Corporate

Executive Summary China’s Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed Recent data showed a substantial improvement in the economy in the first two months of the year. However, the optimism is not well supported by other industry and high-frequency data. China’s exports were resilient, while infrastructure investment also rebounded sharply on the back of front-loaded fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, domestic demand in China remains in the doldrums. Housing market indicators show a further deterioration in home sales and prices in January and February. Consumption in tourism during the Chinese New Year and service sector activities were also weaker compared with the same period last year. While we expect policymakers to roll out more measures to shore up domestic demand, China’s economy will likely have a choppy bottom in the first half of 2022. We maintain our neutral position on Chinese onshore stocks in a global portfolio. In absolute terms, we are cautious and are looking for a better price entry point in Q2. Bottom Line: Economic data in the first two months of the year sent mixed signals, which suggests that China’s economy has not reached a solid bottom. Feature Newly released economic data from January and February (i.e. industrial production, fixed-asset investment, retail sales and property investment) all generated sizable positive surprises. However, other industry and high-frequency data sent conflicting messages. The improvement in China’s total social financing (TSF) in the past few months has been due to local government (LG) bond issuance (Chart 1). Corporate credit showed little advancement, while household loans were extremely weak (Chart 2). In addition, further contracting home sales paint a bleak picture of housing demand. Soft readings in the service sector Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) and core consumer price index (CPI) suggest that consumption remains sluggish. Chart 1The Credit Impulse Continued To Trend Down (Excluding LG Bond Issuance) The Credit Impulse Continued To Trend Down (Excluding LG Bond Issuance) The Credit Impulse Continued To Trend Down (Excluding LG Bond Issuance) Chart 2No Improvement In Corporate Or Household Demand For Credit No Improvement In Corporate Or Household Demand For Credit No Improvement In Corporate Or Household Demand For Credit Beijing is stepping up its pro-growth stimulus, particularly on the fiscal front. However, the country will unlikely undergo a strong recovery in its business cycle without a major reversal in the housing market and an improvement in demand from the private sector. Moreover, recent lockdowns to tame surging domestic COVID-19 cases amid China’s zero-tolerance pose major downside risks to the near-term economic outlook. Chinese equities sold off in response to lockdown news despite the release of better economic data earlier this month, highlighting investors’ weak sentiment. Chart 3China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed We maintain our neutral view on China’s onshore stocks relative to their global peers, but we are cautious on Chinese equities in absolute terms.  On a cyclical time horizon (6 to 12 months), there are increasing odds that Chinese policymakers will stimulate the economy more aggressively, particularly in the 2nd half of the year. However, it is too early to turn bullish on Chinese equities (Chart 3). The ongoing war in Ukraine and elevated oil prices, coupled with risks of further lockdowns in China and a prolonged downturn in domestic demand, present significant near-term risks to the performance of Chinese equities. Investors should closely watch for more reflationary efforts from Beijing and we believe a better entry point to upgrade Chinese stocks may emerge in Q2.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Near-Term Outlook For The Housing Market Remains Bleak Real estate investment growth in January-February was surprisingly strong, according to data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. However, headline growth in real estate investment deviates from the continued weaknesses in other housing market indicators (Chart 4). In addition, data on the production of some key construction materials showed little improvement (Chart 5). Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The January-February Housing Market Indicators Conflicting Signals From The January-February Housing Market Indicators Conflicting Signals From The January-February Housing Market Indicators Chart 5Data On Building Materials Also Deviate From Strong Investment Growth In Real Estate Data On Building Materials Also Deviate From Strong Investment Growth In Real Estate Data On Building Materials Also Deviate From Strong Investment Growth In Real Estate Demand for housing remains lackluster. February’s medium- to long-term household loan growth, which is mainly mortgage loans and is highly correlated with home sales, plunged to an all-time low (Chart 6). Meanwhile, the deep contraction in home sales growth continued in February, and sentiment among home buyers remains downbeat (Chart 6, bottom panel) Chart 6Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Chart 7Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Although authorities have reiterated that they want to stabilize the property market, the policy measures have been only fine-tuned. Regional governments have been allowed to initiate their own housing policies and some cities have eased processes for home purchases.1 However, given that maintaining stable home prices is an overarching goal and China’s leadership is trying to avoid further inflating the home price bubble, it is doubtful that the government will allow significant re-leveraging in the property market (Chart 7). Chart 8 shows that funds to real estate developers have slowed to the lowest level since 2010, which will further dampen housing construction. Chart 8Housing Construction Activities Will Weaken Further In 1H22 Housing Construction Activities Will Weaken Further In 1H22 Housing Construction Activities Will Weaken Further In 1H22 Chart 9The Latest Spike In Domestic COVID Cases Will Weigh On Home Sales The Latest Spike In Domestic COVID Cases Will Weigh On Home Sales The Latest Spike In Domestic COVID Cases Will Weigh On Home Sales Moreover, high-frequency floor space sold data shows a broad-based decline in housing sales in tier-one, two and three cities through mid-March (Chart 9). The latest spike in China’s domestic COVID-19 cases and regional lockdowns will likely weigh on home sales in the short term. Property investment and construction will remain at risk without a decisive rebound in home sales. A Disrupted Recovery In Household Consumption Both retail and online sales of consumer goods held up better than expected in January and February (Chart 10). However, the subdued underlying data highlight that the strong reading in retail sales in the first two months of the year may be less than meets the eye. Chart 10Although Growth In Retail Sales Rebounded In January-February... Although Growth In Retail Sales Rebounded In January-February... Although Growth In Retail Sales Rebounded In January-February... Chart 11...Service Sector Activities Still Struggle To Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels ...Service Sector Activities Still Struggle To Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels ...Service Sector Activities Still Struggle To Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels Service sector and passenger activities are still well below their pre-pandemic levels, two years after the first COVID lockdowns in early 2020 (Chart 11). Consumption in tourism during the Chinese New Year holiday was weaker than last year. Households’ propensity to spend also showed few signs of rebounding (Chart 12 & 13). Chart 12Travel Consumption Was Weak During The Chinese New Year Travel Consumption Was Weak During The Chinese New Year Travel Consumption Was Weak During The Chinese New Year Chart 13Households’ Propensity To Consume Continues To Trend Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues To Trend Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues To Trend Down Furthermore, both core and service CPI weakened in February, reflecting lackluster demand from consumers (Chart 14). Labor market dynamics have also worsened and the unemployment rate, particularly among young workers, has risen rapidly since the beginning of the year (Chart 15).  Chart 14Weak Core And Service CPIs In February Suggest Lackluster Household Demand Weak Core And Service CPIs In February Suggest Lackluster Household Demand Weak Core And Service CPIs In February Suggest Lackluster Household Demand Chart 15Labor Market Situation Is Worsening Labor Market Situation Is Worsening Labor Market Situation Is Worsening The ongoing fight against mounting new COVID cases in China will likely drag down service sector activities in the coming months (Chart 16A & 16B). Importantly, the new round of lockdowns and mobility restrictions are primarily in busier and more developed coastal metropolitans, such as Shenzhen and Shanghai. Therefore, the negative impact from social activity restrictions will be more substantive compared with previous lockdowns. Chart 16AEscalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Escalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Escalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Chart 16BEscalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Escalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Escalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Strong Rebound In Manufacturing Investment Growth In January-February Probably Not Sustainable A strong rebound in the growth of manufacturing investment helped to support overall fixed-asset investment in the first two months of the year (Chart 17). Robust external demand for China’s manufacturing goods has likely contributed to the pickup in manufacturing output and helped to sustain Chinese manufacturers’ near-maximum capacity (Chart 18). Chart 17Strong Pickup In Manufacturing Investment Growth Strong Pickup In Manufacturing Investment Growth Strong Pickup In Manufacturing Investment Growth Chart 18Robust Exports Support Chinese Manufacturing Output And Capacity Utilization Robust Exports Support Chinese Manufacturing Output And Capacity Utilization Robust Exports Support Chinese Manufacturing Output And Capacity Utilization While the volume of manufacturing output increased, prices that producers charge consumers have rolled over (Chart 19). Historically, prices have been more important in driving corporate profits than the volume of output. In addition, a strong RMB and sharply climbing shipping costs will also weigh on Chinese exporters’ profitability (Chart 20). Chart 19Manufacturing Output Picked Up While Prices Rolled Over Manufacturing Output Picked Up While Prices Rolled Over Manufacturing Output Picked Up While Prices Rolled Over Chart 20Strong RMB And Rising Shipping Costs Will Reduce Chinese Exporters' Profitability Strong RMB And Rising Shipping Costs Will Reduce Chinese Exporters' Profitability Strong RMB And Rising Shipping Costs Will Reduce Chinese Exporters' Profitability Chart 21Manufacturing Sector's Profit Margins Will Be Further Squeezed Manufacturing Sector's Profit Margins Will Be Further Squeezed Manufacturing Sector's Profit Margins Will Be Further Squeezed The elevated prices of oil and global industrial metals will continue to disproportionally benefit upstream industries, which are mainly composed of commodity producers. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector’s profit margins will be squeezed by rising input costs and sluggish final demand (Chart 21). Chinese manufacturers’ profit growth will likely weaken through 1H22 and the downtrend may be exacerbated by the ongoing struggle to contain COVID cases.  The impact from recent lockdowns in the northern city of Jilin (an auto production center), Shenzhen (a high-tech manufacturing production and export hub), and Shanghai (a city with major ports and a key logistics provider) will disrupt China’s manufacturing production and curb investment in the near term. Infrastructure Sector Will Remain A Bright Spot Through 1H22 Related Report  China Investment StrategyAiming High, Lying Low Infrastructure investment staged a strong recovery in January-February on the back of front-loaded fiscal stimulus (Chart 22). LG bond issuance started to accelerate last November and will boost both traditional and new-economy infrastructure spending at least through 1H22. Our calculations suggest that fiscal thrust will rise to more than 2% of GDP this year, a sharp reversal from last year’s negative impulse of 2% (Chart 23). Chart 22Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Chart 23Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Chart 24Subdued Shadow Bank Activities Will Limit The Magnitude Of Rebound In Infrastructure Investment Subdued Shadow Bank Activities Will Limit The Magnitude Of Rebound In Infrastructure Investment Subdued Shadow Bank Activities Will Limit The Magnitude Of Rebound In Infrastructure Investment However, shadow bank activity, which historically had a tight correlation with infrastructure investment, remains downbeat (Chart 24). February’s reading of shadow bank credit was extremely weak, highlighting that local governments still face constraints in off-balance sheet leveraging through local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). The trend in shadow bank loans bears close attention in the coming months because it will signal whether the central government will allow more backdoor financing to help local governments fund their infrastructure projects. A continued soft reading in shadow bank activities will likely limit the upside in infrastructure investment growth. Table 1China Macro Data Summary A Choppy Bottom A Choppy Bottom Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary A Choppy Bottom A Choppy Bottom     Footnotes 1     Guangzhou lowered its down-payment ratio from 30% to 20%, along with a 20bp cut in mortgage rates. Zhengzhou marginally relaxed home purchase restrictions by allowing families who bring elderly relatives to live in the city to buy one extra home and also lifted the “definition of second home ownership by physical unit & mortgage history”. ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights Chinese stocks are currently trading close to their fair value in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the direction of the next move in stocks depends on the profit outlook. Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next six months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Historically, share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months. Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in the coming months at a lower level. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. The secular outlook for corporate profitability among listed Chinese companies remains uninspiring. Hence, a structural re-rating of China stock indexes is unlikely. Feature With Chinese share prices down considerably in the past 12 months, a pertinent question is whether they offer an attractive entry point. Dissecting both valuations and the corporate earnings outlook are the key to getting the cyclical view right. This report aims to do this for both the MSCI Investable and MSCI A-share equity indexes. Our conclusion is as follows: in absolute terms, the Chinese MSCI Investable and A-share indexes have neutral valuations. Yet, the risk window for share prices remains open because corporate profits are set to contract. Also, bottoms and peaks in the money/credit cycle lead share prices by several months as illustrated in Chart 1. Hence, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. Chart 1China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies Valuations Chart 2Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral. Specifically: 1. According to our aggregate composite valuation indicators, onshore A shares are fairly valued while the MSCI Investable index is slightly above its historical mean (Chart 2). This aggregate composite valuation indicator for both equity indexes is composed of three components: based on (1) median multiples; (2) 20% trimmed-mean multiples; and (3) equal-weighted multiples. The latter uses equal weights rather than market cap weights for sub-sectors in the calculation. In turn, each component is constructed using the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and the bottom 10% of sub-sectors, i.e., it removes outliers. 2. We have also calculated a cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for both A shares and MSCI Investable stocks. The CAPE ratio for A shares is slightly below its historical mean (Chart 3), and the one for the MSCI Investable index is one standard deviation below its mean (Chart 4). Chart 3China A-Shares: CAPE Ratio China A-shares: CAPE Ratio China A-shares: CAPE Ratio Chart 4Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove the cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. The CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS converges to its trend line. Importantly, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works over the long run. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Below, we discuss the risks to Chinese corporate profits from both cyclical and structural viewpoints. We contend that a low CAPE ratio might not be unreasonable for listed Chinese companies, as their profitability has deteriorated over the past 10-12 years and their secular profit outlook is very uncertain. 3. The equity risk premium incorporates interest rates into valuations. We computed the equity risk premium by subtracting Chinese onshore government bond yields in real terms (deflated by headline CPI) from the trailing earnings yield of stocks. Chart 5 demonstrates that the equity risk premiums for A shares and investable stocks are near their historical mean, signifying neutral Chinese equity valuations at present. Relative to DM and EM equities, Chinese valuations appear to be attractive as Chinese share prices have massively underperformed their EM and DM peers in the past 12 months (Chart 6). Chart 5Equity Risk Premium For China Equity Risk Premium For China Equity Risk Premium For China Chart 6Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Bottom Line: Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the next move in share prices depends on the profit outlook. If profits expand/contract, stocks will rally/sell off. Corporate Earnings: The Cyclical Outlook Chinese corporate profits are set to contract in this downturn. Chart 7 shows that Chinese aggregate industrial profits will shrink by single digits in the next nine months from a year ago. This model is based on a regression of aggregate industrial profits on China’s credit impulse. A similar model that regresses A-share non-financial companies’ net profits on narrow money (M1) growth is also pointing to a roughly 5% corporate earnings contraction in the months ahead (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction Chart 8Chinese A-Share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Chinese A-share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Chinese A-share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Is government stimulus sufficient to produce a recovery in the business cycle and in company earnings? So far, government stimulus has been insufficient to produce a meaningful recovery in H1 2022. In particular, the changes in the excess reserve ratio lead the credit impulse by six months, and the latter signifies only a stabilization, but not a meaningful improvement in the credit impulse prior to May 2022 (Chart 9). Given that the credit impulse leads industrial companies’ earnings by about nine months (please refer to Chart 7 above), odds are that corporate profits will not bottom until H2 2022. As for service industries, online retail sales of goods and services remain weak, reflecting sluggish household income growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impulse Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impluse Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impluse Chart 10China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing There has also been another factor weighing on China’s business cycle – a declining marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies (Chart 11). The marginal propensity to spend depends on sentiment and confidence among consumers and companies. A declining propensity to spend will dampen the positive effects from government stimulus. Notably, there has been a dramatic profit divergence in industrial sectors. Commodity-producing sectors – metals and mining, steel, energy and coal – have posted an earnings windfall. In contrast, industries consuming commodities – machinery, construction materials, autos, IT and food/beverages – have seen their profits plunge (Chart 12). Chart 12Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users Chart 11China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining       Chart 13Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically     The reason for this industrial earnings dichotomy is that commodity prices have not fallen despite the weakness in China’s business cycle and its commodity imports (Chart 13). Critically, commodity users have not been able to pass on higher input costs to their customers due to weak demand. Consequently, commodity users have experienced a drastic profit margin squeeze and their earnings have plummeted. If commodity prices drop meaningfully, the profit divergence between these two groups of industrial enterprises will narrow. Yet, it will not improve the level of overall industrial profits in China. The rationale is that in the past six months, industrial profits of commodity users have accounted for 20% of aggregate industrial profits, while those of commodity producers have accounted for 80%. This reinforces the importance of commodity prices in driving China’s industrial profit cycles. Our view on commodity prices is as follows: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of a meaningful recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months, as we discussed in last week’s report. Bottom Line: As policy stimulus gets more aggressive, China’s growth and corporate earnings will recover in H2. Yet, in H1 corporate profits are set to disappoint. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain in a risk window for now. Corporate Profitability: The Structural Outlook Investors reward companies with high or rising return on equity by bidding up their equity multiples, and vice versa. One of the main reasons why the structural valuation measures for Chinese equity indexes (like the CAPE ratio) have declined in the past 10 years is worsening corporate profitability. Specifically, the return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for non-financial companies included in the MSCI A-share and Investable indexes have been falling since 2011 (Chart 14, top and middle panels). Periodic government stimulus improved corporate profitability temporarily. Yet, as stimulus waned, corporate profitability deteriorated. Consistently, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have produced zero price appreciation in absolute terms since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In the past 10 years, there has been a structural deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. Their RoE and RoA have fallen as have turnover in account assets (sales/assets), inventory (sales/inventory) and account receivables (sales/account receivables) (Chart 15). It is unclear if this secular trend of deteriorating corporate financial performance will reverse if authorities repeatedly rescue the economy by unleashing large stimulus. Chart 14Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Chart 15Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance As for technology/internet/platform companies, we maintain that the regulatory changes affecting Chinese internet stocks are structural rather than cyclical in nature. There could be periods when the pace of regulatory clampdown eases, but these regulations will not be rolled back in any meaningful way. Authorities will cap these companies’ profitability like regulators do with monopolies and oligopolies, which heralds a lower return on equity and low multiples. For very different reasons, US and Chinese authorities do not want Chinese companies to be listed in the US. And when Chinese and US authorities do not want to see some of these stocks listed in the US, they will not be. Odds are rising that a few of them might be delisted in the coming years. In such a scenario, many US institutional investors will likely offload their holdings of these companies. Finally, Chinese bank stocks are cheap for a reason. They have not recognized a massive amount of non-performing loans and have not provisioned for them. Going forward, another roadblock to shareholders of Chinese stocks is the common prosperity policies that the Chinese government has championed. These policies will redistribute income away from shareholders to the general population. Chart 16 illustrates the share of labor compensation has been rising since 2011 while the share of profits has been declining. Not surprisingly, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have been doing very poorly since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 16National Income Composition: Labor’s Share Will Continue Rising National Income Composition: Labor"s Share Will Continue Rising National Income Composition: Labor"s Share Will Continue Rising The common prosperity policies will only reinforce the existing trend of a rising share of labor compensation at the expense of shareholders in the coming years. This bodes ill for structural profitability and justifies low equity multiples. In short, a low CAPE ratio for Chinese stocks might not be out of line with such a downbeat secular outlook. Bottom Line: Even if there have been – and still will be – great companies in China that deliver phenomenal performance, their shareholders might not be in a position to reap the benefits of such solid performance. In short, the structural outlook for profitability among listed companies remains uncertain. Investment Recommendations Chart 17Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Chinese stocks, especially investable ones, are oversold and might rebound in the very near term in absolute terms. However, the three-to-six-month outlook for absolute performance remains poor. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities are very oversold and offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. Onshore Chinese stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Within the Chinese equity universe, we have been recommending the following strategies and they remain intact: Long A shares/short MSCI Investable index since March 4, 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This relative ratio is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term. However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Short Chinese investable value stocks/long global value stocks since November 26, 2020 (Chart 17, middle panel). This strategy remains intact. Short onshore and investable property stocks versus their respective benchmarks since May 9, 2019 (Chart 17, bottom panel). The woes of property developers are not over. Please refer to our Special Report on the Chinese property market. Long large banks/short medium and small listed banks since October 2016. Small and medium banks are exposed to the continuous woes in the property market much more than the large ones. Also, their profitability will be more negatively affected by the retrenchment in shadow banking activities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company.

Highlights Global equities are poised to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Non-US markets are likely to outperform. We examine the four pillars that have historically underpinned stock market performance. Pillar 1: Technically, the outlook for equities is modestly bullish, as investor sentiment is nowhere near as optimistic as it usually gets near market tops. Pillar 2: The outlook for economic growth and corporate earnings is modestly bullish as well. While global growth is slowing, it will remain solidly above trend in 2022. Pillar 3: Monetary and financial conditions are neutral. The Fed and a number of other central banks are set to raise rates and begin unwinding asset purchases this year. However, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative well into 2023. Pillar 4: Valuations are bearish in the US and neutral elsewhere. Investors should avoid tech stocks in 2022, focusing instead on banks and deep cyclicals, which are more attractively priced. The Bedrock For Equities In assessing the outlook for the stock market, our research has focused on four pillars: 1) Sentiment and other technical factors, which are most pertinent for stocks over short-term horizons of about three months; 2) cyclical fluctuations in economic growth and corporate earnings, which tend to dictate the path for stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months; 3) monetary and financial conditions, which are also most relevant over medium-term horizons; and finally 4) valuations, which tend to drive stocks over the long run. In this report, we examine all four pillars, concluding that global equities are likely to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Pillar 1: Sentiment And Other Technical Factors (Modestly Bullish)   Chart 1US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern Scaling The Wall Of Worry Stocks started the year on a high note, before tumbling on Wednesday following the release of the Fed minutes. Market breadth going into the year was quite poor. Even as the S&P 500 hit a record high on Tuesday, only 57% of NYSE stocks and 38% of NASDAQ stocks were trading above their 200-day moving averages compared to over 90% at the start of 2021 (Chart 1). The US stock market had become increasingly supported by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks, a potentially dangerous situation in an environment where bond yields are rising and stay-at-home restrictions are apt to ease (more on this later). That said, market tops often occur when sentiment reaches euphoric levels. That was not the case going into 2022 and it is certainly not the case after this week's sell-off. The number of bears exceeded the number of bulls in the AAII survey this week and in six of the past seven weeks (Chart 2). The share of financial advisors registering a bullish bias declined by 25 percentage points over the course of 2021 in the Investors Intelligence poll. Option pricing is far from complacent. The VIX stands at 19.6, above its post-GFC median of 16.7.  According to the Minneapolis Fed’s market-based probabilities model, the market was discounting a slightly negative 12-month return for the S&P 500 as of end-2021, with a 3.6 percentage-point larger chance of a 20% decline in the index than a 20% increase (Chart 3). Chart 3Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Chart 2Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Equities do best when sentiment is bearish but improving (Chart 4). With bulls in short supply, stocks can continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry.   Whither The January Effect? Historically, stocks have fared better between October and April than between May and September (Chart 5). One caveat is that the January effect, which often saw stocks rally at the start of the year, has disappeared. In fact, the S&P 500 has fallen in January by an average annualized rate of 5.2% since 2000 (Table 1). Other less well-known calendar effects – such as the tendency for stocks to underperform on Mondays but outperform on the first trading day of each month – have persisted, however. Chart 4 Chart 5 Table 1Calendar Effects The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Bottom Line: January trading may be choppy, but stocks should rise over the next few months as more bears join the bullish camp. Last year’s losers are likely to outperform last year’s winners. Pillar 2: Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings (Modestly Bullish)   Economic Growth And Earnings: Joined At The Hip The business cycle is the most important driver of stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months. The reason is evident in Chart 6: Corporate earnings tend to track key business cycle indicators such as the ISM manufacturing index, industrial production, business sales, and global trade. Chart 6The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons Chart 7PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth Global growth peaked in 2021 but should stay solidly above trend in 2022. Both the service and manufacturing PMIs remain in expansionary territory (Chart 7). The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM exceeded 60 for the second straight month in December. The Bloomberg consensus is for real GDP to rise by 3.9% in the G7 in 2022, well above the OECD’s estimate of trend G7 growth of 1.4% (Chart 8). Global earnings are expected to increase by 7.1%, rising 7.5% in the US and 6.7% abroad (Chart 9). Our sense is that both economic growth and earnings will surprise to the upside in 2022. Chart 9Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Chart 8 Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand For Both Consumer And Capital Goods US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings (Chart 10). Around half of these savings will be spent over the next few years, helping to drive demand. Households in the other major advanced economies have also buttressed their balance sheets. Chart 10Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand After two decades of subdued corporate investment, capital goods orders have soared. This bodes well for capex in 2022. Inventories remain at rock-bottom levels, which implies that output will need to exceed spending for the foreseeable future (Chart 11). On the residential housing side, both the US homeowner vacancy rate and the inventory of homes for sale are near multi-decade lows. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Chart 11Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Chart 12Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Chart 13China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed Chinese Growth To Rebound, Europe To Benefit From Lower Natural Gas Prices Chinese credit growth decelerated last year. However, the 6-month credit impulse has bottomed, and the 12-month impulse is sure to follow (Chart 13). Chinese coal prices have collapsed following the government’s decision to instruct 170 mines to expand capacity (Chart 14). China generates 63% of its electricity from coal. Lower energy prices and increased stimulus should support Chinese industrial activity in 2022. Like China, Europe will benefit from lower energy costs. Natural gas prices have fallen by nearly 50% from their peak on December 21st. A shrinking energy bill will support the euro (Chart 15). Chart 14Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Chart 15A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro Chart 16 Omicron Or Omicold? While the Omicron wave has led to an unprecedented spike in new cases across many countries, the economic fallout will be limited. The new variant is more contagious but significantly less lethal than previous ones. In South Africa, it blew through the population without triggering a major increase in mortality (Chart 16). Preliminary data suggest that exposure to Omicron confers at least partial immunity against Delta. The general tendency is for viral strains to become less lethal over time. After all, a virus that kills its host also kills itself. Given that Omicron is crowding out more dangerous strains such as Delta, any future variant is likely to emanate from Omicron; and odds are this new variant will be even milder than Omicron. Meanwhile, new antiviral drugs are starting to hit the market. Pfizer claims that its new drug, Paxlovid, cuts the risk of hospitalization by almost 90% if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Bottom Line: While global growth has peaked and the pandemic remains a risk, growth should stay well above trend in the major economies in 2022, fueling further gains in corporate earnings and equity prices.   Pillar 3: Monetary And Financial Factors (Neutral)   Chart 17The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months Tighter But Not Tight Monetary and financial factors help govern the direction of equity prices both because they influence economic growth and also because they affect the earnings multiple at which stocks trade. There is little doubt that a number of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are looking to dial back monetary stimulus. However, there is a big difference between tighter monetary policy and tight policy. Even if the FOMC were to raise rates three times in 2022, as the market is currently discounting, the fed funds rate would still be half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 17). Likewise, even if the Fed were to allow maturing assets to run off in the middle of this year, as the minutes of the December FOMC meeting suggest is likely, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will probably not return to pre-pandemic levels until the second half of this decade.   A Higher Neutral Rate We have argued in the past that the neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than widely believed. This implies that the overall stance of monetary policy remains exceptionally stimulative. Historically, stocks have shrugged off rising bond yields, as long as yields did not increase to prohibitively high levels (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market If the neutral rate ends up being higher than the Fed supposes, the danger is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long. The question is one of timing. The good news is that inflation should recede in the US in 2022, as supply-chain bottlenecks ease and spending shifts back from goods to services. The bad news is that the respite from inflation will not last. As discussed in Section II of our recently-published 2022 Strategy Outlook, inflation will resume its upward trajectory in mid-2023 on the back of a tightening labor market and a budding price-wage spiral. This second inflationary wave could force the Fed to turn much more aggressive, spelling the end of the equity bull market. Bottom Line: While the Fed is gearing up to raise rates and trim the size of its balance sheet, monetary policy in the US and in other major economies will remain highly accommodative in 2022. US policy could turn more restrictive in 2023 as a second wave of inflation forces a more aggressive response from the Fed.   Pillar 4: Valuations (Bearish In The US; Neutral Elsewhere)   US Stocks Are Looking Pricey… While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short run, they are an excellent forecaster of stock prices in the long run. Chart 18 shows that the Shiller PE ratio has reliably predicted the 10-year return on equities. Today, the Shiller PE is consistent with total real returns of close to zero over the next decade. Chart 18 Investors’ allocation to stocks has also predicted the direction of equity prices (Chart 19). According to the Federal Reserve, US households held a record high 41% of their financial assets in equities as of the third quarter of 2021. If history is any guide, this would also correspond to near-zero long-term returns on stocks. Chart 19Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II) Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II)   … But There Is More Value Abroad Valuations outside the US are more reasonable. Whereas US stocks trade at a Shiller PE ratio of 37, non-US stocks trade at 20-times their 10-year average earnings. Other valuation measures such as price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yield tell a similar story (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) Cyclicals And Banks Overrepresented Abroad Our preferred sector skew for 2022 favors non-US equities. Increased capital spending in developed economies and incremental Chinese stimulus should boost industrial stocks and other deep cyclicals, which are overrepresented outside the US (Table 3). Banks are also heavily weighted in overseas markets; they should also do well in response to faster-than-expected growth and rising bond yields (Chart 21). Table 3Deep Cyclicals And Financials Are Overrepresented Outside The US The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market The Four Pillars Of The Stock Market Chart 21Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Bottom Line: Valuations are more appealing outside the US, and with deep cyclicals and banks set to outperform tech over the coming months, overseas markets are the place to be in 2022. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Image Special Trade Recommendations Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores Image

Highlights Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration: Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Own Treasury Curve Steepeners: The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. Sell Short-Maturity TIPS: Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. We also recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, as short-maturity real yields have a lot of upside in 2022. Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now: We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates: EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and a weakening US dollar will help boost returns in 2022. A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. Underweight Agency MBS: Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. Feature BCA published its 2022 Outlook on December 1st. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer seven key US fixed income views for 2022. This report is limited to the seven key investment views, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2022” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2022 Outlook.1   On Economic Growth: The COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance in 2022 allowing US economic growth to remain above trend. Sizeable household savings and wealth will support consumer spending, the composition of which will shift away from goods and towards services. Corporate capital expenditures also look set to surge. On Inflation: A transition in consumer spending from goods to services and an increase in labor supply will cause US inflation to fall in 2022, though it will remain above the Fed’s target. On Fed Policy: The first Fed rate hike will occur between June and December 2022, depending on the paths of inflation and inflation expectations during the next few months. Fed tightening will continue into 2023. On China and Emerging Markets: Further policy easing in H1 2022 will lead to a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of the year. The BCA house view is negative on EM equities for now but will turn more bullish when clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Risks To The Outlook: The greatest risk to the outlook is that the spread of the Omicron variant leads to the re-imposition of public health measures that will weigh on economic activity. The effect of the Omicron variant remains uncertain, but increasingly widespread vaccination and the advent of anti-viral treatments should help mitigate any negative economic impacts. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022, favoring the 2-year maturity over the 10-year. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Our recommendation to keep portfolio duration low in 2022 stems directly from our assessment of Federal Reserve policy. Without going into too much detail – we will do that in next week’s “Fed In 2022” report – the Fed appears to have adopted a more hawkish reaction function during the past month. The Fed’s official forward guidance says that it will not lift rates until the labor market reaches “maximum employment”. However, Fed Chair Jay Powell weakened that commitment in recent Senate testimony. Powell said that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery and implied that to reach its maximum employment goal the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. To us, this means that the Fed’s “maximum employment” condition for lifting rates is no longer binding. The Fed will accelerate the pace of tapering when it meets this week and will start lifting rates between June and December of next year, depending on the interim trends in inflation and inflation expectations. After liftoff, Fed rate hikes will proceed at a predictable pace of 75-100 bps per year until economic growth slows significantly. We expect the fed funds rate to reach at least 2% before that occurs, consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Let’s compare our estimate of the future fed funds rate path with what is currently priced in the bond market (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations Liftoff The overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for Fed liftoff in May 2022. This is a tad early compared to our projections, but not by much. Pace After liftoff, the OIS curve is priced for the fed funds rate to rise 79 bps during the subsequent 12 months. Again, this is roughly consistent with our own expectations that the Fed will deliver three or four 25 basis point rate hikes per year. Terminal Rate It is the market’s pricing of the endpoint of the next tightening cycle – the terminal fed funds rate – that disagrees significantly with our forecast. The OIS curve is priced for the funds rate to reach 1.5% in 2024 and then stabilize. This is too low. It is too low compared to the last tightening cycle when the fed funds rate reached 2.45% in 2019. It is also too low compared to survey estimates from market participants and primary dealers. The median respondent to the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates that the long-run neutral fed funds rate is 2%. The median response to the same question from the Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median FOMC participant pegs the long-run neutral rate at 2.5%. Meanwhile, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a rough proxy for the long-run neutral interest rate that’s priced in the Treasury market – sits at only 1.73%. Historically, the 5-year/5-year forward yield converges with survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate as the Fed moves toward tightening (Chart 2). This means the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has at least 27-52 bps of upside in 2022. Chart 25y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3 shows the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Treasury yields along with the expected paths that are discounted in the forward curve for the next 12 months. The shaded regions in each panel represent our fair value estimates of where those yields will trade if the market moves to price-in our expected future path for the fed funds rate. The upper bound of the fair value range represents the most hawkish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in June, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 100 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-off at a terminal rate of 2.08% (8 bps above the lower-end of a 2%-2.25% target range). The lower bound of the fair value range represents the most dovish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in December 2022, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 75 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-of at a terminal rate of 2.08%. Chart 3 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield is well below even the lower-end of our fair value range. The 5-year Treasury yield is a bit too low compared to our target range and the 2-year yield is consistent with our fair value range, though at the very upper-end. The investment conclusions are obvious. Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. They should avoid the 10-year maturity and allocate most funds to shorter maturities like the 2-year. It should be noted that we used a conservative 2.08% terminal rate estimate in the scenarios presented in Chart 3. This is at the low-end of most survey estimates. What’s more, the BCA Outlook makes a strong case that those survey estimates will be revised higher once it becomes apparent that interest rates will have to rise to well above 2% to contain inflation. We agree that survey estimates of the long-run fed funds rate are probably too low, but we don’t expect them to be revised higher in 2022. Upward terminal rate revisions are probably a story for 2023 or 2024, sometime after the Fed has delivered a few rate hikes and it becomes apparent that more will be needed to slow an overheating economy. Appendix A at the end of this report translates different fed funds rate scenarios into 12-month expected returns for every Treasury maturity. We show scenarios where the liftoff date varies between June 2022 and December 2022, where the pace of rate hikes varies between 75 bps and 100 bps per year and where the terminal fed funds rate varies between 2.08% and 2.58%. The 10-year Treasury note is projected to deliver negative returns in every scenario we tested. Meanwhile, the 2-year Treasury note is projected to deliver a small positive return in every single scenario. These results support our conclusion from Chart 3. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and favor short maturities over long maturities. Risks To The View The first risk to our bearish view on US Treasuries is a resurgence of the pandemic. The 10-year Treasury yield continues to track the “pandemic trade” in the stock market. That is, the 10-year yield rises when a basket of equities that benefit from economic re-opening outperforms a basket of equities that benefit from lockdowns, and vice-versa (Chart 4). So far, the news about the virulence of the Omicron COVID variant has been encouraging, and our base case scenario assumes a further easing of pandemic concerns over the course of 2022. The second risk to our view is that the Fed moves too aggressively toward rate hikes causing an abrupt tightening of financial conditions that weighs on economic growth and sends long-dated bond yields lower. The shaded region in Chart 5 shows that this exact dynamic played out in 2018. Fed rate hikes started to pressure the dollar higher and weigh on equities. This led to tighter financial conditions and slower economic growth. The impact of tighter financial conditions was not immediately evident in the bond market, but slower growth eventually caused the Fed to back away from rate hikes leading to a late-2018 peak in the 10-year yield. Chart 410yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" Chart 5Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Compared to the 2018 scenario, we see less risk of Fed over-tightening in 2022 mainly because the fed funds rate is starting out at a much lower level. However, it will be important to track financial conditions as the Fed moves toward liftoff. Undue tightening would cause us to reverse our positioning. Key View #2: Own Treasury Curve Steepeners The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also recommend buying the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond as an attractive duration-neutral carry trade. The scenarios presented in the prior section show that the 2-year Treasury yield is priced within the bounds of our estimated fair value range while the 10-year Treasury yield looks too low. Logically, it makes sense to position for a steepening of the 2/10 Treasury curve to profit from this divergence. Chart 6 illustrates the implications of the prior section’s fair value estimates for different Treasury slopes. Our fair value range projects that the 2/10 Treasury slope will be between 38 bps and 89 bps in 12 months, above the 37 bps that is currently priced into the forward curve. The forward curve is also priced for too much flattening in the 2/5 Treasury slope, while the 5/10 slope is consistent with the lower end of our fair value range.   The conclusion is that investors should implement 2/10 Treasury curve steepeners in 2022 on the expectation that the 2/10 slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve. A comparison of the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield with a target range based on survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate also supports the case for 2/10 steepeners. Historically, an increase in the 5-year/5-year forward yield towards its target range corresponds with a steepening of the 2/10 slope (Chart 7). Bear-flattening moves in the 2/10 slope only occur when the 5-year/5-year forward is within its target band, as was the case in 2017/18. Given that the 5-year/5-year forward yield is currently well below its survey-derived target range, there is room for some 2/10 steepening as yields rise. Chart 6Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Chart 7A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve One way to position for a steeper 2/10 curve is to go long the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Presently, this trade looks very attractive. The 2/5/10 butterfly spread shows a significant yield advantage in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell, both in absolute terms and relative to our fair value model (Chart 8). While we view this as a good trade, we don’t think it’s the best way to position for 2/10 steepening. We prefer a position long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. This trade gives you long exposure at the 2-year maturity instead of the 5-year maturity which will boost returns if the 2/5 slope steepens, as we anticipate it will (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 8Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap In addition to our recommended 2/10 steepener, we advise clients to favor the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. While we’d expect some flattening of the 10/30 slope in 2022, this trade should still perform well because of its huge carry advantage. The tables in Appendix A show that the 20-year bond earns a massive 12-month carry (income plus rolldown return) of 3.05% compared to 1.85% for the 10-year note and 1.80% for the 30-year bond. Key View #3: Sell Short-Maturity TIPS Chart 9TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Other attractive positions include: an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, an inflation curve steepener (short 2yr TIPS/long 2yr nominal/long 10yr TIPS/short 10yr nominal), and a TIPS curve flattener (short 2yr TIPS/long 10yr TIPS). As noted at the beginning of this report, we see inflation trending down in 2022. Inflation will remain high enough for the Fed to feel comfortable lifting rates, but it won’t match the elevated readings that are currently discounted in TIPS. Interestingly, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are roughly consistent with the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 9). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a bit too low, at 2.13%, and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.47%. With long-dated TIPS breakevens so close to the Fed’s target, we recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus long-maturity nominal Treasuries heading into 2022. In our view, the mispricing in TIPS lies at the front-end of the curve. The 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 3.23%, well above the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range. This year’s surge in short-maturity TIPS breakevens has also resulted in a deeply inverted inflation slope (Chart 9, bottom panel). Table 1Regression of Monthly Changes In CPI Swap Rate Versus Monthly Changes In 12-Month Headline CPI Inflation (2010 - Present) 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Short-maturity inflation expectations are highly sensitive to changes in CPI inflation, much more so than long-maturity expectations. In fact, monthly changes in the 2-year CPI swap rate are more than twice as sensitive to headline inflation than are monthly changes in the 10-year CPI swap rate (Table 1). This means that the cost of short-maturity inflation compensation will decline as inflation moderates in 2022. We recommend an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus short-maturity nominal Treasuries. We also think an outright short position in 2-year TIPS will be highly profitable in 2022. If we assume that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate falls to the middle of the Fed’s target range during the next 12 months, and additionally that the 2-year nominal Treasury yield converges with our fair value estimate using the scenario of a September Fed liftoff, 100 bps per year hike pace and 2.08% terminal rate, then we calculate that the 2-year TIPS yield will rise from its current -2.56% to -0.98% during the next 12 months (Chart 10). Chart 10A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS Chart 10 also shows that the anticipated rise in the 2-year TIPS yield greatly outpaces the modest expected increase in the 10-year TIPS yield. This means that a position in 2/10 TIPS curve flatteners will turn a profit in 2022 (Chart 10, bottom panel). Key View #4: Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. A key pillar of our corporate bond investment process is to split the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11). Phase 1 of the cycle is defined as the period from the end of the last recession until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle spans the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 lasts from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Chart 11The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle Our historical analysis shows that excess corporate bond returns versus duration-matched Treasuries tend to be strongest in Phase 1. They are usually positive, but much lower, in Phase 2 and are often negative in Phase 3 (Table 2). Table 2Corporate Bond Returns Across The Three Phases Of The Cycle 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income We have been firmly in Phase 1 since April 2020 and, as we would expect, excess corporate bond returns have been strong. However, we will not remain in Phase 1 much longer. The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 50 bps, right on the precipice between Phase 1 and Phase 2. We recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries for now, but we will adopt a more defensive posture toward corporates once we transition into Phase 2. We expect this will happen sometime in the first half of 2022. Why Are We Not In Phase 2 Already? Chart 12Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is hovering right around 50 bps. However, as is noted earlier in this report, we think that recent yield curve flattening is overdone and expect it to reverse somewhat in the coming months. Chart 12 shows the 3-year/10-year slope along with an expected fair value range. This range is based on a 100 bps Fed rate hike pace, a 2.08% terminal rate and varying the liftoff date between June 2022 and December 2022. This fair value range only breaks below 50 bps between March and September of next year. Given our yield curve view, we are positioned for one last period of strong corporate bond outperformance during the next few months. But we will turn more defensive once we judge that we have sustainably transitioned into a Phase 2 environment. Why Turn More Defensive In Phase 2? Chart 13IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations It’s correct to point out that excess corporate bond returns are still generally positive in Phase 2 environments, so ideally, we would remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries throughout Phase 2. This makes sense theoretically, but strategically we think it will be wise to adopt a different approach this cycle. The main reason to err on the side of caution is that corporate bond valuations are extremely stretched. The 12-month breakeven spread for the investment grade corporate bond index is at its 6th percentile since 1995. This means that the investment grade corporate bond index has only been more expensive than today 6% of the time since 1995 (Chart 13). Tight spreads mean that expected returns will be modest, even in a favorable cyclical environment. In other words, we are not sacrificing much expected return by reducing exposure early in the cycle. Given that we can’t predict the start of the next Phase 3 period with exact precision, we think it makes sense to be more defensive this cycle. We will sacrifice some modest expected returns to ensure that we are well positioned for the next period of significant spread widening. Our corporate bond strategy is supported by an empirical study of historical returns. Table 3A shows average 12-month excess returns for the investment grade corporate bond index after certain combinations of the 3/10 Treasury slope and average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) are observed. Table 3B shows 90% confidence intervals for the averages presented in Table 3A. Chart Chart The tables show that a strategy of remaining overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries after the yield curve transitions into Phase 2 only works when the corporate index OAS is above 100 bps. A transition into Phase 2 portends negative excess corporate bond returns when the OAS is below 100 bps, as it is today. Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Chart 14HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations While investment grade corporate bonds look extremely expensive compared to history, high-yield corporate bonds look somewhat expensive, but much less so. The average High-Yield index OAS is 1 bp below its pre-COVID low, but investors still get a nice spread pickup for moving out of the Baa-rated credit tier and into the Ba-rated tier (Chart 14). Our prior research has shown that high-yield corporates tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries when the excess index spread after accounting for default losses is above 100 bps.2 If we assume a minimum required excess spread of 100 bps and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, we can calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 3.4% during the next 12 months (Chart 14, bottom panel). All available evidence suggests that the default rate will come in below 3.4% during the next 12 months, leading to positive excess returns for high-yield corporate bonds. The default rate came in at 1.8% for the 12-month period ending in November and it has been dropping like a stone, consistent with the reading from our Default Rate Model (Chart 15). We also recently wrote about the exceptionally good health of corporate balance sheets.3 We expect the default rate will be in the mid-2% range in 2022, below what is priced into the junk index. Chart 15Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Junk’s valuation advantage leads us to recommend that investors maintain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. We will turn more defensive on both investment grade and high-yield corporates once we transition into a Phase 2 environment, but we may still retain our preference for high-yield over investment grade at that time, as long as junk stays relatively cheap. Key View #5: Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates Investment grade USD-denominated Emerging Market bonds (both sovereigns and corporates) will outperform US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration in 2022. EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and 2022 returns will be boosted by a weakening US dollar. We see an opportunity in Emerging Market (EM) bonds for US investors in 2022. Note that we are only referring to investment grade EM bonds denominated in US dollars. We consider both investment grade USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds and investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate & quasi-sovereign bonds. EM Sovereigns Chart 16EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM sovereigns have modestly outperformed Treasuries so far this year (see Appendix B for a complete breakdown of year-to-date performance for different corporate bond sectors), and yet the sector remains attractively valued in the sense that the average index OAS has still not recovered its pre-COVID low (Chart 16). A look at recent performance trends shows that EM sovereigns outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in H2 2020 when the sector benefited from a huge yield advantage and a rapidly depreciating US dollar.4 This year, EM sovereigns lagged US corporates as the dollar strengthened. Looking ahead to 2022, we think that the recent bout of dollar strength is close to its end as the bond market has already moved to price-in an extremely hawkish Fed outlook at the front-end of the curve. A flat or depreciating dollar will benefit EM bonds in 2022, as will the yield advantage in EM sovereigns versus credit rating and duration-matched US corporates (Chart 16, panel 4). This yield advantage will only look more attractive as the Treasury curve flattens and the outlook for US corporate spreads deteriorates. At the country level, we see the best EM sovereign opportunities in Mexico, Russia, Chile, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The bonds of all these countries outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporate bonds during the past 12 months, and they continue to offer a sizeable spread advantage (Chart 17). Chart 17 EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns The investment grade USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index shows a similar relative return pattern to the EM Sovereign index, though overall performance has been better (Chart 18). We see that the index outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates dramatically in H2 2020 when the dollar was under pressure. Relative returns have been more stable this year as the dollar has strengthened. Chart 18EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM corporates & quasi-sovereigns should continue to outperform credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in 2022. A weaker dollar will certainly help, but the main driver of outperformance will be the very attractive yield advantage (Chart 18, panel 4). Key View #6: A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. US bond investors should favor tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to both Treasuries and equivalently-rated corporate bonds. Long-maturity tax-exempt municipal bonds continue to be one the most attractively priced assets in the US fixed income space. As we discussed in a recent report, one big reason for the attractive valuation is that municipal bonds tend to pay premium coupon rates.5 This significantly reduces the duration risk in long-dated munis. The first two columns of Table 4 show the yield ratios and breakeven tax rates between different municipal bond sectors and duration-matched Treasury securities. We see that the breakeven tax rate – the tax rate that equalizes after-tax yields between the two sectors – is a mere 11% for 12-17 year general obligation munis. The breakeven tax rate between 12-17 year revenue munis and duration-matched Treasuries is only 3%, and the longest-maturity munis actually offer a before-tax yield advantage versus Treasuries! Table 4Muni/Treasury And Muni/Credit Yield Ratios 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Table 4 shows that munis also offer excellent value compared to corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration, especially at the long-end of the curve. Breakeven tax rates between munis and corporate credit range from 3% to 21% for maturities longer than 12 years. What’s even more impressive about municipal bonds is that their attractive valuations are buttressed by extremely high credit quality. State & local government balance sheets have received a huge boost from federal stimulus during the past two years, and this has sent net state & local government savings (revenues minus expenditures) surging into positive territory (Chart 19). But it’s not just federal stimulus that has aided state & local governments. Even if we exclude transfer payments altogether, we find that the difference between tax receipts and consumption expenditures is rising sharply relative to interest expense (Chart 19, panel 2). Ratings agencies have noticed the improvement in state & local government budgets and ratings upgrades have far outpaced downgrades during the past year (Chart 19, bottom panel). Chart 19State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape Key View #7: Underweight Agency MBS Chart 20Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. We noted in a recent report that Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities have performed poorly in 2021.6 The main reason for the poor performance is that the compensation for prepayment risk embedded in MBS spreads (aka option cost) started the year at a very low level, but mortgage refinancing activity has been much higher than expected (Chart 20). The conventional 30-year MBS option cost has been rising, but it is still only back to where it was in 2019 (Chart 20, panel 2). This is not sufficiently attractive for us to advocate buying MBS. While rising bond yields will be a tailwind for refi activity in 2022, we still expect the pace of refinancings to be relatively strong because the rapid run-up in home prices has made it extremely enticing for households to tap the equity in their homes through cash-out refis. Within a recommended underweight allocation to MBS, we recommend that investors favor higher coupon securities over lower coupon ones. Higher-coupon MBS carry less duration than lower-coupon MBS and also wider OAS and greater convexity. This means that high-coupon MBS will outperform low-coupon MBS if bond yields rise in 2022, as we expect they will. Appendix A: Treasury Return Forecasts Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image   Appendix B: US Bond Sector Year-To-Date Performance Image Image Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?”, dated December 1, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 4 A weaker dollar tends to benefit USD-denominated EM bonds because it makes it easier for foreign issuers to service their dollar denominated debts. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Fed: The Fed is embroiled in a debate about whether to move more quickly toward rate hikes. Our expectation is that the Fed will remain relatively dovish unless 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations show signs of breaking out. We continue to expect liftoff in December 2022. TIPS: We recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity (10-year+) TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Investors should short 2-year TIPS outright, enter 2/10 inflation curve steepeners and 2/10 real (TIPS) curve flatteners. Corporate Bonds: The amount of debt relative to equity on corporate balance sheets is the lowest it has been in several years. We expect that corporate balance sheet health will start to deteriorate next year as capital spending and debt issuance ramp up. However, it will be some time before balance sheet health threatens higher defaults or wider corporate spreads. Stay overweight spread product in US bond portfolios. Should The Fed Take Out Some Insurance? Inflation has arrived much earlier in the cycle than usual and it has put the Fed in a tough spot. The so-called Misery Index – the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates – has moved in the wrong direction this year (Chart 1), and there is increasing disagreement about how the Fed should respond. Chart 1A Setback For The Fed A Setback For The Fed A Setback For The Fed The Case For Buying Insurance On the one hand, some people – both inside and outside the FOMC – are calling for the Fed to move more quickly toward tightening. One notable external voice is the former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman who just published a report calling for the Fed to speed up the pace of tapering so that it can prepare markets for rate hikes starting in the first half of 2022.1 Such a policy shift would significantly impact bond markets, which are currently priced for Fed liftoff to occur at the July 2022 FOMC meeting and for 69 bps of rate hikes in total by the end of 2022 (Chart 2). This equates to 100% odds of two 25 basis point rate hikes in 2022, with a 92% chance of a third. Chart 22022 Rate Expectations 2022 Rate Expectations 2022 Rate Expectations Furman makes the point that the Fed has already achieved its new Flexible Average Inflation Target (FAIT). The PCE deflator has averaged more than 2% annual growth since the target was adopted in August 2020 and even since just before the pandemic (Chart 3). Inflation has still averaged only 1.7% annual growth during the post-Great Financial Crisis period, but FOMC participants have generally focused on shorter look-back periods when discussing the FAIT framework. Chart 3The Fed's Flexible Average Inflation Target In Action The Fed's Flexible Average Inflation Target In Action The Fed's Flexible Average Inflation Target In Action In addition to its FAIT framework, the Fed has articulated a three-pronged test for when it will lift rates. The Fed has promised to only lift rates once (i) PCE inflation is above 2%, (ii) PCE inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time and (iii) labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with “maximum employment”. Furman argues that the Fed should abandon this three-pronged liftoff test on the grounds that it leaves no room for assessing how far inflation is from its goal. For example, Furman says that if we take the Fed’s guidance literally then “it would not lift rates in the face of a 10 percent inflation rate if the unemployment rate was even 0.2 percentage points above its full employment level.” Chart 4Short-term Inflation Expectations Short-term Inflation Expectations Short-term Inflation Expectations Effectively, Furman is arguing for the Fed to take out some insurance against the risk of long-lasting inflationary pressures. Inflation is high right now. It may come back down naturally, but it may not. Furman argues that it makes sense for the Fed to marginally tighten policy in the meantime to lessen the risk of falling behind the curve and having to play catch-up. Fed Governor Christopher Waller seems to agree with most of Furman’s arguments. Waller also argued for speeding up the pace of tapering in a recent speech, and while he didn’t go so far as to say that the Fed should abandon its maximum employment test for liftoff, he implied that his personal definition of “maximum employment” could be achieved very soon.2 Waller said that after “adjusting for early retirements, we are only 2 million jobs short of where we were in February 2020”. This would suggest that just four more months of +500k employment gains, like we saw in October, would be enough for Waller to argue for rate increases. In his speech, Waller also mentioned the risk he sees from rising inflation expectations. He specifically pointed to elevated readings from the 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate, the New York Fed Survey of Consumers’ 3-year expectation, and the University of Michigan Survey’s 1-year expectation (Chart 4). Waller cautioned that: [I]f these measures were to continue moving upward, I would become concerned that expectations would lead households to demand higher wages to compensate for expected inflation, which could raise inflation in the near term and keep it elevated for some time. This possibility is a risk to the inflation outlook that I’m watching carefully. The Case Against Insurance    San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly sits on the other side of the argument. She argued against the Fed taking preemptive action to tame inflation in a recent speech.3  Her main argument is that rate hikes would do little to lower inflation in the near-term and may end up harming the economy down the road: Chart 5Long-term Inflation Expectations Long-term Inflation Expectations Long-term Inflation Expectations Monetary policy is a blunt tool that acts with a considerable lag. So, raising rates today would do little to increase production, fix supply chains, or stop consumers from spending more on goods than on services. But it would curb demand 12 to 18 months from now. Should current high inflation readings and worker shortages turn out to be COVID-related and transitory, higher interest rates would bridle growth, slow recovery in the labor market and unnecessarily sideline millions of workers. Like Waller, Daly also pointed to possible risks from rising inflation expectations. If the high readings on inflation last long enough, they could seep into our psychology and change our expectations about future inflation. Households would then expect prices to keep rising and ask for higher wages to offset that. Businesses, of course, would pass those increases on to consumers in the form of higher prices, causing workers to ask for even higher wages. And on it would go, in a vicious wage-price spiral that would end well for no one. However, unlike Waller, Daly said that “there is little evidence” that such an expectations-driven spiral is starting to take hold. To make her point, Daly stressed that long-term inflation expectations remain well-anchored near levels consistent with the Fed’s target. This is certainly true. Five-to-ten year ahead inflation expectations, whether from survey responses or derived from TIPS prices, have been remarkably stable during inflation’s recent surge (Chart 5). This would seem to suggest that people generally believe that current high inflation will fade over time, and that the Fed’s medium-term inflation target is not at risk. The BCA View Our sense is that there are a number of FOMC participants in both the hawkish and dovish camps. But for the time being, the fact that 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations remain well-anchored tips the scale in favor of the doves. As a result, the Fed will watch the incoming data as it tapers asset purchases between now and June. If 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations remain stable during that period, the Fed will wait until its “maximum employment” goal is met before lifting rates. However, if the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rises above 2.5%, the doves will capitulate and abandon the “maximum employment” liftoff target. The committee will move quickly toward tightening to stave off the sort of wage/price spiral described by both Waller and Daly. Our own view is that realized inflation will trend lower between now and next June. This will prevent 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from rising and will push down shorter-dated inflation expectations. As a result, the Fed will wait until its “maximum employment” target is met before lifting rates. We continue to think the first rate hike is most likely to occur at the December 2022 FOMC meeting, slightly later than what is currently priced in the market. On Inflation And TIPS Valuation We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity (10-year+) TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. While there is a risk that a lengthy period of high inflation will eventually lead to a break-out in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates, that risk must be weighed against the fact that our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is too high relative to different measures of underlying inflation (Chart 6). Chart 6TIPS Are Expensive Relative To Nominals TIPS Are Expensive Relative To Nominals TIPS Are Expensive Relative To Nominals Our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator has a strong track record, with readings between -1 and -0.5 usually coinciding with a subsequent drop in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Table 1). Table 1TIPS Valuation Indicator Track Record The Fed’s Inflation Problem The Fed’s Inflation Problem Moreover, we continue to think that inflation is very likely to trend down during the next 6-12 months. The most important driver of today’s high inflation rate has been a remarkable surge in core goods inflation, from near 0% prior to the pandemic to 8.5% today (Chart 7). This jump in core goods prices is explained by a shift in the composition of consumer spending away from services and toward goods (Chart 8). This shift started during the worst of the pandemic when spending on services was not an option. Households diverted their spending toward goods at a time when COVID prevented factories from running at full capacity. Chart 7Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Chart 8Consumer Spending: Goods v. Services Consumer Spending: Goods v. Services Consumer Spending: Goods v. Services Our sense is that as the impact of the pandemic fades, we will see the composition of spending shift back toward services and firms will also be able to increase capacity. The result will be a drop in core goods inflation during the next 6-12 months, one that is significant enough to send the overall inflation rate lower. In fact, there are already signs that inflation is close to peaking. The Baltic Dry Index – an index that measures the cost of transporting raw materials – has plunged (Chart 9), and other measures of the price of shipping containers are starting to top out (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). All of these indicators tracked inflation’s recent rise and are now signaling an easing of bottlenecks in the goods supply chain. The upshot from an investment perspective is that falling inflation will keep a lid on long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next 6-12 months. It will also send short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower, and we recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end of the curve. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has greatly exceeded the Fed’s target range. In contrast, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only slightly above target. If we assume a base case scenario where both rates trend toward the middle of the Fed’s target range during the next 12 months, and a base case scenario for nominal yields consistent with the Fed lifting rates in December 2022 and then hiking at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate (Chart 10, bottom panel), we see that the 2-year real yield has a lot of upside during the next 12 months (Chart 10, panel 2). This is true both in absolute terms and relative to the 10-year real yield. Chart 9Peak Shipping Costs Peak Shipping Costs Peak Shipping Costs Chart 10The Upside In Real Yields The Upside In Real Yields The Upside In Real Yields As a result, our view that inflationary pressures will ease during the next 6-12 months leads to the following investment recommendations: Short 2-year TIPS outright Enter 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners Enter 2/10 real (TIPS) yield curve flatteners Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape Gross corporate leverage – the ratio of total corporate debt to pre-tax profits – has plunged during the past few quarters. This indicator is the backbone of our macro default rate model and, as such, its drop explains why there have been so few corporate defaults this year.4 Digging beneath the surface, we see that a great deal of leverage’s decline is explained by soaring profit growth, but a sharp drop in debt growth is also partly to blame (Chart 11). If we broaden our scope of corporate balance sheet indicators, the evidence further points to the fact that balance sheets are in great shape. Our Corporate Health Monitor – a composite indicator consisting of six different balance sheet metrics – is deep in “improving health” territory, aided by extremely high readings from the Free Cash Flow-to-Total Debt and Interest Coverage ratios (Chart 12). Chart 11Gross Leverage Is Falling Gross Leverage Is Falling Gross Leverage Is Falling Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Corporate Health Monitor Corporate Health Monitor One thing that seems certain is that corporate profits will not continue to grow by more than 50%, as they did during the past four quarters. As such, we hesitate to make too big a deal out of balance sheet ratios that are directly tied to profit growth. However, even if we look at different measures of the amount of debt versus equity on corporate balance sheets, we arrive at the same conclusion that balance sheets are extremely healthy. The top panel of Chart 13 shows the ratio between total corporate debt and the market value of equity. This ratio is at its all-time low, but one could argue that it is being inappropriately flattered by elevated stock valuations. If we look at the ratio of total debt-to-net worth, where net worth is the difference between assets and liabilities with real estate assets valued at market value and non-real estate assets valued at replacement value, we also see a significant improvement and the lowest ratio since 2010 (Chart 13, panel 2). Finally, we also find the lowest ratio of debt-to-net worth since 2013 even if we value all non-financial corporate assets at historical cost (Chart 13, bottom panel). In other words, the message is clear. Corporate balance sheets have repaired themselves considerably since the pandemic and leverage ratios are the lowest they’ve been in years. This fact has not gone unnoticed by ratings agencies who’ve announced far more upgrades than downgrades so far this year (Chart 14). Chart 13Leverage Ratios Leverage Ratios Leverage Ratios Chart 14Upgrades Much Higher Than Downgrades Upgrades Much Higher Than Downgrades Upgrades Much Higher Than Downgrades What about the path forward for balance sheets? Our view is that balance sheet health will stop improving at the margin, but that it still has a long way to go before it poses a risk for defaults or corporate bond spreads. The recent spike in profit growth will recede in the coming quarters. This sort of large jump in profits following a recession is fairly typical, but it also tends to be short-lived (Chart 11, panel 2). Further, while corporate debt growth probably won’t surge next year it is likely that it will start to increase. At present, slow corporate debt growth is explained by the fact that company earnings have far outpaced capital investment requirements (Chart 15). This is partly because earnings have been strong and partly because capex requirements have been low. This is about to change. Inventory-to-sales ratios are near record lows and we have already seen a jump in core durable goods orders. All of this points to a capex resurgence in 2022 that will be partially financed by rising corporate debt. Chart 15Debt Growth Will Rise In 2022 Debt Growth Will Rise In 2022 Debt Growth Will Rise In 2022 Bottom Line: The amount of debt relative to equity on corporate balance sheets is the lowest it has been in several years. We expect that corporate balance sheet health will start to deteriorate next year as capital spending and debt issuance ramp up. However, it will be some time before balance sheet health threatens higher defaults or wider corporate spreads. Stay overweight spread product in US bond portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/furman-2021-11-17.pdf 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20211119a.htm 3 https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/mary-c-daly/2021/november/policymaking-in-a-time-of-uncertainty/ 4 For more details on our Default Rate Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights In this report, we take a close look at corporate margins by analyzing their key drivers: The general level of economic activity, trends in labor costs and productivity, borrowing costs, tax rates, depreciation charges, the exchange rate, and corporate pricing power. The likely contraction of margins next year will be driven by a combination of factors: First and foremost, a slowdown in top-line growth and a decline in corporate pricing power.  In the meantime, the tight labor market is putting upward pressure on wage growth despite a peak in productivity improvement. Input costs are also on the rise with PPI soaring, cutting into corporate profitability. Depreciation is already rising on the back of the recent recovery in capex. Interest expense has bottomed in the face of rising rates, and the potential healing of corporate balance sheets is leading to re-leveraging to raise capital for capex and buybacks.  The US corporate tax rate is bound to increase based on news from Capitol Hill.   The model above encapsulates all of these moving parts (Chart 1) and reiterates that the path of least resistance is lower for US corporate margins. S&P 500 operating margins are likely to contract in 2022. Feature Profits Have Rebounded S&P 500 earnings growth has rebounded vigorously from the pandemic low. Operating earnings-per-share stand 32% YoY above the January 2020 pre-pandemic high (Chart 2). Margins have also exceeded pre-pandemic levels of 11.7% reaching 14.4% in September (Chart 3). The basic story behind a rebound in profitability is well understood: Companies have cut costs aggressively, productivity has improved, lower interest rates have reduced debt servicing burdens, a weaker dollar has boosted overseas earnings, and corporate pricing power has strengthened. Gauging the direction of change for each of these various factors will help us assess whether profits can continue growing, and whether operating margins can continue expanding. Chart 1After An Impressive Surge, Margins Are Set To Decline Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Chart 2Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Profits Have Rebounded Vigorously Chart 3Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Margins Are Above Pre-pandemic High Sneak Preview: We expect profit margins to contract in 2022 NIPA Operating Margins vs S&P 500 Operating Margins The market tends to focus on S&P 500 earnings and these can be measured on a reported or operating basis, with the latter removing the effects of one-off charges. In order to better understand the path of S&P 500 margins, we aim to relate profits to the economic cycle; to do so, we analyze the data from the national income and product accounts (NIPA) because they are fully integrated with GDP and any related series. National non-financial after-tax profits without the inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and the capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)1 are conceptually closest to S&P 500 profits as they measure the after-tax worldwide earnings of US corporations. Fortunately, the S&P and equivalent national income measures of operating profits broadly track each other over the long run, although the S&P data display greater volatility. The NIPA profit margin series is 70% correlated with S&P 500 operating profit margins. While this level of correlation indicates that long-term trends in NIPA profits and S&P earnings are broadly similar, short-term annual and quarterly growth rates can differ dramatically. The Key Drivers Of Profitability A number of factors can influence the path of profits: The general level of economic activity, including trends in borrowing costs, tax rates, depreciation charges, the exchange rate, productivity, and corporate pricing power. It clearly would be most bullish if productivity had been the main driver because any future benefits from the other four sources will be limited. Interest rates will normalize at some point, and effective tax rates seem more likely to rise than fall from current levels, and we should hope for faster depreciation in line with increased capital spending. In addition, the downside in the dollar is constrained by the desire of other countries to maintain competitive exchange rates. Corporate pricing power is the sole mitigating factor against these cost pressures. In this report, we will methodically go through and assess the outlook for each of these profit drivers, and their cumulative effect on profit margins for the next year or so. Revenue Growth Is A Key To Margin Expansion The EBITD measure of domestic non-financial profits excludes the impact of changes in taxes, interest rates and depreciation charges and is thus the series that is most directly affected by the underlying economic cycle and by productivity. Moreover, because it covers only domestic profits, it is not overly influenced by exchange-rate movements. GDP growth and NIPA EBITD margin expansion move in tandem. The post-pandemic rebound in economic growth has underpinned margin recovery (Chart 4). However, real GDP forecasts have recently been cut from 6.5%  to just under 6% for 2021, and to 4% in 2022 (Chart 5). Slower growth suggests that the pace of margin expansion will also slow. Chart 4EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP EBITD Margins Usually Track GDP Chart 5GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow GDP Growth Is Expected To Slow Cost Drivers Of Profits Labor Expense As Percentage Of Sales Has Been Falling Looking at the expense side of the NIPA Income Statement, we note that labor costs are singlehandedly the largest expense, hovering around 50% of sales, dwarfing all the other expense items (Chart 6). The NIPA EBITD margin allows us to gauge the effect of changes in labor costs on the bottom line.  Chart 6Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense Labor Costs Are The Largest Expense After the initial spike to 54% of sales at the beginning of the pandemic, explained by rapidly falling sales and an inability of companies to rapidly reduce employee numbers, labor costs as a percentage of sales have been reverting to historical levels.  This is a curious phenomenon as wages have recently been on the rise: The number of open positions has been exceeding the number of job seekers by over a million, indicating that jobs are plentiful.  As a result, the quit rate has exploded (Chart 7). To attract and retain workers, businesses have been raising compensation, leading to average weekly earnings rising by more than 5% year over year. As a result, wages-to-sales have been trending up (Chart 8). Chart 7Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Quit Rate Exploded Pushing Wages Up Chart 8Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up Wages-to-Sales Have Been Trending Up If companies must pay more for labor, why has the labor expense as percentage of sales fallen? To answer this question, we will look at the selling prices over unit labor costs as a proxy for the EBITD margin (Chart 9) to examine the underlying profitability as a function of labor costs. However, since the beginning of the pandemic, this stable relationship has broken down, with selling prices falling over unit labor costs, while margins have been expanding. Digging deeper, we notice that NIPA sales prices have rebounded (Chart 10) due to a surge in inflation and a rise in a corporate pricing power (Chart 11), while unit labor costs dived. This can be attributed to a pandemic productivity surge (Chart 12), making it cheaper to produce each additional unit.  Chart 9A Proxy For EBITD Margin A Proxy For EBITD Margin A Proxy For EBITD Margin Chart 10Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Sales Prices Are Up, Unit Labor Costs Are Down Chart 11US Corporate Power Is Waning US Corporate Power Is Waning US Corporate Power Is Waning Chart 12Productivity Has Peaked Productivity Has Peaked Productivity Has Peaked However, after rising for months, the ability of companies to raise prices further has been diminished by consumers’ income increasing slower than inflation, reducing their purchasing power.  Improvements in productivity have also peaked and are unlikely to propel margins higher.  Input Costs Are Soaring While cost of goods sold (COGS) is not one of the lines in the NIPA income statement, we would be remiss not to mention that input costs have been on the rise. The most recent reading in PPI was up 8.3% YoY (Chart 13). The price of oil has been surging as well. An increase in the cost of materials definitely has an adverse effect on corporate margins. We will quantify the effects of the year-on-year percentage of PPI on margins later in this report. Chart 13Input Prices Have Soared Input Prices Have Soared Input Prices Have Soared Other Drivers Of Profitability: Depreciation, Interest And Taxes Switching gears to other costs, interest, taxes, and depreciation expenses are likely to increase going forward. Capex Is Rising, So Will Depreciation Expense Depreciation expense is the second largest expense in the cost structure, constituting some 15% of sales. Between mid-2009 and mid-2012, depreciation charges fell sharply, curtailed by weak investment growth during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) economic downturn. Similarly, the same story unfolded during the 2015 manufacturing slowdown, and the pandemic-induced recession (Chart 14). Today, growth in US domestic fixed investment has rebounded at rates comparable to the 2000 and 2010 recoveries. The trend will continue: According to the Philly Fed Manufacturing Survey, capex intentions have been rising (Chart 15). As a result, depreciation expense is set to climb, cutting into margins and earnings. Chart 14Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Capex Surge Will Lead To Higher Depreciation Chart 15More Capex Is Under Way More Capex Is Under Way More Capex Is Under Way Interest Costs Set To Increase With Rising Rates Interest charges are small compared to other expenses, never rising above 5% of sales. There has been quite a lot of variability in interest charges in recent years, reflecting swings in both interest rates and the level of corporate borrowing (Chart 16). Falling interest costs provided a boost to profits between 2008 and 2010, as well as during the trade war and the pandemic. Also, corporations have been de-leveraging, but this trend is about to turn: As the corporate sector heals, it is likely to re-leverage, whether to finance capex or buybacks. With interest rates set to rise, interest costs are likely to become a drag on profits (Chart 17).   Chart 16Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Higher Rates And Corporate Re-Leveraging Will Push Interest Costs Up Chart 17Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Corporate Debt Has Bottomed Effective Tax Rates Are Likely To Increase Effective tax rates have fallen from about 18% in 2014-2017 to 12% in January 2018 because of the Trump Administration’s tax reform and remain low by historical standards (Chart 18). Meanwhile, taxes paid have also been hit by the 2020 downturn thanks to temporary tax breaks, and have not yet rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, thereby aiding margin expansion. However, given the Biden Administration’s push to increase the US corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes, chances are that tax expenses will rise. Chart 18Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Effective Tax Rates Are Low By Historical Standards Overseas Profits So far, we have focused on the domestic drivers of changes in margins.  Yet for many US corporations, especially the ones in the S&P 500, overseas profits are a key source of profits. Many industries derive a substantial share of sales from abroad, and for Technology, this number stands as high as 58%.  Historically, overseas profits have been a tremendous source of growth (Chart 19) thanks to rising exposure to fast-growing emerging economies, a weaker dollar, and the transfer of operations to low-tax regimes. However, recently this trend has turned due to closing loopholes allowing companies to locate headquarters in lower tax regime jurisdictions, tax reform, foreign profits amnesty, and unified global pressure to tax US multinationals. Onshoring of manufacturing production is another emerging trend that is likely to improve the efficiency of supply chains but will add to production expenses, chipping away at corporate profitability. The US dollar has been weakening during the pandemic, giving a boost to profits thanks to both lower prices of the American goods and translation effects (Chart 20). Chart 19Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Overseas Profits Are Trending Down Chart 20USD TRW Is Strengthening USD TRW Is Strengthening USD TRW Is Strengthening Hence, we conclude that the share of overseas profits is unlikely to change and is not going to become an engine for profit growth for US corporations. Where Next For Profits? The clear implication from the above analysis is that profits have ceased to benefit from earlier benign trends in depreciation charges, interest costs, and tax rates. Looking ahead, these factors, are destined to become modest headwinds for profit growth. Sales growth is also likely to slow as GDP growth returns to trend, with overseas profits less of a source of growth. And importantly, productivity growth and pricing power have peaked and turned, depriving the economy of its key drivers of margin expansion. S&P 500 The obvious question is how all the factors affecting NIPA margins translate into the forecast for change in S&P 500 operating margins. S&P 500 margins are subject to the same profit drivers as the NIPA accounts. In order to forecast the effect of these factors on the year-on-year changes in operating margins, we have built a simple regression model that uses year-on-year changes in average hourly earnings (AHE) to capture the cost of labor; high-yield option-adjusted spreads (OAS) to capture the cost of borrowing; year-on-year PPI as a change in cost of input materials; the trade-weighted USD as an indicator capturing change in foreign profits; and, lastly, the BCA pricing power indicator to measure companies’ ability to pass on these costs to their customers (Table 1).   Table 1Regression To Predict Operating Margins YoY% Marginally Worse Marginally Worse The model forecast of margin growth peaked in August 2021 and is about to slow into the balance of the year (Chart 21). Margins will contract outright in December 2021-January 2022. The growth rate for margins in January 2022 is -65% year on year.  In January 2021, operating margins were 7.2%. Incorporating a negative year-on-year growth rate, we arrive at margins of only 2.6%, which is certainly very low. The caveat here is that our objective is to predict the direction of change as opposed to working out a point estimate of future margins. In other words, there is a wide confidence interval around any forecast of earnings given the unpredictability of movements in the exchange rate, productivity and the general level of economic activity. However, our assumptions are conservative, and the model clearly points to a margin contraction in 2022. Chart 21After An Impressive Surge, Margins Are Set To Decline Marginally Worse Marginally Worse And lastly, why will margins contract? What is the main culprit that would make things worse? The answer is an increase in input and labor costs (PPI and AHE), both of which are no longer being offset by a corporate pricing power: The ability of corporations to pass on their costs to customers has diminished, and margins are going to take a hit (Chart 22 & Table 2). Chart 22Increase In Costs Is No Longer Offset By Pricing Power Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Table 2Contributions To Margins Growth Marginally Worse Marginally Worse Bottom Line Earnings growth and profit margins are of paramount importance to the performance of equities – as we wrote in a report in August, the key driver of returns has shifted from multiple expansion to earnings growth. Despite the recent pullback, the S&P 500, trading at 20.5x forward multiples, is still expensive. Our analysis shows that S&P 500 operating margins are likely to contract in 2022 because of rising wages, a slowdown in productivity, increases in interest and depreciation expenses, and potential tax hikes. On the revenue side, US GDP growth is slowing, and corporate pricing power is waning, making it difficult to pass on rising costs to customers. Impending margin contraction does not bode well for the strong performance of US equities in the year ahead.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Profits before tax reflect the charges used in tax accounting for inventory withdrawals and depreciation. The inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and the capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj) are used to adjust before-tax profits to NIPA asset valuation concepts. The IVA adjusts inventories to a current-cost basis, which is similar to valuation of inventory withdrawals on a last-in/first-out basis. The CCAdj adjusts tax-reported depreciation to the NIPA concept of economic depreciation (or “consumption of fixed capital”), which values fixed assets at current cost and uses consistent depreciation profiles based on used asset prices. Recommended Allocation

Highlights Evergrande has not only crossed regulatory gridlines but also regulators’ bottom lines; the government will use the example of Evergrande to impose discipline on real estate developers. The policy response will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers to minimize systemic risks and damage to the real economy. However, a bigger risk stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy. The existing policy restrictions on China’s housing sector will not be reversed; the sector is on a structural downshift and will face risks of further consolidation and profit growth compression. Feature China Evergrande Group continues to stir up the global markets. Last Thursday the company missed a deadline to pay USD $83.5m in bond interest. The firm has now entered a 30-day grace period; it will default if that deadline also passes without payment. Chart 1Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Evergrande has not remarked on the potential default nor have China’s authorities or state media offered any clues about a potential rescue package. Meanwhile, the PBoC injected large amounts of liquidity into the banking system of late, a clear sign of support for the markets. Evergrande share prices continued their roller-coaster ride (Chart 1). Evergrande’s tumult is indicative of an industry-wide problem.  Real estate developers have expanded their businesses and profits through high-debt growth models. China’s policymakers have been trying to crack down on this business practice since 2017 and their clampdown has significantly intensified since August 2020. In this report, we follow up on last week’s Special Alert and share our thoughts on the potential market implications and policy response to the evolving Evergrande situation. The “Three Red Lines” Versus The “Bottom Lines” Evergrande has not only crossed the “three red lines” – three debt metrics China’s authorities laid out a year ago to reduce the housing sector’s leverage – but it has also crossed the bottom lines of policymakers. Therefore, we do not expect the government to lend a financial hand to bail out the corporation and its shareholders. Meanwhile, as discussed in our Special Alert, we expect that there will be some kind of a rescue plan to help onshore homebuyers and suppliers recover their losses. The authorities’ silence in the past three months as investors’ concerns about Evergrande’s debt situation escalated speaks volumes about plans for the overleveraged company. The Evergrande episode is not idiosyncratic; it represents an industry-wide problem linked to the sector’s high-debt growth model.  However, Evergrande has become China’s and the world’s most indebted property developer; the “three red lines” policy last year has pushed the company into a severe liquidity crunch.  Evergrande not only borrowed heavily to pursue an aggressive expansion strategy (“disorderly expansion of capitals”), but did so as President Xi Jinping famously remarked “houses are for living, not for speculation” in late 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, Evergrande’s total liabilities almost doubled and its stock prices jumped by 460%. Evergrande’s founder was ranked the richest man in China in 2017, building his company’s fortune on excessive leverage. The way that the company accumulated wealth conflicts with the government’s new mantra of building “common prosperity”, a policy shift to reduce income and wealth inequality. Furthermore, Evergrande paid its offshore investors in June this year while it continued to borrow from onshore banks and offload its onshore assets. This move did not bode well for China’s domestic stake- and shareholders, along with policymakers. Chart 2Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities In contrast with policymakers’ silence about the future of Evergrande and its shareholders, the authorities have reportedly urged the company to finish and deliver its housing projects.  Evergrande’s projects are mostly in tier-three cities where post-pandemic home price inflation has been subdued compared with top-tier cities (Chart 2). As such, policymakers will be less concerned about fueling home prices in these cities and more willing to work out a plan to finish and deliver those housing projects. Bottom Line: Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande rather than its shareholders. Contagion Risks We discussed our baseline scenario for Evergrande’s bankruptcy and restructuring in last week’s Special Alert. Our message has been that the well-telegraphed Evergrande default might not create an imminent systemic crisis or crash in China’s financial markets. However, it will likely reinforce the credit tightening that has been underway in China over the past 12 months.  This will delay and weaken the transmission of liquidity easing into the real economy. So far things are not bad enough for policymakers to reflate the economy in any meaningful way. Since the contagion risks from Evergrande’s debt crisis to China’s onshore financial markets seem to be contained, policy easing in the coming months will likely be gradual. Regulators have shown no sign of reversing the existing policy restrictions. Therefore, a bigger risk to China’s financial markets stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a spillover to other segments in the economy. Real estate activity and investment in China are set to slow structurally (discussed in the section below). If policymakers allow a disruptive deceleration in the sector's growth while being reluctant to ramp up support in other industries, China’s economic growth could downshift much more than policymakers would like to see. A rapid deceleration in the real economic activity and jitters in the financial markets could reinforce each other and spiral out of control. The facts below explain why risks of an imminent systemic crisis in China’s and global financial markets are limited (Table 1): The exposure of China’s banks to real estate developers is small relative to the banks’ total lending.  Although about 40% of total bank loans are property-related, only 6% are in loans to real estate developers. The majority of the 40% is in mortgage loans, construction loans and other loans collateralized by land and property. Evergrande’s outstanding bank debt accounts for less than 0.1% of China’s total onshore loan balances. The company owes about 1% of China’s existing trust loans and 0.04% of domestic bonds. The company has quality assets, as we discussed in last week’s report, that could cover most of its onshore outstanding debt. Widespread mortgage loan defaults are unlikely to happen, even if Evergrande does not strike a debt restructuring deal with the government. Strict housing and home-sale regulations cap the upside and limit the downside in home prices. Moreover, conservative loan-to-value ratio requirements have contributed to China’s low default rates on mortgage loans.1 Evergrande’s overseas liabilities are more significant, with its USD $20 billion bonds accounting for about 10% of China's corporate USD bonds issued by real estate developers. On the other hand, major US financial institutions have minimal direct exposure to China and Hong Kong SAR. Table 1Evergrande Debt, An Overview* The Evergrande Saga Continues The Evergrande Saga Continues Despite limited systemic risks to the financial markets, a lack of government intervention could result in a disruptive bankruptcy of the company, risking substantial ripple effects on other parts of the economy. Evergrande’s accounts payable and bills amount to nearly RMB 700 billion, owed to companies in the upstream and downstream industry supply chains.  In addition, Evergrande’s contract liabilities are as high as RMB 170 billion and are associated with the pre-sold but unfinished residential units in more than 200 cities. We think policymakers and Evergrande will ultimately agree on a debt restructuring plan. Evergrande could transfer some of its hard assets to state-owned banks or enterprises and the banks could either extend or restructure Evergrande’s existing loans to help finish and deliver the company’s housing projects. Regardless of how the debt is restructured, a government-led rescue will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers. Evergrande shareholders and investors in offshore, USD-denominated corporate bonds will suffer large losses. Bottom Line: Our base case scenario is that the government will restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. Will Policymakers Reverse Restrictive Housing Policies? Even though China’s monetary and fiscal policies have eased at margin, policy restrictions on the property market remain in place. The bar for regulators to significantly ease or to reverse policy tightening in the real estate industry is much higher than in past cycles. Furthermore, the government’s efforts to contain the sector’s leverage and home price inflation are structural rather than cyclical. Our view is based on the following observations: Chart 3China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China’s housing demand is on a structural downshift due to China’s falling birthrate and working-age population.  The decline in demand will likely accelerate in the next four to five years (Chart 3). Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the growth in real estate investment in the coming years will continue growing at the same rate as in the past cycles.  The government is determined to improve housing affordability by capping home prices in the coming years while increasing lower-income household wage growth. Previous “big bang” stimulus and soaring home prices have widened rather than narrowed income and wealth inequality. Beijing’s current primary focus is “common prosperity,” which aims to reduce inequality. This overarching policy initiative will prevent policymakers from backtracking on reforms in the property sector. Things are not bad enough for a major shift in policy direction. Demand for housing is down, but from a very elevated level (Chart 4). The growth of home sales is now reverting to its pre-pandemic rate. In a previous report we pointed out that the current policy backdrop resembles that of 2H2018 and 2019, when the stimulus was very measured despite a slowing economy and an escalating trade war with the US. Demand for housing in the first eight months of this year is stronger than in 2018/19, thus policymakers may not feel pressure to loosen restrictions in the housing sector.  Chart 4Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Chart 5Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Growth in real estate investment has been steady despite contracting housing starts (Chart 5).  The government’s deleveraging pressure on the sector since August last year has forced developers to hurry and finish their existing projects (Chart 5, bottom panel). This has helped to reduce developers’ project inventories and discourage them from hoarding land reserves, and the policy intention is unlikely to change (Chart 6). Additionally, the government has prioritized home price stability by capping prices and fine-tuning the supply of land (Chart 7). In other words, housing starts have become less market-driven and weaker readings may reflect regulators’ policy intentions to rein in land supplies.2 Local governments may increase the supply of land when real estate investment softens too fast, but home sales and project completions will have to decelerate more significantly. Chart 6Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Chart 7Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Funding constraints will not be removed soon and restrictive policies apply to both developers and banks. Banks need to meet the “two red lines” while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. The “two red lines”, which the PBoC unveiled in January this year, set the upper limit on the portion of household mortgages and real estate loans in banks’ total lending.  Despite aggressively scaling back lending to the housing sector, the lending ratio in many banks – including China’s six large banks and various medium-sized banks – still exceeded the upper limit. These banks will have to continue to reduce their property-related lending while the other banks will maintain a lower percentage of loans to the housing sector than in the past. Consequently, binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years, suggesting that the property market downturn will last longer than in previous cycles. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to have much appetite for more robust construction activity in the current environment with supply-side constraints for both raw materials and energy. More than 10 provinces in China are currently under power rationing and have cut factory production amid electricity supply issues and a push to enforce environmental regulations. We expect supply shortages and production decreases to continue through the winter, limiting the upside potential of the country’s economic activity. Bottom Line: China’s reforms in the property sector are structural and the leadership is much less likely to use housing as counter-cyclical policy support to the economy than in previous cycles. Investment Implications China’s growth and its ever-important property market activity have slowed. Given the policymakers’ higher pain threshold for a slower economy and lower appetite for leverage, policy easing will likely be gradual and piecemeal in the near term. The current monetary, fiscal, and industry policy backdrops resemble China’s response in H2 2018 and early 2019. Chinese stock prices rose briefly in early 2019 on the expectation of a sizable stimulus, but the rally was short-lived (Chart 8). Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility that policymakers will be overconfident in their capability to stabilize the economy as they balance structural reforms against growth volatility. They may choose to wait until there are signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy before backtracking the deleveraging campaign in the property sector and lending more support to the market/economy. In this scenario, the near-term response in the equity market will likely be very negative. China-related asset prices will not stabilize until policymakers decisively and significantly dial-up their reflationary response. Property sector stocks in China’s on- and offshore markets have been beaten down by policy tightening and lately the Evergrande saga (Chart 9). We maintain our view that these stocks have not reached their bottom. The property downturn in China is a structural change and authorities are unlikely to reverse current restrictions on the sector to support the economy. Chart 8Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chart 9Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom The real estate sector’s contribution to China’s economic growth is expected to gradually decline in the medium to long term. The industry will be further reformed and consolidated, and more developers will be forced to abandon their high-leverage, high-growth business expansion model. The outlook for the real estate industry’s profit growth will become less certain.  Investors will require higher risk premiums for real estate sector stocks, which means that these stocks’ valuations will be further compressed.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Chinese homeowners’ down payment ratios on a first property is 30% and 50% on a second property. 2Land auctions were delayed in July and August due to overwhelming demand from developers in the first half of the year. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance