporate bonds for the sector are, on average, trading at 48 cents on the dollar (Chart 9). Goldman Sachs estimates that the default rate for property developers will reach 32% in 2022, up from their earlier estimate of 19%. The government is trying to prop up housing demand. The PBoC lowered the 5-year loan prime rate by 15 bps on May 20th, the largest such cut since 2019. The authorities have dropped the floor mortgage rate to a 14-year low of 4.25%. They have also taken steps to make it easier for property developers to issue domestic bonds. BCA’s China strategists believe these measures will foster a modest rebound in the property market in the second half of this year. However, they do not anticipate a robust recovery – of the sort experienced following the initial wave of the pandemic – due to the government’s continued adherence to the “three red lines” policy.1 China is building too many homes. While residential investment as a share GDP has been trending lower, it is still very high in relation to other countries. China’s working-age population is now shrinking, which suggests that housing demand will contract over the coming years (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Property Developer Bonds Are Trading At Distressed Levels Chinese Property Developer Bonds Are Trading At Distressed Levels Chinese Property Developer Bonds Are Trading At Distressed Levels Chart 10Shrinking Working-Age Population Implies Less Demand For Housing Shrinking Working-Age Population Implies Less Demand For Housing Shrinking Working-Age Population Implies Less Demand For Housing Chinese real estate prices are amongst the highest anywhere. The five biggest cities in the world with the lowest rental yields are all in China (Chart 11). The entire Chinese housing stock is worth nearly $100 trillion, making it the largest asset class in the world. As such, a decline in Chinese home prices would generate a sizable negative wealth effect. Chart 11Chinese Real Estate Is Expensive China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes A Silver Bullet? Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. Luckily, one does not need to fill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. China needs to reorient its economy away from its historic reliance on investment and exports towards consumption. The easiest way to do that is to adopt measures that boost disposable income, which has slowed of late (Chart 12). Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. The authorities have not talked much about pursuing large-scale income-support measures of the kind adopted by many developed economies during the pandemic. As a result, market participants have largely dismissed this possibility. Yet, with the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales (Chart 13). A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. As we saw in the US and elsewhere, stimulus cash has a habit of flowing into the stock market; and with real estate in the doldrums, equities may become the asset class of choice for many Chinese investors. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Chart 12Disposable Income Growth Has Been Trending Lower Disposable Income Growth Has Been Trending Lower Disposable Income Growth Has Been Trending Lower Chart 13Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap At a global level, a floundering Chinese property market would have been a cause for grave concern in the past, as it would have represented a major deflationary shock. Times have changed, however. The problem now is too much inflation, rather than too little. To the extent that reduced Chinese investment injects more savings into the global economy and knocks down commodity prices, this would be welcomed by most investors. China’s economy may be heading for a “beautiful slowdown.” Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn Twitter   Footnotes   1      The People’s Bank of China and the housing ministry issued a deleveraging framework for property developers in August 2020, consisting of a 70% ceiling on liabilities-to-assets, a net debt-to-equity ratio capped at 100%, and a limit on short-term borrowing that cannot exceed cash reserves. Developers breaching these “red lines” run the risk of being cut off from access to new loans from banks, while those who respect them can only increase their interest-bearing borrowing by 15% at most. View Matrix China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes China: A Trifecta Of Economic Woes

Executive Summary First IG, Then HY First IG, Then HY First IG, Then HY Corporate bonds are following the 2018 roadmap. Investment grade underperformed Treasuries as interest rate expectations rose from low levels, then junk joined the selloff once rate expectations moved above estimates of neutral. Inflation is too high for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, as it did in 2018/19, but the Fed will move more slowly than what is priced in the curve for 2022. Underlying economic growth is stronger than it was in 2018 and corporate balance sheets are in better shape. That being the case, even a modest dovish surprise from the Fed will be sufficient for corporate bond returns to form a bottom. Municipal bonds are attractively priced versus both Treasuries and credit, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent condition. Stay overweight.   Bottom Line: We maintain our cautious stance on corporate bonds for the time being, but are now on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or dovish signals from the Fed could cause us to increase exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned.  Feature The similarities between recent market action and what occurred in 2018 are striking. Back in 2018, the Fed was in the process of lifting the policy rate back toward estimates of neutral. The yield curve flattened as a result, and investment grade corporate bonds responded to the removal of policy accommodation by underperforming duration-matched Treasuries (Chart 1). Chart 1The 2018 Experience The 2018 Experience The 2018 Experience Despite the Fed’s actions, high-yield initially performed well in 2018. That is, until the market started to believe that the Fed would over-tighten. Recession fears increased in late 2018 as near-term rate expectations surpassed estimates of neutral and high-yield sold off sharply, giving back all of its gains from earlier in the year and then some. Now let’s turn to the present day (Chart 2). Once again, investment grade corporates underperformed Treasuries as near-term rate expectations moved higher and the yield curve flattened. For its part, high-yield performed well during the early stages of the interest rate adjustment but returns plunged once 12-month forward rate expectations moved above survey estimates of neutral. Chart 2First IG, Then HY First IG, Then HY First IG, Then HY What’s Different This Time? While we think the 2018 roadmap is a good one, it’s important to consider the differences between 2018 and today before drawing any firm conclusions about future credit market performance. The first obvious difference is that the Fed had already been lifting rates for some time in 2018. In fact, the fed funds rate was above 2%. Today, the Fed is still in the early stages of its tightening cycle and the fed funds rate is only 0.83%. We think this difference is less significant than it initially appears because the level of the fed funds rate itself is less important than the perceived restrictiveness of monetary policy. Today, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to hit 3.18% in 12 months, higher than at any point in 2018 (Chart 3). We also see that the Treasury slope beyond the 2-year maturity point is about as flat today as it was in 2018 (Chart 3, bottom panel). This strongly suggests that the market perceives monetary policy as about as restrictive today as it was in late 2018. The second difference we identify is that inflation is much higher today than it was in 2018 (Chart 4). This is potentially bad news for future credit market performance. High inflation gives the Fed a strong incentive to keep lifting rates even if risky assets sell off. In 2018, the Fed reversed course on its tightening cycle once broad financial conditions tightened into restrictive territory. That’s an easy decision to make when inflation is close to 2%. It’s much more difficult to do with inflation where it is now. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Are Similar Monetary Conditions Are Similar Monetary Conditions Are Similar Chart 4Inflation Is Much Higher … Inflation Is Much Higher ... Inflation Is Much Higher ... High inflation makes it unlikely that the Fed will pull a 180 on its tightening cycle. But on the flipside, today’s strong underlying economic growth means that a complete reversal on rate hikes is probably not necessary to avoid a recession. Just look at the labor market. Labor market utilization, as measured by both the unemployment rate and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio, is in a similar place today as it was in 2018 (Chart 5). However, despite a tight labor market, job growth is running at a much stronger pace this year. Nonfarm payroll gains have averaged 523 thousand during the past three months. In 2018, in a similarly tight labor market, monthly job growth averaged just 191 thousand. Now turn to housing, arguably the most important channel through which interest rates impact the economy. In a prior report we identified that the 12-month moving average of housing starts dipping below the 24-month moving average is a good indicator for the end of a Fed rate hike cycle.1 In 2018, our housing starts indicator was barely positive. Today, it is extremely elevated (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5… But Growth Is Much Stronger ... But Growth Is Much Stronger ... But Growth Is Much Stronger The key point is that with employment growth and housing starts trending at much better levels than in 2018, we can conclude that the Fed has a fair amount of scope to tighten policy before threatening to push the economy into recession. The upshot for corporate bond markets is that the threshold for Fed capitulation is also different. While a full backtracking away from rate hikes was necessary to avoid a recession and spur corporate bond outperformance in 2018, both the economy and financial markets likely require less of a Fed reversal today. The final difference we identify between 2018 and today relates to the health of corporate balance sheets (Chart 6). Compared to 2018, nonfinancial corporations are carrying much less debt as a percentage of net worth, have significantly higher interest coverage and are benefiting from net ratings upgrades. Much like with the labor market and housing indicators, there’s every reason to believe that corporations are better equipped to handle higher interest rates today than they were in 2018. Chart 6Balance Sheets Are Healthier Balance Sheets Are Healthier Balance Sheets Are Healthier The Way Forward If we look back at Chart 1, we see that the 2018 roadmap is for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, leading to a sharp drop in near-term rate expectations and a V-shaped bottom in excess corporate bond returns. We won’t get such a swift Fed reversal this year, but there are strong odds that the Fed will lift rates by less than what is currently discounted in the market between now and the end of 2022. As we noted in last week’s Webcast, we expect the Fed to deliver two more 50 basis point rate hikes (in June and July) before shifting to 25 bps per meeting increments in September once it’s clear that inflation is trending down (Chart 7).2  We also see potential for relief at the long-end of the yield curve, where 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have room to fall back toward survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 8). Chart 7Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Chart 8Yields Above Fair Value Yields Above Fair Value Yields Above Fair Value It’s also worth noting that corporate bond valuations have improved markedly during the past few weeks. The 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is back above its historical median, and the junk index is priced for a 6.3% default rate during the next 12 months (Chart 9). Investment grade and high-yield index spreads are also now well above their respective 2017-19 averages, as is the spread differential between high-yield and investment grade (Chart 10). Chart 9Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Chart 10Favor HY Over IG Favor HY Over IG Favor HY Over IG The bottom line is that we are slowly turning more positive on corporate bonds. Falling inflation will cause the Fed to tighten by less than what is expected this year, and it will soon become apparent that – as was the case in 2018 – the US economy is not close to tipping into recession. Spreads also present an increasingly attractive opportunity. That said, with the Fed still poised to deliver 100 bps of tightening within the next two months, we are not yet ready to abandon our relatively cautious corporate bond allocation. We maintain our underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and our neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield, but we are now firmly on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or signals that the Fed will pivot to a hiking pace of 25 bps per meeting could cause us to increase our recommended corporate bond exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned. Seek Refuge In Municipal Bonds While we wait for clearer signs of a bottom in corporate credit, investors can more confidently deploy capital in the municipal bond market. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios have jumped in recent weeks, and they are now back above post-2010 averages across the entire yield curve (Chart 11). Long-maturity municipal bonds are even trading at a before-tax premium relative to US Treasuries (Chart 11, top 2 panels). Municipal bonds are also trading at above-average yields relative to credit rating and duration-matched corporate bonds (Chart 12). This is despite the recent back-up we’ve witnessed in corporate bond spreads. Chart 11Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 12Munis Cheap Versus Credit Munis Cheap Versus Credit Munis Cheap Versus Credit Not only are munis attractively priced versus both Treasuries and corporates, but state & local government balance sheet indicators show that municipal credit quality is sky high (Chart 13). Tax revenues have accelerated since the pandemic, but state & local governments have remained cautious about spending their windfalls. Despite being flush with cash, state & local governments have re-hired only a small fraction of the employees that were let go during the pandemic (Chart 13, panel 2). The result of this lack of spending is that state & local government net savings are the highest they’ve been in years (Chart 13, panel 3). Chart 13State & Local Government Health State & Local Government Health State & Local Government Health Bottom Line: Municipal bonds are attractively valued versus both Treasuries and investment grade corporates, and state & local government balance sheets are in superb condition. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 2 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/537 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 17 at 9:00 AM EDT, 14:00 PM BST, 15:00 PM CEST and May 18 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Executive Summary Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our current strategic recommendations are centered around four key themes: global inflation will slow over the rest of 2022, Europe remains too weak to handle significantly higher interest rates, corporate default risk in the US and Europe is relatively low, and the fundamental backdrop for emerging markets is poor. If we are going to be proven wrong on any of those themes, it will most likely be because global inflation remains high for longer due to resilient commodity prices and lingering supply chain disruptions. A sluggish economy will handcuff the ECB’s ability to raise rates as fast as markets are discounting over the next year. The state of corporate balance sheet health in the developed world is not problematic, on average, even with some sectors taking on more leverage in response to the 2020 COVID downturn. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. Bottom Line: We remain comfortable with our main fixed income investment recommendations: maintaining neutral global portfolio duration, overweighting core European bonds versus US Treasuries, favoring high-yield corporates over investment grade (both in the US and Europe), and underweighting EM hard currency debt. Feature One of the foundations of a sound medium-term investment process is to allocate capital towards highest conviction views, while constantly assessing - and reassessing - if those views are unfolding as expected. Trades that are not going according to plan may need to be reconstructed, if not exited entirely, to avoid losses. We feel the same way about the investment recommendations highlighted in the pages of our reports, which represent our portfolio, as it were. With this in mind, in this report we identify the four most critical themes underpinning our current main investment recommendations and evaluate the potential risks that our views will not turn out as expected. Theme #1: Global Inflation Will Decline In The Latter Half Of 2022 Our biggest theme for the rest of this year is that global inflation will cool off after the massive acceleration over the past year. Many of our current fixed income investment recommendations across the developed markets – maintaining neutral overall global duration exposure, underweighting global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, betting against additional yield curve flattening (especially in the US) – are predicated on reduced inflationary pressure on interest rates. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyA Crude Awakening For Bond Investors The expectation of lower inflation is based on some easing of the forces that first caused the current inflationary overshoot – booming commodity prices and rapidly accelerating goods prices due to supply-chain disruptions. Already, the commodity price factor is starting to fade, on an annual rate-of-change basis that matters for overall inflation, thanks to more favorable comparisons to the commodity surge in 2021 (Chart 1). The year-over-year growth rate of the CRB index has decelerated from a peak of 54.4% in June 2021 to 19.3% today, even with many commodity prices seeing big increases in response to the Russia/Ukraine war. This is because the increases in commodity prices were even larger one year ago when much of the global economy reopened from COVID-related economic restrictions. Favorable base effect comparisons are not the only reason why commodity inflation has slowed. Commodities are priced in US dollars, and the steady appreciation of the greenback, with the trade-weighted dollar up 5% on an year-over-year basis, has also helped to slow commodity price momentum (Chart 2). Slower global growth, coming off the overheated pace of 2021, has also acted as a drag on overall commodity price inflation (middle panel). Beyond the commodity space, some easing of global supply chain tensions has resulted in indicators of shipping costs seeing meaningful declines even with supplier delivery times still elevated (bottom panel). Chart 1Our Main Strategic Theme: Decelerating Global Inflation Our Main Strategic Theme: Decelerating Global Inflation Our Main Strategic Theme: Decelerating Global Inflation ​​​​​​ Chart 2Disinflationary Momentum From Commodities Already Underway Disinflationary Momentum From Commodities Already Underway Disinflationary Momentum From Commodities Already Underway ​​​​​ A more fundamental factor that should help moderate global inflation momentum this year beyond the commodity/supply chain effects relates to a lack of broad-based global "excess demand", even as the world economy continues to recover from the massive pandemic shock in 2020. The IMF’s latest projections on output gaps – estimates of the amount of spare economic capacity – show that few major developed or emerging market economies are expected to have positive output gaps over 2022 and 2023 (Chart 3). The US is the most notable exception, with an output gap projected to average +1.6% this year and next. Most other developed market countries are projected to have an output gap close to zero. This suggests that the US is facing the most inflationary pressure from an overheating economy, which is why we continue to see the Fed as being the most hawkish major developed market central bank over the next couple of years. Chart 3Few Countries Expected To Have Inflationary Output Gaps In 2022/23 Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views Yet even with so much of the macro backdrop supporting our call for slower global inflation in the coming months, there are several potential risks to that view. Chart 4A Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Resilient Oil Prices A Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Resilient Oil Prices A Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Resilient Oil Prices Another war-related upleg in global oil prices Our commodity strategists continue to see oil prices settling down to the low $90s by year-end. Yet oil has seen tremendous volatility since the Ukraine war began as prices had to factor in the potential loss of Russian oil supplies in an already tight crude market. The benchmark Brent oil price briefly hit $140 in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. A similar move sustained over the latter half of 2022 would trigger a reacceleration of oil momentum, putting upward pressure on overall global inflation rates. A renewed bout of energy-induced inflation would push global interest rate expectations, and bond yields, even higher from current levels – a challenge to both our neutral duration stance and underweight bias on global inflation-linked bonds (Chart 4). More supply-chain disruption from China Chinese authorities are clamping down hard on the current COVID wave sweeping across China. The current lockdowns in major cities like Shanghai could shave as much as one percentage point off Chinese real GDP growth for 2022, according to our China strategists. Those same lockdowns in a major transportation and shipping hub like Shanghai are already causing supply chain disruption within China. Supplier delivery times saw big increases in the March PMI data (Chart 5), while the number of cargo ships stuck outside Shanghai has soared. The longer this lasts, the greater the risk that supply chains beyond China would be disrupted, erasing the improvements in global supplier delivery times seen over the past few months. That could keep goods price inflation elevated for longer. Stubbornly resilient services inflation A big part of our lower inflation view is related to a rebalancing of consumer demand in the developed world away from goods towards services as economies move away from COVID restrictions. This implies an easing of the excess demand pressures that have triggered supply shortages for cars and other big-ticket consumer goods. The result would be a sharp slowing of goods price inflation, with the result that overall inflation rates in the major economies would gravitate towards the slower rate of services inflation. The latter, however, is accelerating in the US, UK and Europe (Chart 6) – largely because of soaring housing costs – which raises the risk that overall inflation will fall to a higher floor in 2022 as goods inflation slows. Chart 5Another Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: China Lockdowns Another Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: China Lockdowns Another Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: China Lockdowns ​​​​​ Chart 6One More Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Sticky Service Prices One More Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Sticky Service Prices One More Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Sticky Service Prices In the end, we see the balance of risks still tilted towards much slower global inflation this year. However, if we are going to be proven wrong on any of our major investment themes in 2022, it will most likely be because global inflation remains resilient for longer. Theme #2: Europe’s Economy Is Too Fragile To Handle Higher Interest Rates Beyond the global inflation call, our next highest conviction view right now is that markets are overestimating the ECB’s ability to tighten euro area monetary policy. Markets are now pricing in 85bps of ECB rate hikes by the end of 2022, according to the euro area overnight index swap (OIS) curve, which would take policy rates back to levels last seen before the 2008 financial crisis. The war has put the ECB in a difficult spot vis-à-vis its next policy move. High euro area inflation, with annual headline HICP inflation climbing to 7.4% in March and core HICP inflation reaching 2.9%, the highest level of the ECB era dating back to 1996, would justify a move to begin hiking policy interest rates as soon as possible.   However, European growth momentum has slowed significantly so far in 2022. Initially this was due to the spread of the Omicron COVID variant that resulted in a wave of economic restrictions. That was followed by the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that has hit European economic confidence and raised fears that Europe would lose access to Russian energy supplies. Our diffusion indices of individual country leading economic indicators and inflation rates within the euro area highlight the pickle the ECB finds itself in (Chart 7). All countries have headline and core inflation rates above the ECB’s 2% target, yet only 60% of euro area countries have an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than year ago levels. In the three previous tightening cycles of the “ECB era” since the inception of the euro in 1998, the diffusion indices for both growth and inflation reached 100% - in other words, every euro area economy was seeing faster growth and above-target inflation. Chart 7The ECB Will Have Difficulty Hiking As Much As Expected The ECB Will Have Difficulty Hiking As Much As Expected The ECB Will Have Difficulty Hiking As Much As Expected Chart 8Warning Signs On European Growth Warning Signs On European Growth Warning Signs On European Growth Other economic data are also sending worrying messages. The euro area manufacturing PMI fell to the lowest level since January 2021 in March, while the European Commission consumer confidence index and the ZEW expectations index have plunged to levels last seen during the depths of the 2020 COVID recession (Chart 8). Euro area export growth has also decelerated sharply, with exports to China contracting on a year-over-year basis. Simply put, these are not the kind of growth data consistent with a central bank that needs to begin tightening policy aggressively. The inflation data also does not paint a clean picture for the ECB. ECB President Christine Lagarde has repeatedly noted that the central bank is on the lookout for any “second round effects” from the current commodity-fueled surge in European inflation on more lasting inflationary measures like wages. On that front, European wage growth remains stunningly subdued. European annual wage growth was only 1.6% in Q4/2021, despite the unemployment rate for the whole euro area falling below the OECD’s full employment NAIRU estimate of 7.7% (Chart 9). Unit labor costs only grew at an 1.5% annual rate at the end of 2021, suggesting little underlying pressure on European inflation from wages. Chart 9No Inflationary Pressures From Wages In Europe No Inflationary Pressures From Wages In Europe No Inflationary Pressures From Wages In Europe ​​​​​ Chart 10European Bond Yields Discount Too Much ECB Hawkishness European Bond Yields Discount Too Much ECB Hawkishness European Bond Yields Discount Too Much ECB Hawkishness Without a bigger inflation boost from labor costs, the ECB will feel less pressured to begin tightening monetary policy as rapidly and aggressively as markets are discounting – especially if global goods/commodity inflation slows as we expect. We remain comfortable with our overweight recommendation on core European government bonds (Germany and France), both within a global bond portfolio but especially versus the US. The Fed is far more likely to deliver the aggressive rate hikes discounted in money markets compared to the ECB (Chart 10). Theme #3: Corporate Default Risk In The US And Europe Is Relatively Low Another of our main investment themes relates to corporate credit risk. Specifically, we see high-yield debt in the US and Europe as being relatively more attractive than investment grade credit, even in a typically credit-unfriendly environment of tightening global monetary policy and slowing global growth momentum. Our Corporate Health Monitors are highlighting that corporate finances are in relatively good shape on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 11). This is primarily related to strong readings on interest coverage, free cash flow generation and profit margins, all of which are helping to service higher levels of corporate leverage. Defaults are expected to rise over the next year in response to slowing growth momentum, but the increase is projected to be moderate. Moody’s is forecasting the US and European high-yield default rates to be virtually identical, climbing to 3.1% and 2.6%, respectively, by February 2023. Those relatively low default rates, however, are for the aggregate of all high-yield borrowers. Default risks may be higher for some companies and industries that were more severely impacted by the pandemic. Chart 11US/Europe Default Risk Remains Relatively Modest US/Europe Default Risk Remains Relatively Modest US/Europe Default Risk Remains Relatively Modest ​​​​​ Chart 12The IMF Sees Fewer Financially Vulnerable Firms The IMF Sees Fewer Financially Vulnerable Firms The IMF Sees Fewer Financially Vulnerable Firms ​​​​​​ Chart 13Default-Adjusted HY Spreads Still Offer Some Value Default-Adjusted HY Spreads Still Offer Some Value Default-Adjusted HY Spreads Still Offer Some Value An analysis of global private sector debt included in the latest IMF World Economic Report highlighted that companies that suffered the most significant declines in revenues in 2020 also took on greater amounts of debt than companies whose businesses were least impacted by the 2020 growth shock (Chart 12). Industries that were “worst-hit” by COVID also saw significant worsening of debt servicing capability, described by the IMF analysts as the percentage of firms among the “worst-hit” that had interest coverage ratios less than one (middle panel). Importantly, the IMF report noted that the “worst-hit” industries have seen significant improvements in interest coverage since 2020, reducing the number of financially vulnerable firms (those with high debt-to-assets ratios and interest coverage less than one). The IMF analysis uses corporate data from a whopping 71 countries, but the conclusions are like those from our Corporate Health Monitors for the US and Europe – corporate credit quality has improved, on the margin, since the dark days of the 2020 COVID recession for an increasing number of borrowers. Default-adjusted spreads for high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, which subtract expected default losses from high-yield index spread levels, show that high-yield bonds currently offer decent compensation for expected credit losses (Chart 13). This is especially true for European high-yield, where the default-adjusted spread is just below the average level since 2000. This fits with our current recommendation to maintain neutral allocations to both US and European high-yield. We have a bias to favor the latter, however, due to better valuation metrics and a more dovish outlook on ECB monetary policy compared to the Fed. Theme #4: The Fundamental Backdrop For Emerging Markets Is Poor Chart 14The Backdrop Remains Challenging For EM The Backdrop Remains Challenging For EM The Backdrop Remains Challenging For EM We have been negative on emerging market (EM) credit dating back to the latter months of 2021. Specifically, we are now underweight EM USD-denominated debt, both sovereigns and corporates. This is a high-conviction view and one that remains fundamentally supported. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China policy stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. While we expect the latter to occur in the coming months, there are meaningful risks to that view, as described earlier. Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine appears to be worsening with Russia pushing the offensive and showing no desire for reengaging talks with Ukraine. Chinese policymakers are starting to respond to slowing Chinese growth, made worse by the COVID lockdowns, with some easing measures on monetary policy. Credit growth has also started to pick up, but the credit impulse remains too weak to warrant a more positive view on Chinese growth and import demand from EM countries (Chart 14). Finally, the US dollar remains well supported by a hawkish Fed and widening US/non-US interest rate differentials. This may be the most critical variable to watch before turning more positive on EM credit, given the strong historical correlation between the US dollar and EM hard currency spreads (bottom panel). For now, the trend of the US dollar remains EM-negative. Concluding Thoughts Chart 15Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our four main investment themes, and associated recommendations, are summarized in Chart 15. The credit-related themes – underweighting high-yield bonds in the US and Europe versus investment grade equivalents, and underweighting EM USD-denominated debt – are already performing as expected. The interest rate related themes – slower global inflation and fading European rate hike expectations – should unfold in favor of our recommendations over the balance of 2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views Assessing The Risks To Our Main Views Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Spreads Near 2017-19 Average The main indicators that determine corporate bond performance are valuation, the cyclical/monetary environment and corporate balance sheet health. US corporate bond valuation is quite expensive. Spreads are off their post-COVID lows, but consistent with the 2017-19 average. The flat 2-year/10-year Treasury curve indicates that the cyclical/monetary backdrop is relatively poor. What’s more, the yield curve could easily invert within the next few months as the Fed tightens. This would send an even more negative signal for corporate bond returns.  Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but their health will deteriorate within the next 12 months as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. Relative valuation favors high-yield over investment grade corporates, and high-yield has a track record of outperformance during periods of restrictive monetary conditions and strong corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: Investors should cyclically reduce exposure to US corporate bonds while retaining a preference for high-yield over investment grade. We recommend downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Feature Chart 1A Rapid Recovery A Rapid Recovery A Rapid Recovery US corporate bonds have had a very good run since the March 2020 peak in spreads. Investment grade corporates outperformed a duration-matched position in US Treasuries by 23% during the first 12 months of the recovery, the best 12-month excess return since 2010 (Chart 1). That same period also saw an extremely rapid re-normalization of credit spreads. It took just 11 months for the investment grade corporate index option-adjusted spread (OAS) to reach 90 bps following its March 2020 peak, and the index delivered an annualized excess return of 26% during that period. In contrast, it took 109 months for the index OAS to reach 90 bps following the 2008 recession and corporates only beat duration-matched Treasuries by an annualized 4% during that time (Table 1). Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns From Spread Peak Until 90 BPs Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds The outlook for US corporate bond returns looks much different today. Spreads are tighter and the Fed is rapidly removing policy accommodation. Against this backdrop, we decided last week to cyclically reduce our corporate bond exposure.1  Specifically, we recommended downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) within US bond portfolios. This Special Report discusses the rationale for our recent decision. First, we examine trends in the main indicators that determine corporate bond performance. These indicators fall into three categories: (i) valuation, (ii) cyclical/monetary indicators and (iii) balance sheet health. We then discuss the outlook for the relative performance of high-yield versus investment grade corporates. Valuation Starting with a simple examination of the average investment grade index OAS, we see that the spread has widened somewhat off its pre- and post-pandemic lows, but remains close to the average level seen between 2017 and 2019 (Chart 2). The index OAS is a reasonable gauge of value relative to recent history, but for a longer historical perspective we should adjust the index to account for its changing average credit rating and duration. To do this, we first re-weight the index to maintain a constant distribution between the different credit rating buckets. Next, we control for the index’s changing duration by calculating a 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that must occur during the next 12 months for the corporate index to perform in line with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. It can be approximated by dividing the index OAS by average index duration. Finally, Chart 3 presents the 12-month breakeven spread as a percentile rank since 1995. It shows that, after controlling for credit rating and duration, the investment grade corporate index has only been more expensive than current levels 24% of the time since 1995. Notice that the spread bounced off the 0% line in late-2021, indicating that it had reached all-time expensive levels. Chart 2Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Chart 3Investment Grade Valuation Investment Grade Valuation Investment Grade Valuation All in all, we can conclude that investment grade corporate bonds are quite expensive. Spreads aren’t so low that they would justify an underweight allocation in a supportive cyclical/monetary environment. But they are tight enough that it makes sense to proceed cautiously in a neutral or negative cyclical/monetary environment, like the one we are in today.   Cyclical/Monetary Indicators The slope of the yield curve is the key variable we use to assess the current state of the cyclical/monetary environment. A very flat or inverted yield curve signals a relatively restrictive monetary policy backdrop, and we have shown that such a backdrop tends to coincide with poor excess corporate bond returns. Conversely, we have found that corporate bonds perform best early in the economic recovery when the yield curve is very steep. This steep yield curve signals that monetary conditions are highly accommodative, and thus supportive of credit spread tightening. Today, the yield curve is sending a somewhat confusing message. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope briefly inverted last week, and it remains flat at 22 bps. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is very steep, up above 200 bps (Chart 4)! Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve We discussed how to interpret the signals from different yield curve segments in a recent Special Report.2 We found that the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope sends the most useful signal for corporate bond excess returns, and we therefore view current cyclical/monetary conditions as negative for corporate bonds. In Table 2 we split each of the past six economic cycles into phases based on the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. We define Phase 1 of the cycle as the period from the end of the prior recession until the 2-year/10-year slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle encompasses the time when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 of the cycle spans from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Table 2US Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds The table shows annualized excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds in each of the three phases, and those returns exhibit a clear pattern. Returns are best in Phase 1 when the yield curve is steep. They take a step down in Phase 2 when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, though they usually stay positive. Negative returns are most likely in Phase 3, after the yield curve inverts. Chart 5Limited Room For Curve Steepening Limited Room For Curve Steepening Limited Room For Curve Steepening With the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope at 22 bps, we are firmly in Phase 2 of the cycle. However, we could easily see the 2-year/10-year slope invert within the next few months while a breakout above 50 bps seems less likely. In fact, there are only two ways in which the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope can steepen further from current levels. First, the market could bid up its expectation of the long-run neutral fed funds rate, pushing long-dated bond yields higher. Second, expectations for the pace of near-term Fed tightening could diminish, pulling short-dated yields down. At the long-end, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already above survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 5). At the front-end, the market is discounting a rapid pace of 272 bps of tightening during the next 12 months (Chart 5, bottom panel), but that pace has limited room to fall given current extremely high inflation readings. Turning back to a comparison of the signals from the 2-year/10-year slope and 3-month/10-year slope, it is worth pointing out that the 3-month/10-year slope is influenced by yield movements at the very front-end of the curve. Meanwhile, the 2-year/10-year slope is purely a function of rate expectations beyond the next two years. As a result, we can view the 3-month/10-year slope as sending a timelier signal about Fed rate hikes and cuts, while the 2-year/10-year slope gives a better reading of how the market views the ultimate economic impact of Fed actions. For example, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverted in 2019 just before the Fed started cutting rates (Chart 6A). The 2-year/10-year slope, however, only briefly dipped below zero. The message from the market was that the Fed would cut rates, but those cuts would be sufficient to sustain the economic recovery. As a result, corporate bonds performed well during this period, consistent with the message from the 2-year/10-year slope. Another interesting example occurred in early 2000 (Chart 6B). This time, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope inverted while the 3-month/10-year slope remained steep. In this case, the 3-month/10-year slope was telling us that Fed rate hikes would continue, while the 2-year/10-year slope was telling us that those hikes would eventually kill the economic recovery. Once again, corporate bonds took their cues from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope and performed poorly during this period. Chart 6AStrong Performance In 2019 Strong Performance In 2019 Strong Performance In 2019 Chart 6BPoor Performance In 2000 Poor Performance In 2000 Poor Performance In 2000 Obviously, the current situation looks more like 2000 than 2019, but with the 2-year/10-year slope still positive there remains scope for positive excess corporate bond returns in the near-term. That said, with high odds of 2-year/10-year curve inversion within the next few months and spreads at relatively tight levels, it makes sense to scale back exposure today in advance of the worst phase of the cycle. Balance Sheet Health The final factor we consider is the health of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets, and in fact, this is currently the lone bright spot for corporate bond investors. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six key balance sheet ratios, is deep in “improving health” territory (Chart 7). This positive signal is driven by exceptionally high Interest Coverage (Chart 7, panel 2) and Free Cash Flow-To-Debt that is just off its highs (Chart 7, panel 3). Return On Capital is up sharply since 2020 but has not recovered its previous peak (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape While corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape right now, their health will certainly deteriorate going forward as profit growth comes down off its highs and interest rates rise. The only question is whether this deterioration will happen slowly or quickly. Turning to history, two relevant periods stand out (Chart 8). First is the mid-1990s when investment grade corporate bond excess returns peaked in July 1997, 16 months before our CHM moved into “deteriorating health” territory. Conversely, the CHM sent a negative signal before the excess return peak in 2007. But even then, investment grade corporates only outperformed Treasuries by an annualized 0.8% between when the 2-year/10-year slope fell below 50 bps in 2005 and when the CHM moved above zero in 2006. In other words, investors didn’t sacrifice much return by heeding the yield curve’s signal even when the CHM was deep in “improving health” territory. Chart 8Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Investment Conclusions In summary, we view corporate bond valuations as expensive, and the flat 2-year/10-year Treasury slope suggests that the economic recovery is in its mid-to-late stages. Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but they will deteriorate going forward as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. The above three factors suggest that corporate bonds could continue to outperform duration-matched Treasuries in the near-term. However, with spreads already at tight levels, we likely aren’t sacrificing much in the way of excess returns by turning cyclically defensive today. This move also ensures that we will not be invested when the credit cycle eventually turns and corporate bond spreads move significantly wider. Retain A Preference For High-Yield Versus Investment Grade While we recommend downgrading allocations for both investment grade (from neutral to underweight) and high-yield (from overweight to neutral), we think investors should still retain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. To see why, let’s return to the 2005-06 period we looked at in the previous section. The yield curve dipped below 50 bps in 2005 when the CHM was still deep in “improving health” territory, and while investment grade corporate bond returns were low during the time between the signal from the yield curve and the signal from the CHM, junk excess returns were very strong (Chart 9). This makes some sense intuitively. Higher-rated investment grade corporates responded negatively to the Federal Reserve’s removal of monetary policy accommodation, but lower-rated junk spreads stayed well bid because actual default risk was benign. It wasn’t until after the CHM rose above zero that junk bonds started to underperform. In terms of present-day valuations, much like for investment grade, junk spreads are up off their 2021 lows. However, they remain close to their pre-pandemic trough (Chart 10). We also note that the differential between high-yield and investment grade spreads was much tighter in 2006-07. Given the similarities between that period and today, we wouldn’t be surprised to see junk spreads compress further relative to investment grade. Chart 9The Bullish Case For Junk The Bullish Case For Junk The Bullish Case For Junk Chart 10High-Yield Valuation High-Yield Valuation High-Yield Valuation Another way to approach high-yield bond valuation is through the lens of our Default-Adjusted Spread. The Default-Adjusted Spread is the difference between the junk index OAS and 12-month default losses, and we have shown that it has a strong correlation with excess returns (Table 3). Specifically, a Default-Adjusted Spread above 100 bps usually coincides with positive excess junk returns versus Treasuries, and higher spreads tend to coincide with higher returns. Table 3The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds To estimate the Default-Adjusted Spread for the next 12 months we need assumptions for the default and recovery rates (Chart 11). To do this, we model the 12-month speculative grade default rate as a function of gross nonfinancial corporate leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – and lagged C&I lending standards. We then model the 12-month recovery rate based on the default rate itself. Chart 11Default And Recovery Rate Models Default And Recovery Rate Models Default And Recovery Rate Models Corporate pre-tax profit growth was exceptionally strong during the past 12 months, and we expect it to slow significantly going forward. Profit growth can be modeled as a function of nominal GDP growth and unit labor costs (Chart 12). If we assume that nominal GDP growth comes in at 7.3% this year (the Fed’s median 2.8% real GDP estimate plus 4.5% inflation) and that unit labor cost growth rises to 6%, then profit growth will fall to 0.5% during the next 12 months. If we assume that corporate debt growth remains close to its current level (Chart 12, bottom panel), then we calculate that gross leverage will rise to 6.5 during the next 12 months. Chart 12Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Table 4 shows the output from our default and recovery rate models under the base case assumption described above. It also shows results for an optimistic case where leverage is 6.0 and a pessimistic case where it is 7.0. The Default-Adjusted Spread is fairly low in the base and pessimistic cases, but it is comfortably above the key 100 bps threshold in all three scenarios. This suggests that junk bonds should deliver positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. Table 4Default-Adjusted Spread Scenarios Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Beginning Of The End”, dated April 5, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Other Recommendations Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds