Corporate Bonds

Highlights Duration: Long-maturity Treasury yields are closing in on our intermediate-term targets. On balance, cyclical and valuation indicators continue to support an outlook for higher yields, but a few are sending warning signs that the bearish bond move is due for a correction. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark 6-12 month duration stance for now, but are keeping a close eye on the indicators shown in this report. Ba Versus Baa Corporates: From a risk-adjusted perspective, the Ba credit tier still looks like the sweet spot for positioning within corporate bonds. Fallen Angels have performed exceptionally, but no longer look cheap compared to the Baa and Ba corporate indexes. Labor Market: If the current pace of monthly employment growth is maintained, it will be a very long time before the economy reaches full employment. Vaccine effectiveness and distribution rate are the two most important factors that will determine employment growth going forward. We are optimistic that we will see a 4.5% unemployment rate sometime in 2022. Feature Chart 1Uptrend Intact Bond yields moved higher last week, maintaining their post-August uptrend despite a brief lull in the second half of January (Chart 1). The 30-year yield even touched 1.97%, its highest level since last February. Given the sharp up-move, the first section of this week’s report considers whether bond yields look stretched. More broadly, we discuss several factors that will help us decide when to increase portfolio duration. How Much Higher Can Yields Rise? We have maintained a recommended below-benchmark duration stance since October and have been targeting a range of 2% to 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield.1 That target range is based on median estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s surveys of market participants and primary dealers (Chart 2). The rationale is that in an environment of global economic recovery where the Fed is expected to eventually lift the funds rate back to equilibrium, long-dated forward yields should reflect expectations of that long-run equilibrium. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is 1.97% meaning that there is between 3 bps and 28 bps of upside before our target is met. Chart 2Almost At Target A 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield between 2% and 2.25% would not automatically trigger an increase in our recommended portfolio duration, but it would mean that further increases in yields would need to be justified by upward revisions to survey estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate. In a similar vein, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen considerably in recent months, but at 2.15%, it remains below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed would consider “well anchored” (Chart 2, bottom panel). In other words, there is still some running room for reflationary economic outcomes to be priced into bond yields. Cyclical Growth Indicators Treasury yields may be encroaching on the lower bounds of our target ranges, but cyclical economic indicators suggest further increases ahead. The CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio remains in a solid uptrend, and encouragingly, it is being driven by a surging CRB index and not just a falling gold price (Chart 3). Separately, the outperformance of cyclical equity sectors over defensives has moderated in recent weeks, but not yet by enough to warrant reversing our duration call (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Cyclical Bond Indicators Value Indicators Chart 4Bond Valuation Indicators While cyclical indicators point to further bond weakness ahead, a couple valuation measures show yields starting to look stretched. Two survey-derived estimates of the 10-year zero-coupon term premium have moved up sharply. The estimate derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants has jumped into positive territory and the estimate derived from the Survey of Primary Dealers is close behind (Chart 4). These surveys ask respondents to estimate what they think the fed funds rate will average over the next ten years. By comparing the median survey response to the current spot 10-year Treasury yield we get a measure of how much term premium the median investor expects to earn. These term premium estimates have typically been negative during the past few years, though they did rise to about +50 bps before Treasury yields peaked in 2018. In other words, a positive term premium estimate, on its own, is no reason to extend duration. All it tells us is that if the median investor is correct about the future path of the fed funds rate, then there is more money to be made at the long-end of the curve than in cash. This doesn’t rule out investors revising their funds rate expectations higher, or the term premium becoming even more stretched. Another related bond valuation indicator is the difference between the market’s expected path for the fed funds rate and the path projected by the FOMC (Chart 4, bottom panel). Here we see that, for the first time since 2014, the market is priced for a faster pace of tightening over the next two years than the median FOMC participant anticipates. Again, this is not a decisive signal to buy bonds. The FOMC could revise its funds rate projections higher when it meets next month. However, the longer that market pricing remains more hawkish than the Fed, the stronger the case to increase duration becomes. The Dollar Chart 5Dollar Still Supports Higher Yields Finally, we should note that the trade-weighted dollar appreciated last week as bond yields rose (Chart 5). A stronger dollar certainly supports the case for extending duration, the only question is whether the dollar has strengthened enough to dent US economic growth and pull US yields back down. Our sense is that we haven’t reached that breaking point yet, but we could if US real yields continue to rise relative to real yields in the rest of the world (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). We think of the relationship between US bond yields and the dollar as a feedback loop. A weaker dollar supports economic reflation, which eventually sends yields higher. However, once higher US yields de-couple too far from yields in the rest of the world, the dollar appreciates. A stronger dollar impairs the economic outlook and sends US yields back down, the dollar then depreciates and the cycle repeats. At present, we appear to be in the stage of the feedback loop where US yields are rising relative to the rest of the world, putting upward pressure on the dollar. However, we don’t think the dollar is yet strong enough to prevent US yields from climbing. Dollar bullish sentiment, for example, remains below 50% suggesting that most investors remain dollar bears. A sub-50 reading on this index also tends to coincide with rising US Treasury yields (Chart 5, bottom panel). A move above 50 in the dollar sentiment index would be another signal that the bond bear market is becoming stretched. Bottom Line: Long-maturity Treasury yields are closing-in on our intermediate-term targets. On balance, cyclical and valuation indicators continue to support an outlook for higher yields, but a few are sending warning signs that the bearish bond move is due for a correction. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark 6-12 month duration stance for now, but are keeping a close eye on the indicators shown in this report. Comparing Baa- And Ba-Rated Corporate Bonds Chart 6The Ba Index OAS Is Unusually High We have previously written that the macro environment is extremely positive for credit risk and we recommend moving down in quality within corporate bonds. We have also pointed out that the incremental spread pick-up earned from moving out of Baa-rated bonds and into Ba-rated bonds is elevated compared to typical historical levels. As such, the Ba-rated credit tier looks like the sweet spot for corporate bond allocation from a risk/reward perspective.2 In this week’s report we delve a little deeper into the relative valuation between Baa- and Ba-rated bonds. First, we note the difference between the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the Ba index and the average OAS of the Baa index. The Ba index OAS is 126 bps above the Baa index OAS, a level that looks high compared to recent years (Chart 6). One problem with this simple comparison of index OAS is that the average duration of the Ba index is much lower than the average duration of the Baa index (Chart 6, bottom panel). However, after doing our best to match the duration between the two indexes, we still find that Ba offers an attractive yield advantage, particularly compared to levels seen in 2017 and 2018 (Chart 6, panel 2). Going back to our simple OAS differential, we conducted a small study looking at calendar year excess returns between 1989 and 2020. Our results show that the differential between the Default-Adjusted Ba OAS and the Baa OAS does a good job predicting relative excess returns between the two sectors (Table 1).3 The Default-Adjusted Ba OAS is the Ba index OAS at the beginning of the calendar year minus realized Ba default losses that occurred during the year in question. We also use the Baa index OAS from the beginning of the year, but don’t make any adjustments for Baa default losses. Table 1Annual Excess Return Differential & Relative Spreads: Ba Corporates Over Baa Corporates Our results show that Ba excess returns outpaced Baa excess returns in every calendar year for which the Adjusted Ba/Baa OAS differential exceeds 100 bps. The raw Ba/Baa OAS differential is currently 126 bps. This means that we should be very confident that Ba-rated bonds will outperform Baa-rated bonds in 2021, as long as Ba default losses come in below 0.26%. This seems likely. For context, Ba default losses came in at 0.09% in 2020, despite the 12-month default rate spiking to almost 9%. Fallen Angels Another interesting issue to consider when looking at the intersection between the Baa and Ba credit tiers is the presence of fallen angels – bonds that were initially rated investment grade but have been downgraded to junk. The 2020 default cycle coincided with a huge spike in ratings downgrades and the number of outstanding fallen angels jumped dramatically (Chart 7). Not only that, but fallen angels also performed exceptionally well in 2020. Fallen angels outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 800 bps in 2020 compared to 431 bps for the Ba-rated index, -10 bps for the Baa-rated index and -13 bps for the B-rated index (Chart 7, bottom panel). All that outperformance has compressed fallen angel valuations a lot. The incremental spread pick-up in fallen angels over duration-matched Baa-rated bonds is 201 bps, about one standard deviation below its post-2010 average (Chart 8). Fallen angels look even worse compared to the Ba index, offering only a 30 bps spread advantage (Chart 8, panel 2). Chart 7Fallen Angels Dominated In 2020 Chart 8Fallen Angels No Longer Look Cheap Bottom Line: From a risk-adjusted perspective, the Ba credit tier still looks like the sweet spot for positioning within corporate bonds. Fallen Angels have performed exceptionally, but no longer look cheap compared to the Baa and Ba corporate indexes.   Labor Market Update Chart 9Employment Growth Has Slowed Last week’s January employment report was a disappointment with nonfarm payrolls growing only 49k after having contracted by 227k in December (Chart 9).   Two weeks ago, we calculated the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 4.5% by certain future dates.4 In our view, an unemployment rate of 4.5% would meet the Fed’s definition of maximum employment, making it an important pre-condition for monetary tightening. Revising our calculations to incorporate January’s report, a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2021 still looks like a long shot. Nonfarm payroll growth would have to average between +328k and +705k per month to meet that target, depending on the path of the participation rate (Table 2). That said, we still view a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2022 as achievable. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% ##br##By The Given Date Yes, even that will require average monthly payroll growth of between +210k and +411k, but we are likely to see a re-opening of certain shuttered sectors – Leisure & Hospitality, for example – during that timeframe. When it occurs, this re-opening will lead to a surge in employment growth that will push average monthly payroll growth dramatically higher. Notice that almost 40% of the 9.9 million drop in overall employment since February 2020 has come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector (Chart 10). Chart 10Waiting For The Post-COVID Snapback Bottom Line: If the current pace of monthly employment growth is maintained, it will be a very long time before the economy reaches full employment. Vaccine effectiveness and distribution rate are the two most important factors that will determine employment growth going forward. We are optimistic that we will see a 4.5% unemployment rate sometime in 2022.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Excess returns are calculated relative to duration-matched Treasury securities in all cases. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Indicators Hook Up There’s no doubt that inflationary pressures are building in the US economy. The latest piece of evidence is January’s ISM Manufacturing PMI which saw the Prices Paid component jump above 80 for the first time since 2011 (Chart 1). Large fiscal stimulus is clearly leading to bottlenecks in certain industries that were not negatively impacted by the pandemic, and this could cause consumer price inflation to rise during the next few months. However, the Fed will not view a spike in inflation as sustainable unless it is accompanied by a labor market that is close to maximum employment. The Fed estimates that “maximum employment” corresponds to an unemployment rate of 3.5% to 4.5%, and we calculate that average monthly payroll growth of about +500k is required to reach that target by the end of the year. The bottom line is that rising inflation will not lead to Fed tightening this year. We continue to expect liftoff in late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month, leaving it 4 bps above its pre-COVID low. As discussed in last week’s report, the combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy means that the runway for spread product outperformance remains long.1 However, given that investment grade corporate bond spreads are extremely tight, investors should look to other spread products when possible. One valuation measure, the investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread – with the index re-weighted to maintain a constant credit rating distribution over time – is down to its 4th percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 4% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have also only been more expensive 4% of the time (panel 3). While we don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, we see better value outside of the investment grade corporate space. Specifically, we advise investors to favor tax-exempt municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 9). We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 8). Finally, the supportive macro environment means that we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates, particularly the Ba credit tier where spreads remain wide compared to average historical levels (see page 6). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in January. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month, leaving it 47 bps above its pre-COVID low. Ba-rated credits outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 50 bps on the month, besting B-rated bonds which outperformed by only 33 bps. The Caa-rated credit tier delivered 157 bps of outperformance versus duration-matched Treasuries. We view Ba-rated junk bonds as the sweet spot within the corporate credit space. The sector is relatively insulated from default risk and yet still offers a sizeable spread pick-up over investment grade corporates (Chart 3). We noted in our 2021 Key Views Special Report that the additional spread earned from moving down in quality below Ba is merely in line with historical averages.2 Assuming a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required risk premium of 150 bps, we calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 2.8% for the next 12 months (panel 3). This represents a steep drop from the 8.4% default rate observed during the most recent 12-month period. However, only six defaults occurred in December, down from a peak of 22 in July. Job cut announcements, an excellent indicator of the default rate, have also fallen dramatically (bottom panel). Overall, we see room for spread compression across all junk credit tiers in 2021 but believe that Ba-rated bonds offer the best opportunity in risk-adjusted terms. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened sharply in January, despite a continued rapid pace of refinancing activity (Chart 4). The option-adjusted spread adjusted downward in January and it now sits at 25 bps (panel 3). This is considerably below the 61 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 45 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly above the 20 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. The primary mortgage spread has tightened dramatically during the past few months (bottom panel), a key reason why refinancing activity has been so strong despite the back-up in Treasury yields. With the mortgage spread now closer to typical levels, it stands to reason that further increases in Treasury yields will be matched by higher mortgage rates. As such, mortgage refinancing activity could be close to its peak. While a drop in refinancing activity would be a reason to get more bullish on MBS, we aren’t yet ready to pull that trigger. The gap between the nominal MBS spread and the MBA Refinance Index remains wide (panel 2), and we could still see spreads adjust higher. Last year’s spike in the mortgage delinquency rate is alarming (panel 4), but it will have little impact on MBS returns. The increase was driven by household take-up of forbearance granted by the federal government. Our US Investment Strategy service recently showed that a considerable majority of households will remain current on their loans once the forbearance period expires, causing the delinquency rate to fall back down.3 Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January (Chart 5). Sovereign debt and Foreign Agencies underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 21 bps and 7 bps, respectively, in January. Local Authority bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 140 bps while Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals outperformed by 15 bps and 7 bps, respectively. Last week’s report contains a detailed look at valuation for USD-denominated EM Sovereigns.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage versus US corporates for all credit tiers except Ba. We recommend that investors take advantage of this spread pick-up by favoring investment grade EM Sovereigns over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space. Ba-rated high-yield US corporates offer a spread advantage over EM Sovereigns and the extra spread available in B-rated and lower EMs comes from distressed credits in Turkey and Argentina.   Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 108 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past couple of months and Aaa-rated Munis no longer look cheap compared to Treasuries (Chart 6). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (bottom panel). Revenue bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with effective tax rates above 3% and 16%, respectively. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 21% and 33%, respectively.    All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we downgraded our recommended allocation from “maximum overweight” to “overweight” in last week’s report. However, investors should still prefer municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in January. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 20 bps to 100 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 13 bps to 142 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. A timely vaccine roll-out and stimulative fiscal policy will serve to speed this process along. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels.       TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 143 basis points in January. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 14 bps and 1 bp on the month. They currently sit at 2.15% and 2.06%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.09% in December, causing the year-over-year rate to dip from 1.65% to 1.61%. Meanwhile, 12-month trimmed mean CPI ticked up from 2.09% to 2.10%, widening the gap between trimmed mean and core (Chart 8). We expect 12-month core inflation to jump during the next few months, narrowing the gap between core and trimmed mean. As such, we remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate looks expensive on our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).5 We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect short-maturity real yields to come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in January. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps in January, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 48 bps (Chart 9). The stimulus from the CARES act led to a significant increase in household income when individual checks were mailed out last April. Since then, households have used this stimulus to build up a considerable buffer of excess savings (panel 4). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, and this situation won’t change any time soon with even more fiscal stimulus on the way. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and take advantage of strong collateral performance by moving down in credit quality. The Treasury department’s decision to let the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) expire at the end of 2020 does not alter our recommendation. Spreads are already well below the borrowing cost that was offered by TALF, and these tight spread levels are justified by strong household balance sheets.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 75 basis points in January. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 42 bps in January, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 185 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Even with the expiry of TALF, Aaa CMBS spreads are already well below the cost of borrowing through TALF and thus will not be negatively impacted. Meanwhile, the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate could lead to problems for lower-rated CMBS (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in January. The average index spread tightened 4 bps on the month to reach 45 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered back to their pre-COVID lows, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. This is especially true when you consider the Fed’s continued pledge to purchase as much Agency CMBS as “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 29TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 29TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 86 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 86 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 29th, 2021) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, January 2021”, dated January 25, 2021, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market.  The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets.  Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder   Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply   Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks.   Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply.  The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns.  Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak.   An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: We will use the monthly US employment data to track progress toward the first Fed rate hike. At present, our base case outlook calls liftoff in late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Bonds: The macro environment is supportive for spread product returns, but there are better opportunities than in investment grade corporate bonds. We prefer high-yield over investment grade within the US corporate space, particularly the Ba credit tier. Munis: Muni value has deteriorated markedly, but the sector still looks attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds. EM Sovereigns: We recommend owning investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds instead of investment grade US corporates. Within high-yield, US corporates still offer a better opportunity than EM Sovereigns. Using Employment Data To Time Fed Liftoff The current debate raging in fixed income circles revolves around whether large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation to flare this year, possibly leading to a much earlier fed funds liftoff date than is currently priced into the yield curve (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Liftoff Priced For July 2023 Last week’s report discussed our outlook for inflation in 2021.1 In short, our base case calls for 12-month PCE inflation to peak above the Fed’s 2% target in April but to then fall back below 2% by the end of the year. However, there is a compelling case to be made that inflation could rise more quickly. Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Last week, our Global Investment Strategy service pointed out that the combined effect of December’s fiscal stimulus deal and President Biden’s newly proposed American Rescue Plan would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September.2 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently $80 billion. In that environment, it’s not hard to see how excess demand could lead to price increases in certain sectors. Chart 2How Far From "Maximum Employment"? Of course, for bond investors what matters is not just the path of inflation but how the Fed responds. If rising inflation prompts the Fed to lift rates before July 2023 – the liftoff date currently priced into the market – then bonds will sell off. If liftoff occurs later, then yields will fall. This makes timing the liftoff date critical, and fortunately, the Fed has given us three explicit criteria that must be met before liftoff will occur (Table 1). This week’s report focuses, not on inflation, but on the condition related to “maximum employment.” Our sense is that if the Fed does not think the economy is at “maximum employment” it will ignore modest overshoots of its 2% inflation target on the view that the large amount of labor market slack will eventually cause inflationary pressures to wane. We define “maximum employment” as an unemployment rate of 4.5%, consistent with the upper-bound of the Fed’s most recent range of NAIRU estimates (Chart 2). Using that assumption, and an assumption for the path of the labor force participation rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), we can calculate the average monthly payroll gains that must occur for the unemployment rate to hit the 4.5% target by specific future dates. Our results are shown in Table 2. We use four different scenarios for the labor force participation rate. The lowest estimate assumes that the participation rate remains at its current level. The highest estimate assumes that it re-converges to its pre-COVID level at the same time as the unemployment rate hits 4.5%. The two middle estimates assume smaller increases of 1% and 0.5%, respectively. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% Over The Given Horizon We expect the participation rate to rise as the economy recovers and people are drawn back into the labor force, but some workers have likely been permanently displaced by the pandemic and a full convergence back to pre-COVID levels may not occur until well after the unemployment rate reaches 4.5%, if at all. With that in mind, the “Convergence To Pre-COVID” scenario probably overstates the monthly payroll gains necessary to hit full employment and the “Stays At 61.5%” scenario almost certainly understates them. If we focus on the two middle scenarios, we see that average monthly payroll gains of between 472k and 572k are required for the unemployment rate to hit 4.5% by the end of this year. This range falls to 346k - 413k if we push the liftoff date out until mid-2022 and to 283k – 334k if we move out until the end of 2022. At first blush, these numbers look unattainable. Between 2010 and 2019, average monthly payroll growth averaged a mere +97k. But, given the downturn that just occurred, employment growth will likely be much stronger going forward. Our research into past economic cycles has found that the two main determinants of average monthly employment growth during the first year following a recession are: The drawdown in employment that occurred during the recession (a larger drawdown correlates with greater payroll growth in the first 12 months of recovery) Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery Chart 3 shows the correlation between the peak-to-trough decline in nonfarm payrolls during the past eight US recessions and the average monthly payroll gains seen during the first 12 months of economic recovery. The correlation is quite linear except for the 2008 recession where the peak-to-trough decline in payrolls was 8.7 million but the bounce-back was incredibly weak. Chart 4 explains why the 2008 recession looks like such an outlier in Chart 3. Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery coming out of the 2008 recession was very low, only 2.6%. Chart 3Large Payroll Drawdowns Tend To Be Followed By Strong Gains… Chart 4…And Occur Alongside Strong Economic Recovery Thinking about the current recovery from the COVID recession. Nonfarm payrolls fell by about 22 million from peak to trough in 2020. This is literally off the charts (looking at Chart 3), about 2.5 times the job loss seen in 2008. Then, the Fed’s most recent median estimate for real GDP growth in 2021 is a robust 4.2%, and this estimate was made before Democrats took control of the Senate and proposed a massive new stimulus bill. Considering both the large drawdown in employment and the outlook for rapid GDP growth in 2021, average monthly payroll gains should be quite strong this year. A return to a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2021 is probably a long shot, but we can easily envision average monthly payroll gains on the order of 300k to 400k per month, enough to prompt Fed tightening by late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Whatever transpires, we will monitor monthly payroll growth in the coming months and use this analysis to continuously reassess our liftoff expectations. For the time being, investors should keep portfolio duration low. Alternatives To Investment Grade Corporates Another conclusion that falls out of the above analysis is that the runway for spread product outperformance remains long. With Fed tightening unlikely until late-2022 or the first half of 2023, monetary conditions will remain accommodative for some time. This will drive a continued search for yield, supporting the outperformance of spread product relative to Treasuries. But despite the supportive macro environment, bond investors face a problem that the most popular US spread sector – investment grade corporate bonds – looks very expensive. The average option-adjusted spread for the Bloomberg Barclays investment grade corporate index is only 2 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread on Baa-rated bonds is exactly equal to its pre-COVID low. Aa- and A-rated bonds appear somewhat cheaper (Chart 5). The valuation picture is even bleaker after adjusting the index to ensure a constant average credit rating and average duration over time. The 12-month breakeven spread for the credit rating-adjusted corporate index has only been tighter 3% of the time since 1995 (Chart 6). Chart 5IG Spreads Are Tight... Chart 6...Especially After Adjusting For Risk The remainder of this report discusses potential alternatives to investment grade corporate bonds. Specifically, we’re looking for spread products that will benefit from the same macro environment as investment grade corporates, but where investors can pick up some additional risk-adjusted value. Candidate #1: Junk Bonds Chart 7Ba-Rated Corporates Are Cheap One obvious thing investors might consider is a move down the quality spectrum into high-yield bonds. This move comes with greater credit risk, but we believe the incremental spread pick-up provides more than fair additional compensation. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index’s average option-adjusted spread is still 33 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread pick-up in the Ba credit tier relative to the Baa credit tier looks particularly compelling (Chart 7). The supportive macro environment makes us less worried about taking additional credit risk in a portfolio, and we recommend that investors pick up the additional spread offered in the high-yield space. The elevated incremental spread pick-up in Ba bonds makes that credit tier look like the best risk-adjusted opportunity. Candidate #2: Tax-Exempt Municipal Bonds Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past couple of months and Aaa-rated Munis no longer look cheap compared to Treasuries (Chart 8). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (Chart 9), the same goes for Revenue bonds with 8-12 year maturities. Revenue bonds in the 6-8 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate of 10% or higher. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 14% and 26%, respectively. Chart 8Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 9Munis Still Attractive Versus Corporates All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we therefore downgrade our recommended allocation slightly from “maximum overweight” (5 out of 5) to “overweight” (4 out of 5). Investors should still prefer tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Candidate #3: USD-Denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns For all of last year we advised investors to favor investment grade corporate bonds over USD-denominated EM Sovereigns of equivalent credit rating and duration. This positioning worked out well. Since the March 23rd peak in credit spreads, the A3/Baa1-rated EM Sovereign index has only outperformed the duration-matched A-rated US Credit index by 159 bps while it has underperformed the Baa-rated US Credit index by 571 bps (Chart 10). In the high-yield space, the B1/B2-rated EM Sovereign index has significantly underperformed both the Ba and B-rated US junk bond indexes. Chart 10EM Sovereigns Underperformed US Corporates In 2020 But now, after nine months of poor relative performance, value is starting to look more compelling in the EM Sovereign space. Chart 11 shows that EM Sovereigns offer a yield pick-up versus duration-matched US corporate bonds for all credit tiers except Ba. At the country level, the yield advantage in the A and Aa credit tiers is attributable to opportunities in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia (Chart 12). In the Baa credit tier, investors should look for opportunities in Mexico, Russia and Colombia, while avoiding the Philippines. Chart 11USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Credit Rating Chart 12USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Country All in all, investors should shift some allocation away from investment grade corporates and into USD-denominated EM Sovereigns with equivalent duration and credit rating, focusing on the countries that offer a yield pick-up. Turning to high-yield, we would rather own junk-rated US corporate bonds than junk-rated EM Sovereigns. US corporates offer a yield pick-up over EM Sovereigns in the Ba credit tier, and the sky-high spreads offered by B and Caa-rated EMs are due to overly risky opportunities in Turkey and Argentina. We don’t see these countries benefiting from the supportive US macro environment in the same way as US corporate credit, and therefore recommend overweighting US corporate junk bonds over EM Sovereign junk bonds. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US fixed income portfolios but should look for opportunities outside of investment grade corporate bonds. We recommend owning municipal bonds and USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds in place of investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We also recommend taking additional credit risk in US junk bonds, particularly in the Ba credit tier. Investors should prefer US junk bonds over junk-rated EM Sovereigns.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trust The Fed’s Forward Guidance”, dated January 19, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Stagflation In A Few Months?”, dated January 22, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The incidents of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults late last year reflected deteriorating corporate balance sheets and exposed local governments’ weakening fiscal positions. Both were preexisting conditions that worsened due to the pandemic. China’s policymakers have vowed to accelerate restructuring the SOE/corporate sector, but they face a dilemma between economic stability and painful reforms; the outcome will ultimately depend on policymakers’ pain thresholds. In the next 6 to 12 months, the policy tightening cycle will continue and credit growth will decelerate. Chinese stocks are already more expensive than before the start of the last policy tightening cycle. We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable stocks for now. Feature The days of China’s unconditional bailout of state firms may be over. In the past six months, Beijing has embarked on a series of reform agendas, including restructuring and stricter regulations targeting SOEs and the broader spectrum of the corporate sector. When three SOEs defaulted on bond payments late last year, neither the central nor the local government supported those firms. Allowing market forces to allocate capital to more productive firms by driving out the less efficient companies is structurally positive for the Chinese economy.  However, the pursuit of meaningful SOE and broader corporate reforms will be a tough choice for Chinese policymakers this year while the economic recovery is underway. Ultimately, the degree and speed to reform SOEs will depend on how much near-term pain policymakers are willing to endure. We recommend a neutral position in Chinese stocks for now. We expect the financial markets to experience frequent mini-cycles in 2021 due to policy zigzags. Risks for policy miscalculations cannot be ruled out; equity prices will falter if Chinese authorities push for deeper reforms and tighter industry regulations while scaling back stimulus at the same time. Chinese stocks are already expensive and are vulnerable to authorities opting for much smaller stimulus and harsher corporate/SOE reforms. SOE Defaults: Policy Response Matters More Than Defaults Chart 1Policy Zigzags And Market Mini-Cycles A flurry of high-profile defaults by state firms late last year unnerved investors and pushed up onshore corporate bond yields. Beijing’s move to allow SOEs to fail forced investors to reprice bonds issued by state firms as much riskier propositions. Following the defaults in November, the PBoC injected unusually large interbank liquidity; the de jure policy rate dropped and Chinese stock prices rallied (Chart 1). In our view, the recent liquidity injections do not provide enough evidence that macro policy is shifting to an easier bias. Despite a retreat in the short-term interbank rate, the authorities have plowed ahead with reforms and initiated more restrictions in key industries. In the coming months, investors should expect the following: SOE reforms will tolerate more bond defaults. Bank loans and local government bonds make up nearly 80% of China’s total domestic credit, whereas corporate bonds (including SOEs and local government financing vehicles (LGFVs)) account for only 10% of the total (Chart 2). Thus, even if corporate bond defaults push up yields, Beijing may see this as a small price to pay in the near term, in exchange for a market-driven system cleansing to eliminate inefficient SOEs. This outcome will be negative for corporate bonds (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Bond Issuance Make Up Only A Small Portion Of Total Financing Chart 3Periods Of Financial Tightening Dampen Corporate Bond Market Chart 4Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Policymakers may underestimate the unintended consequences of SOE defaults on credit flow and the broader economy. The central bank was able to engineer a sharp drop in its policy rate last month, which may prompt policymakers to believe that interbank liquidity injections are efficient market-calming measures and rising corporate bond yields will not impede overall credit growth. This may be true in the short term, however, tightened policy in the name of reforms has previously pushed up both the 3-month SHIBOR and bank lending rates, leading to a significant slowing in credit growth and an eventual slowdown in economic expansion (Chart 4). Reasons for such chain reactions are twofold. First, banks become more risk averse during a tightening cycle and charge higher premiums when lending to smaller financial institutions and the private sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Secondly, although Chinese SOEs can borrow from banks at much lower interest rates than private-sector entities (Chart 5), their heavy indebtedness makes them hyper-sensitive to even a slight uptick in financing costs. Chinese SOEs rely more on bank lending than bond issuance for financing and SOE borrowers dominate China’s bank credit to the corporate sector.1  Chart 6 shows that the rise in the weighted average lending rate in 2017 was relatively minor compared with levels that prevailed in the past decade. Nonetheless, a less than one percentage point hike in the lending rate materially slowed credit growth and the investment-driven sectors of China's economy. Chart 5SOEs Tend To Have Lower Borrowing Costs, Partially Reflecting Implicit Government Guarantees Chart 6Small Rise In Lending Rate, Large Fall In Credit Growth   Regulatory pressures will lead to de facto tightening. As outlined in our 2021 Outlook report, as part of the macroeconomic policy normalization, credit growth will likely decelerate by two to three percentage points this year from 2020. The extended Macro Prudential Assessment (MPA) System will wrap up by year-end and financial institutions will need to start slowing their asset balance sheets to meet the assessments. Moreover, last week the central government revised Measures for the Performance Evaluation of Commercial Banks. The modified version factors lending to the new-economy sectors and micro and small enterprises into the performance evaluation and salaries of the state-owned and controlled commercial banks’ management.2 The new measures will likely dampen the banks’ propensity to lend to old-economy sectors, such as real estate and traditional infrastructure. All in all, a faster-than-desired slowdown in credit growth will ensue if policymakers simultaneously allow more SOE/corporate defaults, undertake industry reforms, and implement tighter banking regulations in 2021. This is negative for both economic growth and the equity market. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers will likely allow more SOE defaults in the coming months. In addition to an increased number of SOE defaults that is negative for the corporate bond market, sped up industry restructuring and more stringent regulations may lead to a sharp fall in credit growth and stock prices. Worsening Old Economy SOEs’ Financial Positions Chart 7SOEs Are Less Efficient Than Private Firms In Profitability And Productivity An acceleration in SOE reforms may trigger near-term risks, but a delay in restructuring China’s loss-making SOEs will have repercussions in the long term. The explicit and implicit government protections for SOEs have eroded their efficiencies compared with the private sector (Chart 7). The most significant side effect is a rapid rise in SOE leverage and diminishing profitability in some of the old economy sectors. It may be a dead end for the government to continue bailing out state firms with inefficient operations and financial losses. A Special Report we previously published  showed that among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors, which account for half of all SOEs in China, the adjusted return on assets (ROA) versus borrowing costs has been negative since 2013 (Chart 8). This suggests that SOE investment funded by higher leverage cannot produce sufficient income to repay debt. During the last tightening cycle that started in late 2016, policymakers managed to rein in local SOE debt growth, but it reversed course in 2018 due to a collapse in domestic demand (Chart 9).  As Chart 8 illustrates, ROA among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors has significantly deteriorated since then. Chart 8SOEs Financial Gains From Debt Are In Deep Contraction Chart 9China Was Successful In Reining In SOE Debt, But Only Briefly Bottom Line: A continued capital misallocation by perpetually leveraging SOEs and LGFVs with negative marginal operating gains will eventually lead to a self-reinforcing debt trap. In turn, that would precipitate a default en masse and necessitate a larger government bailout. Another Layer To The SOE Reform Dilemma The central government’s SOE reform agenda is further complicated by the involvement of local governments (LGs). We have several observations: First, a meaningful SOE restructuring, which would require consolidating/liquidating some of the unprofitable SOE assets, may expose the LGs’ fiscal vulnerabilities to both investors and regulators. The fiscal weakness of China’s provincial-level governments is illustrated by the bond-payment default of Yongcheng Coal, a SOE from Henan Province. Henan is economically sound with GDP growth above the national average. However, when considering the province’s direct and hidden debt, debt servicing costs, and liquidity availability, Henan is in a group of 10 provinces with the worst fiscal conditions in 2020.3 This implies that LG officials may not have been able to bail out Yongcheng even if they wanted to. Moreover, cash-strapped LGs have reportedly formed reciprocal and entrenched relationships with local SOEs. These SOEs may carry debt for LGs and in turn, free up an LG’s borrowing capacity. When these SOEs fail, the credibility of LG officials may be questioned and investigated by the central government. As such, LGs are incentivized to protect their local SOEs.  Chart 10More Defaults, More Bank Lending Secondly, removing the government’s bailout of SOE debt defaults does not negate the underlying factor eroding SOE productivity: the government’s support of local SOEs with easier access to bank loans. Banks, which heavily influence LGs, are not always vigilant about risks associated with local SOE debt. Banks provide loans at preferential rates to localities and their affiliated SOEs. In return, LGs often award banks financing opportunities for profitable infrastructure projects. In this regard, local SOE bond defaults are not necessarily detrimental to bank profits because banks can make up their losses through financing more lucrative projects. Studies show that even when some LGs have experienced large-scale SOE bond defaults, lending to these LGs from commercial banks actually increased relative to other forms of financing (Chart 10). Beijing must take bold measures to break up the long-standing relationship between LGs and SOEs in order to achieve any market-oriented reform of local SOEs. The LGs will likely strongly resist severing the connection. Lastly, given that SOEs are often deployed to support the central government’s economic, political and strategic initiatives, LGs can use those grand initiatives to help justify their local SOEs’ existence - even unprofitable ones. Bottom Line: Beijing faces a tough choice between implementing effective SOE reforms and worsening local governments’ fiscal conditions with negative implications for economic growth. While allowing more SOE bond defaults can force investors to reprice SOE credit risks, as long as the implicit government support for SOEs through bank lending still exists, allocating capital to more efficient private-sector companies will be a formidable task. Investment Conclusions Some economists argue that China’s SOE debt should be considered part of public-sector leverage because many SOE investments are affiliated with government projects. Additionally, Chinese SOEs have accumulated massive assets, which can more than offset their debt4 and make SOE bonds and debt low- risk propositions. Moreover, even though the government may allow more SOE bond defaults, if the defaults threaten China’s financial stability, then the government can move non-performing debt from LGs and SOEs to the balance sheets of the central bank or central government. There are several issues with this argument. The stock of assets in a large portion of Chinese SOEs5 has persistently failed to generate sufficient cash flow to service debt, which implies that the true value of the assets may be low and will likely be sold at below cost when liquidated. It is not useful to compare book value of assets with debt because the true value of assets is contingent on the income/cash flow that they generate. We agree that public-sector leveraging/deleveraging is fundamentally a political choice in countries with control over their own monetary policy and debt is in local currency. Theoretically, a country can monetize public and private local currency-denominated debt via a central bank or government- controlled commercial banks. In such a case, the authorities will have little control over inflation, the exchange rate, and the long-term productivity.   For now, Chinese policymakers seem to be on a path of accelerating reform, an indication that they want to avoid bailing out state firms and private-sector companies. In addition, President Xi’s “dual circulation” mantra emphasizes the importance of improving the country’s corporate efficiency and productivity. We think that consolidating some inefficient SOE sectors in the old economy fits such initiative. Our baseline view is that the SOE consolidation process will be gradual and the PBoC will provide sufficient liquidity in an effort to prevent market jitters. At the same time, the sharp turns in the policy rate in the past six months are prime examples of the periodic oscillation in China’s policymaking between maintaining economic stability and pursuing meaningful reforms. The policy swings will create mini-cycles for Chinese risk asset prices. Chinese stocks are not cheap compared with values at the start of the last policy tightening cycle (Chart 11A and 11B). We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable equities for the time being. CHART 11AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle CHART 11BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Are Still Elevated   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Based on the OECD estimates, SOEs’ share of China’s total corporate debt escalated from 46% in 2013 to roughly 80% in 2018.  2Banks included in the new appraisal system are state-owned and state-controlled commercial lenders, and other commercial banks may also refer to the guidelines. Lenders will be evaluated yearly and the results will be factored into the annual reviews of top bank executives as salary determinants. Each of the four new categories will carry an equal weighting. The “national development goals and real economy” category has four benchmarks: serving the government’s “ecological civilization strategy” to encourage lending for green industries and companies; serving strategic emerging industries; implementing the “two increases” - inclusive lending to micro and small enterprises; and implementing the “two controls” - nonperforming loans and borrowing costs of micro and small enterprises. The category “controlling and preventing risks” includes metrics on bad loan ratios, the nonperforming loan growth rate, provision coverage, liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios. 3“Seeing Through the Frosted Glass: Assessing Chinese Local Governments’ Creditworthiness”, Pengyuan Rating Public Finance Report, June 2020 4Chinese SOE assets are estimated to have reached 2.3 times China’s 2019 GDP, whereas their debt is close to 130% of GDP. 5IMF estimated that about a quarter of Chinese SOEs were operating at a loss in 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights US Reflation: The Georgia senate victories for the Democratic Party have returned the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenarios to the forefront. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. US Treasury Strategy: Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Global Corporate Sector Valuation: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Policy Reflation Is Negative For USTs In a week of stunning US political events, the most important one for financial markets was not the mob invasion of the US Capitol. The Georgia senate runoff votes completed the unfinished business of the 2020 US elections, with Democratic Party candidates winning both seats. This effectively delivered a change in party control of the US Senate to the Democrats, with a 50/50 seat split that would give incoming Vice-President Kamala Harris the potential tiebreaking vote. With the Democratic Party now in control of the US House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenario that we discussed in our pre-election Special Report last October – with greater odds that the highly expansionary Biden policy agenda can be more fully implemented - is now coming to fruition.1 The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield broke above 1% after the election results, continuing to climb to 1.13% yesterday. The overall US Treasury market action has continued the reflationary trends seen in the latter half of 2020, with a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and wider inflation breakevens in the TIPS market (Chart of the Week). Treasuries continue to underperform other developed economy government bond markets (in USD-hedged terms), continuing a move that started back in the spring of 2020. We expect these trends to remain in place over the next several months, given the current and likely future monetary and fiscal policy mix in D.C. The Biden Boost To US Treasury Yields BCA Research’s newest service, US Political Strategy, launched last week with a discussion of the US fiscal policy outlook after the Georgia senate elections.2 The conclusion was that the most radical parts of the Democratic Party agenda will be difficult to pass given their narrow majorities in the House and Senate, but some sizeable fiscal stimulus is still likely. In the near term, an expansion of the COVID relief passed in the December stimulus bill, such as boosting monthly checks to individuals from $600 to $2000, is likely to come relatively quickly after Biden is inaugurated via a “reconciliation bill”. Additional stimulus measures could also be enacted, partially funded by some rollback of the Trump tax cuts. Beyond that, the Biden administration will attempt to push through some of the more expansionary parts of incoming president’s campaign platform related to items like infrastructure spending. In the end, the expectation is that the US fiscal drag (a reduction in the deficit) that was set to occur in 2021 after the massive stimulus measures enacted in 2020 will be much smaller with full Democratic control in D.C. This will help boost US GDP growth this year. A greater implementation of the Biden agenda would have a more lasting impact on US economic growth in the following years. Last September, Moody’s published a report that compared the policy platforms of Candidate Biden and President Trump, running the details of the agendas into the Moody’s US economic model.3 The analysts concluded that under realistic assumptions about how much of the Biden platform would be implemented under a “Blue Sweep” scenario, US real GDP growth would average 6% in 2021 and 2022 under President Biden, a full two percentage points higher than the baseline scenario (Chart 2). This would also drive the US unemployment rate back toward pre-pandemic levels more quickly. Moody’s concluded that the Fed would start hiking rates in 2023 under the Democratic sweep scenario, similar to the current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve, but with a more aggressive pace of tightening expected over the subsequent two years (bottom panel) – a bond bearish outcome that would push the 10-year Treasury yield back to 2% by the end of 2022 and 3% by the end of 2023. We expect the Fed to normalize US monetary policy at a slower pace than Moody’s, but we do agree on there is still plenty of upside potential for Treasury yields over the next 1-2 years. This will initially come more from rising inflation breakevens than real yields. Currently, US TIPS breakevens are drifting steadily higher, even as realized US inflation is starting to cool off a bit (Chart 3). The 10-year breakeven is now up to 2.1%, a level last seen in 2018 but still below the 2.3-2.5% level we deem consistent with the market expecting that the Fed’s 2% inflation target will be sustainably achieved. The idea that inflation breakevens can widen without higher realized inflation may seem odd on the surface, but it is not unprecedented. In the years immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, when the Fed kept rates at 0% while the economy recovered from the Great Recession, TIPS breakevens rose alongside very weak US inflation. Chart 2How 'Bidenomics' Can Be Bond-Bearish Chart 3Fed Policy Stance Favors Wider TIPS Breakevens With the Fed having shifted to an Average Inflation Targeting framework last year, we don’t expect the Fed to turn more hawkish too quickly. We expect the Fed to keep the funds rate well below US realized inflation for at least the next couple of years and likely longer, keeping real US interest rates negative and preventing an unwanted flattening of the Treasury curve (Chart 4). The Fed’s low interest rate policies will also make it easier to service the growing stock of US government debt during the Biden Administration (Chart 5). Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”.  Chart 4US Policy Mix Favors UST Curve Steepening Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”. We expect the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield to rise to the 1.25-1.5% range over the next six months, with higher yields possible if the market begins to question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate anchored at 0% - an outcome that could occur by year-end if the Fed starts to consider a slower pace of Treasury purchases via quantitative easing (Chart 6). Chart 5Low Interest Rates Help Service Rising Debt Chart 6More Upside Room For UST Yields We continue to recommend an overall US Treasury investment strategy that will perform well as yields rise. Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The odds of a major US fiscal spending boost from the incoming Biden Administration, both in the short-run and over the medium term, are now much higher after the Georgia senate elections. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. Maintain positions that will benefit from higher Treasury yields. Finding Value In Global Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors As we discussed in our 2021 Model Bond Portfolio Update published last week,4 the strong performance of global spread product in H2/2020 has led to an across-the-board narrowing of credit spreads, with investment grade spreads hovering close to, or below, pre-COVID levels in developed markets (Chart 7). Predictably, this has stretched valuations to historically expensive levels across developed economy investment grade corporate bond markets. Our preferred measure of spread valuation, the 12-month breakeven spread, measures how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. These breakeven spread percentile rankings for investment grade corporates are now at the bottom percentile in the US and below the 25th percentile level in the euro area, UK, Australia, and Canada, indicating that there is limited potential for additional spread tightening from current levels (Chart 8). Chart 7Investment Grade Spreads At Or Below Pre-Covid Lows As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. To accomplish this, we return to our cross-sectional relative value framework, which we last discussed in the summer of 2020.5 Readers should refer to that report for details on our framework methodology. In this report, we apply our relative value framework to investment grade corporate bond markets in the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia. Chart 8Valuations Look Stretched On A Breakeven Spread Basis US In Table 1, we present the latest output from our US investment grade sector valuation model. In keeping with the framework used by BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we use the average credit rating, duration, and duration-squared (convexity) of each sector as the model inputs. As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation To determine our US sector recommendations, we not only need to look at the spread valuations from the relative value model, but we must also consider what level of overall US spread risk, which we measure as duration-times-spread (DTS), to target. With valuations for US investment grade looking stretched, we are looking to target only a neutral DTS at or around that of the benchmark index. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. The sweet spot, therefore, is the upper half of Chart 9, around the dotted horizontal line denoting the benchmark DTS. Given the large amount of spread narrowing seen since we last published these models, there are fewer obvious overweight candidates, with most sectors priced close to our model-implied fair value. However, Finance Companies, Lodging, and REITs are interesting opportunities that fit our “risk budget”. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. Sectors to avoid, meanwhile, are Restaurants, Environmental, and Other Utilities. Chart 9US Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Euro Area In Table 2, we present the results of our euro area investment grade sector valuation model. The independent variables in this model are each sector’s duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating. Note that we will be using the same independent variables in our UK model. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation In keeping with our neutral stance on euro area investment grade, we will be targeting an overall level of spread risk at or around the benchmark. Therefore, we are interested in overweighting sectors in the upper half of Chart 10 that are close to the overall index DTS. Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward On that basis, Subordinated Debt, Brokerage Asset Managers, and Integrated Energy seem appealing overweight candidates while Airlines, Independent Energy, and Building Materials are ones to avoid. UK In Table 3, we present the latest output from our UK relative value spread model. We are currently overweight UK investment grade, one of the best performers in our model bond portfolio universe last year. Although investment grade spreads are below pre-pandemic lows, the major factor to watch is how the economy adjusts to the Brexit trade deal. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with other regions, our ideal overweight candidates here are those with positive risk-adjusted residuals and a relatively neutral DTS—represented in the upper half of Chart 11 near the dotted line. The best overweight candidates are concentrated within Financials, with Brokerage Asset Managers, REITs and Insurance appearing attractive. Tobacco and Railroads also fit our criteria. Meanwhile, Metals and Mining, Aerospace, and Restaurants are sectors to avoid. Chart 11UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Canada Table 4 shows the output from our Canadian relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are: sector duration, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg) and credit rating. While we do not have an allocation to Canadian corporate debt in our model bond portfolio, our key insight regarding other markets also applies here—historically expensive valuations for the overall market mean that we recommend keeping exposure to spread risk neutral while finding pockets of value where available. Table 4Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation On that basis, some of the most appealing overweight candidates, shown in the top half of Chart 12, are Finance Companies, Office and Healthcare REITs, Brokerage Asset Managers, Life Insurance, and Other Industrials. Meanwhile, we are staying away from Cable Satellite, Media Entertainment, and Environmental sectors. Chart 12Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Australia Table 5 shows the output from our new Australia relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are sector credit rating, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg), and yield-to-maturity. Due to the relatively small size of the Australian corporate bond market, we are focusing our analysis on Level 3 sectors within the Bloomberg Barclays Classification System (BCLASS) rather than the more granular Level 4 analysis we have employed for other markets. Table 5Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with Canada, we have no exposure to this market in our model bond portfolio but are looking to maintain a neutral level of recommended overall spread risk while looking at sectors in Chart 13 that show positive risk-adjusted valuations and have a DTS close to the Australian corporate benchmark. On that basis, Finance Companies and Insurance appear attractive while Energy, Technology, and REITs should be avoided. Chart 13Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Comparing Sector Valuations Across Regions The above analyses have allowed us to paint a picture of sector valuation within regions. However, there is added benefit in looking at risk-adjusted valuations across the three major corporate bond markets—the US, euro area and UK—with the intent of spotting broader sector level trends in the global investment grade universe that are not limited to just one market. Table 6 allows us to highlight some clear trends: Table 6Valuations Across Major Corporate Bond Markets Industrials such as Chemicals, Capital Goods, and Diversified Manufacturing look overvalued across the board. These cyclicals, which are deeply sensitive to the health of business investment and confidence, rallied strongly on vaccine optimism but now look overbought. On the consumer side, there is weakness in cyclicals such as retailers and restaurants, and non-cyclicals like consumer products and food & beverages. The new round of lockdowns instituted in Europe and the UK are a major risk for these sectors as we head into the final stretch before mass vaccination. Energy looks undervalued in all three regions. This result is supported by the outlook from our BCA Research Commodity & Energy strategists, who are bullish on oil and believe that Brent prices will average at $63/bbl in 2021 as demand continues to grow and OPEC 2.0 keeps a tight grip on supply. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. These sectors have obviously benefited from the steepening in yield curves we have already seen but there is still remaining upside as inflation expectations continue to rise and push up nominal yields at the long-end of the curve. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. Bottom Line: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Political Strategy Report, "Buy Reflation Plays On Georgia’s Blue Sweep", dated January 6, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The full report can be found here: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2021: Leaning Into Reflation", dated January 6, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Hunting For Alpha In The Global Corporate Bond Jungle", dated May 27, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Rates: The Democratic sweep of the election has caused the uptrend in bond yields to accelerate and has benefited our recommended rates positions (below-benchmark duration, nominal and real curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners). We aren’t yet ready to exit any of these positions, and our medium-term target of 2% - 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield remains unchanged. Municipal Bonds: Though valuation has become more expensive, we continue to recommend a maximum overweight allocation to municipal bonds. In particular, investors should favor municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with equivalent credit rating and duration. Economy: December’s employment report showed the first monthly contraction in nonfarm payrolls since April. However, this negative headline reflects the transitory impact of the latest COVID wave. It does not signal renewed weakness in the pace of economic recovery. Feature A Politically Driven Bond Rout In a Special Report last October, we argued that the bond market was vulnerable in a scenario where the November 3rd election resulted in the Democratic party winning the House, Senate and White House.1 It took some time, but after Democrats won both of Georgia’s Senate seats in last week’s special election, we are finally seeing the impact on the bond market. Nominal Treasury Yields First, the 10-year nominal Treasury yield moved above 1% for the first time since March. It currently sits at 1.13% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the front-end of the Treasury curve held steady as the Fed continued to signal that liftoff is unlikely to occur within the next two years. The result has been a persistent steepening of the nominal curve (Chart 1, bottom panel). The 10-year nominal Treasury yield moved above 1% for the first time since March. We are positioned for a bear-steepening of the nominal Treasury curve, but the speed of this most recent move raises the question of how much further the bond sell-off can run. As we wrote in our year-end Special Report, we see yields continuing to rise until the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reaches levels consistent with survey estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate (Chart 2).2 This would be in line with where yields peaked during the prior two global growth recoveries (2013/14 and 2017/18). At present, survey responses put our target for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield at roughly 2% to 2.25%, still 18 to 43 bps above current levels. Chart 1Nominal Curve Bear-Steepening Chart 2How Much Upside For Yields? The prospect of greater fiscal stimulus under a Democratic government doesn’t necessarily translate into a higher ceiling for Treasury yields, but it does increase the speed with which yields will reach our target. All in all, we remain positioned for a bear-steepening of the nominal Treasury curve but will re-consider this stance if the 5-year/5-year forward yield reaches a range of 2% to 2.25%. Inflation Compensation Chart 3Stay Overweight TIPS For Now The recent 20 bps jump in the 10-year nominal Treasury yield was driven by a 15 bps increase in the 10-year TIPS yield and a 5 bps increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Notably, the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates have both pushed above 2% and are sitting at 2.08% and 2.06%, respectively. While these long-maturity TIPS breakevens have recovered nicely, the Fed won’t be tempted to adopt a more hawkish policy stance until they reach a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent, a range that has been consistent with “well-anchored” inflation expectations in the past (Chart 3).. While TIPS breakeven inflation rates aren’t yet high enough to worry the Fed, they are starting to look elevated compared to actual inflation. At 2.08%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 27 bps above the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 3, panel 3).3 Given this expensive valuation, we are currently looking for an opportunity to tactically reduce our allocation to TIPS. We expect that opportunity will come when the 12-month core and trimmed mean inflation rates re-converge (Chart 3, bottom panel). The low level of core CPI inflation relative to the trimmed mean suggests that inflation has near-term upside as some downtrodden sectors that are excluded from the trimmed mean recover from the pandemic. But inflation will moderate once that “snapback phase” is over, and we should get an opportunity to reduce our TIPS allocation.4   Along with an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we also recommend owning inflation curve flatteners. The inflation curve tends to flatten when the cost of inflation protection rises, and this has indeed been the case during the past few weeks (Chart 4). It will make sense to exit this flattener when we tactically reduce our TIPS allocation, but this will only be a temporary move. In the long run, the inflation curve will eventually invert and then remain in negative territory for an extended period. This is the result of the Fed’s plan to engineer an overshoot of its 2% inflation target. If the Fed is successful, it means that it will be attacking its inflation target from above for the first time since the 1980s. In such an environment, it makes sense for the inflation curve to be inverted. Chart 4Inflation Curve Flattening Real Yield Curve Chart 5Real Curve Steepening Our final rates curve recommendation is a real yield curve steepener. This position has also performed well during the recent bond rout, as a 14 bps increase in the 10-year real yield occurred alongside a 13 bps drop in the 2-year real yield (Chart 5). As with our other rates positions, we are inclined to stay the course. A 2/10 real yield curve steepener can be thought of as the combination of a 2/10 nominal curve steepener and a 2/10 inflation curve flattener. During the recent bond sell-off, the 2/10 real curve has steepened by 27 bps, split between 17 bps of nominal curve steepening and 10 bps of inflation curve flattening. We will likely maintain our real yield curve steepener as a core portfolio position even if we eventually close our inflation curve flattener. Gradual progress toward fed funds liftoff and the resulting steepening of the nominal curve should be sufficient to steepen the real yield curve, even if inflation takes a pause. Corporate Credit Chart 6Move Down In Quality Corporate spreads have reacted well to the news of a Democratic sweep, even though it means that a corporate tax hike is coming in 2021. All else equal, the one-time hit to profits from a tax hike is negative for corporate balance sheets, but this is a minor consideration when the macro back-drop remains so positive for spread product. The combination of above-trend economic growth and highly accommodative monetary policy will encourage investors to keep adding credit risk, and the average investment grade and high-yield index spreads have still not quite recovered to their pre-COVID tights (Chart 6). We continue to view the Ba credit tier as the most attractive from a risk/reward perspective, as the incremental spread pick-up in Ba compared to Baa is elevated compared to what we’ve seen in recent years (Chart 6, panel 3). Bottom Line: The Democratic sweep of the election has caused the uptrend in bond yields to accelerate and has benefited our recommended rates positions (below-benchmark duration, nominal and real curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners). We aren’t yet ready to exit any of these positions, and our medium-term target of 2% - 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield remains unchanged. Fiscal Policy In 2021 Chart 7Organic Household Income Has Recovered Our US Political Strategy service debuted last week with a report that considers the outlook for fiscal policy in 2021 given that Democrats now have control of the House, Senate and White House.5 In short, the Democrats now have complete control of the government but their majorities in the House and Senate are thin. This means that the most radical parts of the Democratic agenda, like the Green New Deal, will be hard to pass. However, the Democrats will be able to deliver two reconciliation bills in 2021. The first bill could come soon and will likely focus on additional COVID relief and social support, such as $2000 checks to individuals instead of $600 ones. After that, the Democrats will focus on expanding and entrenching the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They will partially repeal the Trump tax cuts to help finance these priorities. On the issue of COVID relief, we are no longer concerned about the US economy receiving enough stimulus to avoid a double-dip recession. We had previously estimated that a further $600 billion to $1 trillion of income support for households would be required to support consumer spending at reasonable levels.6 This estimate now looks too high because non-CARES act household income has recovered much more quickly than we had anticipated. Non-CARES act household income is already back to pre-COVID levels (Chart 7). In our prior research, we assumed this wouldn’t happen until July 2021. In any event, another round of $2000 checks will provide more than enough income support to sustain a recovery in consumer spending. A Democratic sweep suggests big fiscal thrust in 2021 and less contraction in 2022. More generally, our US Political Strategy team has estimated the medium-term path for the US deficit under a “Democratic Status Quo” scenario that assumes another round of $2000 checks and that the remaining $2.5 trillion of the proposed HEROES Act will be enacted. It also considers a “Democratic High” scenario that adds Joe Biden’s $5.6 trillion policy agenda on top of the Democratic Status Quo (Chart 8). Biden will not achieve all of his agenda, so the reality will lie somewhere between the Democratic Status Quo and Democratic High scenarios. In either case, we will see considerably more fiscal thrust compared to the Republican Status Quo and Baseline scenarios. Chart 8Democratic Sweep Suggests Big Fiscal Thrust In FY2021 And Less Contraction FY2022 Municipal Bonds The prospect of federal government aid for challenged state & local governments is a crucial issue for municipal bond investors. Fortunately, the Democratic party’s HEROES act contains more than $1 trillion of aid to state & local governments and this will likely form the basis of the next COVID relief package. On top of that, further support for household incomes will also help support state & local tax revenues that are already recovering (Chart 9). Chart 9State & Local Austerity Will Continue That said, we are likely still in for a considerable period of state & local austerity given the large budget gaps that have opened during the past nine months. However, the expectation of help from the federal government makes us even more confident that state & local governments will muddle through without a spate of muni downgrades or defaults. We maintain our “maximum overweight” recommendation for tax-exempt municipal bonds, though valuation is turning more expensive by the day. Muni yield spreads versus Treasuries are contracting, particularly at the long end of the curve (Chart 10A) and valuations appear more expensive if we look at yield ratios instead of spreads (Chart 10B). In both cases, value looks better at the front end of the curve than at the long end. Chart 10AMuni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 10BMuni / Treasury Yield Ratios Bottom Line: The new Democratic government will deliver more than enough income support to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. Aid for state & local governments is also forthcoming and it will help sustain municipal bond outperformance versus both Treasuries and investment grade corporates. Though valuation has become more expensive, we continue to recommend a maximum overweight allocation to municipal bonds. In particular, investors should favor municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with equivalent credit rating and duration. December Payrolls Only A Temporary Setback At first blush, last week’s December employment report looks disastrous. Nonfarm payrolls fell by 140 thousand, the first monthly contraction since April. The contraction looks especially worrying when you consider that payrolls remain almost 10 million below pre-COVID levels and should be rising quickly at this stage of the economic recovery (Chart 11). Chart 11Payrolls Contracted In December Chart 12Permanent Unemployment Fell In December The grim headline numbers, however, severely overstate the magnitude of the problem. Rather than implying underlying economic weakness, the drop in payrolls reflects the transitory impact of the pandemic’s latest violent wave. December’s job losses came from the Leisure and Hospitality sector (-498k), the sector most impacted by the virus. Job gains remained solid elsewhere in the economy (+358k). The unemployment rate held flat at 6.7% in December, but encouragingly, this stable number masks both an increase in the number of temporarily unemployed (or furloughed) workers and a drop in the number of permanently unemployed workers (Chart 12). Those furloughed workers will return to work once the virus is better contained. Meanwhile, the drop in the number of permanently unemployed suggests that the economic recovery is taking hold. It will only gain momentum as the COVID vaccine is rolled out and additional fiscal stimulus is delivered in 2021.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on inflation’s “snapback phase” please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Reflation Plays On Georgia’s Blue Sweep”, dated January 6, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights 2021 Model Bond Portfolio Broad Allocations: Translating our 2021 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions: target a relatively aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, while maintaining a moderately below-benchmark duration exposure alongside overweight allocations to lower-quality global corporate credit, and inflation-linked debt, versus nominal government bonds. Specific Allocation Changes: We are increasing credit spread risk in the US by upgrading our recommended overall US high-yield allocation to overweight, focused on B- and Caa-rated credit tiers, while downgrading US investment grade corporates to neutral. We are also reducing the size of our underweights in euro area corporates and shifting the overall allocation to emerging market USD-denominated credit to overweight. Feature Happy New Year! Just before our holiday break last month, we published our 2021 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the BCA 2021 Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we translate those themes into specific investment recommendations and changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that the expected global backdrop of improving economic growth momentum, a reduction in coronavirus uncertainty as vaccines are distributed, highly accommodative monetary policy and a weakening US dollar will all provide an additional reflationary lift to global financial markets after a strong H2/2020. That means moderately higher global government bond yields (led by US Treasuries) along with outperformance of growth-related spread product like corporate bonds – specifically in the riskier credit segments like US high-yield and emerging markets (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months A Review Of The 2020 Model Bond Portfolio Performance Before we look ahead to discuss the details of the changes to our model bond portfolio for 2021, we need to take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2020. Chart 12020 Performance: A Positive Year After A Volatile Start Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a total return (hedged into US dollars) of 5.9%, which outperformed its custom benchmark index by +20bps (Chart 1).2 That moderately solid return was not delivered without some volatility over the course of the year, particularly during the global market tumult last February and March. Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -70bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +90bps. The government bond underperformance occurred entirely in the first quarter of the year, as we began 2020 with a recommended below-benchmark global duration stance and an underweight overall allocation to government bonds versus spread product. For a portfolio that is intended to reflect our strategic investment recommendations, the COVID-19 market volatility in Q1/2020 forced us to change our allocations more frequently and aggressively than usual. In early March, we moved to an overweight recommendation on government bonds and underweight on spread product (particular corporate debt) while also shifting the portfolio duration to above-benchmark. That was a large flip from a pro-risk portfolio construction to a defensive one, but which helped claw back some of the severe underperformance in the month of February as government bonds yields plunged and corporate credit spreads surged higher. After the dramatic easing of monetary policy by the major global central banks in March, most notably the US Federal Reserve’s decision to begin buying corporate bonds, we reverted back to a pro-risk stance by upgrading US investment grade credit and Ba-rated high-yield to overweight – positions that were maintained for the rest of 2021. Those US corporate bond exposures alone accounted for essentially all of the spread product outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2020 (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Overall Return Attribution In terms of specific country exposures (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) early in 2020 severely hurt the government bond portion of the portfolio (-76bps of underperformance versus the benchmark). This dwarfed the 2020 outperformance from other countries like Italy (+11bps), Japan (+17bps), and the UK (+5bps). Importantly, our move to allocate out of nominal government bonds to inflation-linked debt in the US, Italy and Canada back in June was a positive contributor on the year, boosting the overall portfolio outperformance by a combined +25bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains outside of US investment grade came from UK investment grade (+18bps), euro area investment grade (+12bps) and US CMBS (+11bps). The biggest drags on performance came from underweights in euro area high-yield (-23bps) and US B-rated high-yield (-17bps), as we maintained a relatively cautious stance on those sectors even during the sharp rally in the latter half of 2020 given the lingering risks from COVID-19 and US election year uncertainty. In the end, 2020 proved to be an outstanding year for taking any kind of credit risk, as the majority of spread product sectors in our model bond portfolio universe strongly outperformed government debt. Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector In the end, 2020 proved to be an outstanding year for taking any kind of credit risk, as the majority of spread product sectors in our model bond portfolio universe strongly outperformed government debt (Chart 4). Given our overweight stance toward credit, the year ended on a strong note, with the portfolio delivering +16bps of outperformance in Q4/2020 – the details of which can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In 2020 Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from our 2021 Key Views report were the following: Global growth will accelerate over the course of 2021 as COVID-19 vaccines are distributed and economic confidence improves in response. Longer-term global nominal bond yields should see some upward pressure as growth picks up, with US Treasury yields rising the most. Global real bond yields will stay deeply negative with on-hold central banks actively seeking an inflation overshoot. The US dollar will remain soft in 2021, providing an additional reflationary impulse to the global economy. Lower-quality global credit should outperform against a backdrop that will prove positive for risk assets: easy money policies, improving growth momentum and a reduction in virus-related uncertainty. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: MODERATELY BELOW BENCHMARK Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic growth variables, is already signaling that the direction of global bond yields will be higher in 2021 (Chart 5). Successful distribution of COVID-19 vaccines should eventually add additional upward momentum to global growth as confidence improves later in the year. Even if the vaccine rollout does not go as smoothly as expected, that would put pressure for fiscal stimulus policy responses – especially in the US - that can help sustain economic recoveries. Chart 5Global Bond Yields Will Drift Higher In 2021 Chart 6Stay Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure However, with major central banks like the Fed and ECB likely to keep policy rates unchanged in 2021, so as not to impede a recovery in inflation, any upward lift to bond yields will be moderate and driven overwhelmingly by rising longer-term inflation expectations and not a repricing of future monetary policy tightening. That means developed market yield curves should bearishly steepen, in general, as front-end yields remain anchored. We shifted to a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance back at the end of last October, equal to just over 0.5 years of duration versus the custom benchmark index (Chart 6). We are comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, while maintaining a bearish steepening bias to yield curve exposure across all countries in the model portfolio. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT LOW YIELD BETA MARKETS, OVERWEIGHT PERIPHERAL EUROPE, UNDERWEIGHT THE US In more normal times, we would let our expectations of monetary policy changes guide our recommended government bond country allocations. Yet in 2021, we see almost no chance for any meaningful change in the monetary policy bias of any developed market central bank. Thus, we continue to rely on a “yield beta” framework for making fixed income country allocation decisions in our model bond portfolio. In 2021, we see almost no chance for any meaningful change in the monetary policy bias of any developed market central bank. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2021 to occur in the US, thus we recommend favoring countries that have a lower sensitivity to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. the “yield beta”). The obvious candidates are government bonds in Japan and core Europe, where inflation expectations are likely to see less upward pressure than in the US – especially if the US dollar weakens further (Chart 7). Thus, we begin 2021 by maintaining our existing overweight positions in Germany and France. Chart 7Favor Government Bond Markets Less Correlated To UST Yields In 2021 The UK has been transitioning from a high-beta to low-beta bond market in recent years and we do not see that trend turning in 2021. The Bank of England (BoE) will maintain a dovish policy bias this year as the UK economy begins adjusting to the post-Brexit world and a stronger pound will dampen inflation pressures. We also begin 2021 by staying overweight UK gilts in our model portfolio. We anticipate that the Italy-Germany government bond spread will converge to the lower Spain-Germany spread in 2021. Chart 8Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds Australia and Canada are two countries where a high yield beta to US Treasuries would make them ideal underweight candidates in a global bond portfolio this year. However, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) have instituted aggressive quantitative easing (QE) programs that are designed to dampen increases in government bond yields. As a result of these opposing forces on Australian and Canadian bond yields, we begin 2021 with a neutral allocation to both countries. However, we may shift either or both to an underweight stance if we sense any wavering of the commitment of the RBA or BoC to their QE programs amid improving economic growth.  We also expect further declines in the risk premia for Italian government bond yields in 2021. The combination of aggressive ECB government bond purchases, which includes greater buying of BTPs than in years past, and signs of a somewhat more supportive backdrop of fiscal unity within the European Union (the €750bn Recovery Fund) reduce both the sovereign credit risk and “redenomination risk” of a potential euro breakup. We anticipate that the Italy-Germany government bond spread will converge to the lower Spain-Germany spread in 2021 – an outcome that last occurred in 2016 (Chart 8). We are not only maintaining our long-held overweight stance on Italy in our model portfolio, we are increasing the size of the allocation to begin 2021. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN EXPOSURE IN THE US, ITALY AND CANADA; ADD A NEW ALLOCATION TO FRANCE Chart 9Stay Overweight Global Inflation-Linked Bonds Inflation-linked bonds had a strong relative performance versus nominal government debt across the developed markets during the second half of 2020, with breakevens widening even in countries with low realized inflation like France and Australia. Dovish central banks, the reflationary impacts of rising commodity prices (also fueled by US dollar weakness), and the V-shaped recovery in global economic growth from the 2020 COVID-19 recession have all played a role in helping lift breakevens from the depressed levels seen last spring. None of those factors is expected to change during at least the first half of 2021, thus allocations to inflation-linked bonds are still justified in several countries. We are adding a new position in French inflation-linked bonds versus nominal French bonds with breakevens below our model-implied fair value. Our fair value models for 10-year inflation breakevens show that valuations are no longer unequivocally cheap in most countries, but only in Australia do breakevens look much too high relative to underlying fundamental drivers (Chart 9). US TIPS breakevens are approaching levels that would appear “expensive”, defined as at least one standard deviation above fair value, but we still see additional upside as the model implied fair value is also rising. We currently have recommended allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the US, Italy and Canada in our model portfolio, and we are maintaining those positions as we begin 2021. We are adding a new position in French inflation-linked bonds versus nominal French bonds with breakevens below our model-implied fair value. Spread Product Allocation: OVERWEIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATES VERSUS GOVERNMENT BONDS, FOCUSED ON US HIGH-YIELD AND EM Our expectation of a combination of improving global economic growth and persistent reflationary monetary policies is a very positive backdrop for global spread product, most notably corporate bonds. However, valuations across the global corporate debt spectrum are not universally cheap after the strong H2/2020 performance. Thus, we are maintaining only a moderate overall overweight stance on spread product versus government bonds in our model bond portfolio, equal to 5% of the portfolio (Chart 10). At the same time, we recommend taking more relative spread risk within that moderate overweight allocation. This is the way we are balancing the competing forces of a pro-risk backdrop and increasingly stretched valuations in many sectors. The biggest change we are making to the credit side of our model bond portfolio is downgrading US investment grade corporate exposure to neutral while upgrading US high-yield to overweight. As we discussed in our 2021 Key Views report, spread valuation measures are more stretched for higher-rated US investment grade corporate debt compared to junk bonds. Chart 10A Moderate Recommended Overweight To Global Spread Product In 2021 Combined with a monetary liquidity backdrop that supports the performance of riskier assets like high-yield (Chart 11), we anticipate that US high-yield will be a relatively strong performer within the US credit markets in 2021. Chart 11Upgrade Lower Rated US High-Yield To Overweight When looking at the relationship between spread valuation (using our preferred metric of 12-month breakeven spreads) and risk (using a standard measure like duration-times-spread), the lower rated credit tiers of US high-yield stand out as having the most attractive risk/valuation tradeoff (Chart 12). Thus, we are focusing our shift to an overweight stance on US high-yield in our model bond portfolio by increasing the allocations to the B-rated and Caa-rated tiers. Chart 12Comparing Value (Breakeven Spreads) With Risk (Duration Times Spread) Outside the US, we are also adding additional spread product exposure by increasing the weightings to euro area high-yield and emerging market USD-denominated sovereign debt. However, we are still maintaining a relatively higher allocation to US high-yield over euro area equivalents, and emerging market USD-denominated corporate debt over sovereigns. The biggest change we are making to the credit side of our model bond portfolio is downgrading US investment grade corporate exposure to neutral while upgrading US high-yield to overweight. Finally, we are entering 2021 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) we maintained during the latter half of 2020, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Overall Portfolio Risk: AGGRESSIVE The net impact of all the changes made to our portfolio allocations is to boost the estimated tracking error – the relative portfolio volatility versus that of the benchmark – from 31bps to 73bps (Chart 13). This is a significant increase in the usage of our portfolio “risk budget”, but the tracking error is still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps. Chart 13Taking A More Aggressive Posture On Overall Portfolio Risk Chart 14Boosting Portfolio Yield Through Selective Overweights After maintaining a cautious stance on overall portfolio risk levels in the latter half of 2020, given the persistent uncertainties over the spread of COVID-19 and the US presidential election, we now deem it appropriate to be more aggressive within our model bond portfolio allocations. The pro-risk positioning changes will also boost the overall yield of the model bond portfolio. The greater allocations to riskier spread product sectors leave the portfolio with a yield that begins 2021 modestly higher than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations, which can all be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the first half of 2021. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Base Case The current surge of global COVID-19 cases gives way to increased distribution of vaccines. The result is a steady improvement in global growth. Some additional fiscal stimulus is delivered in the US and the larger countries of Europe. Central banks keep their foot on the monetary accelerator with realized inflation moving only modestly higher. The US Treasury curve bear steepens as US inflation expectations continue drifting higher. The VIX index reaches 23, the US dollar depreciates by -5%, oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Optimistic Scenario The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines goes smoothly and rapidly, while the current surge in COVID-19 cases fades in the early weeks of 2021. Global growth quickly accelerates on the back of soaring consumer & business confidence. Global fiscal stimulus surprises to upside, while central banks remain super-dovish even as inflation perks up. The US Treasury curve bear-steepens substantially as US inflation expectations steadily increase. The VIX index falls to 18, the US dollar depreciates by -10% in a pro-risk/pro-growth move, oil prices climb +20% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Pessimistic Scenario The vaccine rollout is slower than expected, with COVID-19 restrictions remaining in place for longer. Policymakers deliver inadequate new fiscal and monetary stimulus measures to support underwhelming growth. The US Treasury curve bull-flattens as US inflation breakevens plunge. The VIX index soars to 35, the US dollar appreciates by +5%, oil prices plunge -20% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 3B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 15 and Chart 16, respectively. Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 15Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 16US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over its performance benchmark during the next six months of +50bps in the base case and +78bps in the optimistic scenario, but is projected to underperform by -37bps in the pessimistic scenario. These are larger expected relative returns than witnessed during the latter half of 2020, consistent with the larger tracking error we are taking entering 2021.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2021 Key Views: Vaccination, Reflation, Rotation," dated December 17, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Our model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt and USD-denominated emerging market debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Appendix Appendix Chart 1Q4/2020 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Appendix Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2020 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 12020 Returns After a tumultuous start to the year, corporate bonds rallied in 2020 H2, managing to eke out small annual gains versus Treasuries. Specifically, investment grade corporates outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 4 basis points in 2020 and high-yield outperformed by 185 bps (Chart 1). Treasuries, for their part, bested cash by 7% on the year but returns have been trending down since August. As we look forward to 2021, the economic cycle is in what we call a sweet spot for spread product returns. Economic growth is above trend, but inflation is low and monetary conditions are highly accommodative. This macro back-drop will lead to positive spread product returns versus Treasuries and a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve in 2021. However, stretched valuations for investment grade corporates mean that investors must be selective within spread product. We think the Ba credit tier offers the best risk-adjusted opportunity in the corporate bond space, and also recommend favoring tax-exempt municipal bonds over equivalent-quality investment grade corporates. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 79 basis points in December and by 4 bps in 2020. The investment grade corporate index eked out a small gain relative to the duration-matched Treasury index in 2020. Corporates underperformed Treasuries by 18% from the beginning of the year until March 23, the day that the Fed stopped the bleeding in credit markets by unveiling its suite of emergency lending facilities. With the Fed’s backstops in place, the corporate index went on to outperform Treasuries by 22% between March 23 and the end of the year (Appendix A). As we noted in our 2021 Key Views Special Report, the corporate bond index option-adjusted spread is not quite back to its pre-COVID low.1 However, valuation is close to all-time expensive after adjusting for changes in the index’s average credit rating and duration. The 12-month breakeven spread for the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate Index (adjusted to keep the average credit rating constant) has only been tighter 4% of the time since 1995 (Chart 2). The same figure for the Baa-rated credit tier is 5%. As noted, the macro environment of above-trend growth and accommodative Fed policy is very positive for spread product returns. However, better value exists outside of the investment grade corporate space. In particular, we advise investors to look at Ba-rated high-yield corporates and tax-exempt municipal bonds. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 190 basis points in December and by 185 basis points in 2020. Ba-rated junk bonds outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 431 bps in 2020, while B-rated and Caa-rated bonds lagged by 13 bps and 238 bps, respectively. Since the March 23 peak in spreads, Ba-rated bonds outperformed Treasuries by 33%, B-rated bonds outperformed by 30% and Caa-rated bonds outperformed by 36% (Appendix A). We view Ba-rated junk bonds as the sweet spot within the corporate credit space. The sector is relatively insulated from default risk and yet still offers a sizeable spread pick-up over investment grade corporates (Chart 3). We noted in our 2021 Key Views Special Report that the additional spread earned from moving down in quality below Ba is in line with historical averages.2   Assuming a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required risk premium of 150 bps, we calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 2.8% for the next 12 months (panel 3). This represents a steep drop from the 8.4% default rate observed during the most recent 12-month period. However, only seven defaults occurred in November, down from a peak of 22 in July. Job cut announcements, an excellent indicator of the default rate, are also falling rapidly (bottom panel). Overall, we see room for spread compression across all junk credit tiers in 2021 but believe that Ba-rated bonds offer the best opportunity in risk-adjusted terms.    Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward*  MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in December but underperformed by 17 bps in 2020. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 10 bps on the month to reach 61 bps (Chart 4). This is higher than the 58 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds, the 49 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 24 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the relatively attractive OAS, we continue to view the elevated primary mortgage spread as a material risk for MBS investors. The elevated spread suggests that mortgage rates need not rise alongside Treasury yields in the near-term, meaning that mortgage refinancings can continue at their current rapid pace (panel 3). Our view is that expected prepayment losses embedded in MBS spreads (aka the option cost) are too low relative to this pace of refinancing. Last year’s spike in the mortgage delinquency rate was driven by households that were granted forbearance by the federal government’s CARES act (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders is that these households will not be able to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period ends this spring. While the situation bears close monitoring, our sense is that excess savings built up during the past nine months will be sufficient to prevent a surge of bankruptcies when the forbearance period ends. The recent stimulus package provides households with even more assistance. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in December but underperformed by 161 bps in 2020. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 176 bps in December but underperformed by 98 bps in 2020. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps in December but underperformed by 640 bps in 2020. Local Authority debt outperformed Treasuries by 146 bps in December but underperformed by 86 bps in 2020. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 14 bps in December but underperformed by 9 bps in 2020. Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps in December and by 3 bps in 2020. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, 2020’s dollar weakness was mostly relative to other Developed Market currencies (Chart 5). Value has improved somewhat for EM Sovereigns during the past few weeks, but the index continues to offer less spread than the Baa-rated US Credit index (panel 4). At the country level, Turkey, Colombia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Indonesia are the only countries that offer a spread pick-up relative to duration and quality-matched US corporates. Of those, only Mexico looks attractive on a risk/reward basis. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 56 basis points in December but underperformed by 286 bps in 2020 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We upgraded municipal bonds to “maximum overweight” in our recent 2021 Key Views Special Report.3 Attractive valuations are the main reason for this move. First, spreads between Aaa-rated municipal bonds and equivalent-maturity Treasuries are elevated compared to history across the entire yield curve (Chart 6). Second, municipal bonds look even more attractive relative to duration and quality-matched credit. The Bloomberg Barclays Revenue Bond index offers a greater yield than the quality-matched Credit index across the entire maturity spectrum (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The same is true for the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation index beyond the 12-year maturity point (panel 3). While the failure to include state & local government aid in the recent relief bill is a big blow to municipal budgets that are already stretched, we think municipal bond spreads offer more-than-adequate compensation for default/downgrade risk. State & local governments are already engaging in austerity measures that will help protect bondholders (bottom panel) and State Rainy Day Fund balances were at all-time highs heading into the COVID downturn. Both of these things should help stave off a wave of municipal downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in December. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 13 bps to 81 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 7 bps to 129 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. A timely vaccine roll-out and the recently passed fiscal relief bill will serve to speed this process along. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar levels.        TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 141 basis points in December and by 117 bps in 2020. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 22 bps and 18 bps on the month. They currently sit at 2.01% and 2.07%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.22% in November, pushing the year-over-year rate from 1.63% to 1.65%. Meanwhile, 12-month trimmed mean CPI fell from 2.22% to 2.09%, narrowing the gap between trimmed mean and core (Chart 8). We anticipate further narrowing in 2021 Q1 and therefore expect core CPI to print relatively hot. For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate looks somewhat elevated on our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).4 Inflation pressures may moderate once the core and trimmed mean inflation measures converge, and this could give us an opportunity to tactically reduce TIPS exposure in the first half of this year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect short-maturity real yields to come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel).   ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in December and by 98 bps in 2020. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 12 bps in December and by 81 bps in 2020. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 33 bps in December and by 207 bps in 2020 (Chart 9). On paper, the Treasury department’s decision to let the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) expire at the end of 2020 is quite negative for ABS. However, as we explained in a recent report, we don’t anticipate a material impact on spreads.5 For one thing, Aaa ABS spreads are already well below the borrowing cost offered by TALF. But more importantly, consumer credit quality is strong. As we first explained last June, the stimulus received from the CARES act led to a significant increase in disposable income and a jump in the savings rate (panel 4).6 Faced with an income boost and few spending opportunities, many households paid down consumer debt. Given the recently passed additional fiscal support and the substantial savings that have already accrued, we see household balance sheets as being in a good place. As such, we advise moving down-in-quality to pick up extra spread in non-Aaa ABS.   Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 113 basis points in December but underperformed by 57 bps in 2020. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 58 bps in December and by 56 bps in 2020. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 277 bps in December but underperformed by 360 bps in 2020 (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Even with the expiry of TALF, Aaa CMBS spreads are already well below the cost of borrowing through TALF and thus will not be negatively impacted.7 Meanwhile, the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate could lead to problems for lower-rated CMBS (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 50 basis points in December and by 105 bps in 2020. The average index spread tightened 7 bps in December to reach 49 bps (bottom panel). At its September meeting, the Fed decided to slow its pace of Agency CMBS purchases. It is no longer looking to increase its Agency CMBS holdings, but rather, will only purchase what is “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. This is nonetheless a backstop of the market, and it does not change our overweight recommendation.   Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. TablePerformance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of December 31ST, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of December 31ST, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 85 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 85 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of December 31ST, 2020)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Preparing For A Dark Winter … But Do Markets Care?”, dated November 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Preparing For A Dark Winter … But Do Markets Care?”, dated November 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

This is US Bond Strategy’s final report of the year. Our regular publication schedule will resume on January 5th with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2021. We wish you a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.   Highlights Interest Rate Policy: The Fed has given us a checklist of three criteria that must be met before it will lift rates off the zero bound. After those criteria are met, the pace of the eventual rate hike cycle will be determined by how quickly inflation expectations move back to “well-anchored” levels. We don’t expect Fed liftoff in 2021. Balance Sheet Policy: The Fed will only increase the pace or lengthen the maturity of its asset purchases if the economy or risk assets undergo a significant negative shock in 2021. Absent that, Fed communications in late-2021 will increasingly focus on the eventual tapering of asset purchases. Given the current vague guidance about when tapering will start, a scaled-down repeat of the 2013 Taper Tantrum is possible in late-2021 or 2022. Emergency Lending Facilities: The Fed will not undertake efforts to subvert Congress and re-establish its emergency lending facilities in 2021. However, the absence of the facilities will not have a negative impact on financial markets. Fiscal/Monetary Coordination: Looking beyond 2021, we see the lines between fiscal and monetary policy continuing to blur. The Fed will be increasingly incentivized to dip its toes into the fiscal arena and fiscal policymakers will let it. Feature Chart 1An Eventful Year It would be an understatement to say that 2020 was a busy year for the Federal Reserve. The Fed cut rates to the zero bound when the recession struck in March. It also exploded its balance sheet to fresh all-time highs and rolled out brand-new emergency lending facilities to support flagging credit markets (Chart 1). Then, to top it all off, the Fed concluded a Strategic Review of its monetary policy strategy in August and officially adopted an Average Inflation Target. This report touches on the market implications of 2020’s big Fed moves, but its focus is on what the Fed is likely to do in 2021. The first three sections discuss how we see the Fed’s interest rate policy, balance sheet policy and emergency lending facilities evolving next year. The final section considers a longer time horizon as it discusses what might be the next frontier for monetary policy: increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal authorities. Interest Rate Policy With the fed funds rate at its effective lower bound, bond investors will spend 2021 trying to determine the eventual start date and magnitude of the next tightening cycle. This will be especially complicated because the Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target means that old models of its reaction function must be discarded. We discussed the implications of the move toward Average Inflation Targeting in a September Special Report.1 To quickly recap, the Fed made three main changes that will influence our outlook for interest rate policy in 2021. First, the Fed edited its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy to include a new interpretation of its price stability mandate. The new Statement reads: In order to anchor longer-term inflation expectations at [2 percent], the Committee seeks to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time, and therefore judges that, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.2 Second, the Fed modified its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy to signal that it will rely less on labor market indicators to forecast future inflation. In its old Statement, the Fed talked about minimizing “deviations of employment from the Committee’s assessments of its maximum level.” The revised Statement talks about mitigating “shortfalls of employment from the Committee’s assessment of its maximum level.” In other words, the Fed is saying that it will be less inclined to view an unemployment rate below its estimated natural level (NAIRU) as a signal that inflation is about to accelerate. The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target means that old models of its reaction function must be discarded. Finally, at the September FOMC meeting, the Fed translated the changes it made to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy into more explicit guidance about when it will consider lifting rates off the zero bound. That guidance is as follows: … it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.3 The Timing Of Liftoff Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Digging into the new guidance, we identify three criteria for lifting rates off the zero bound (Table 1). First, the unemployment rate must reach levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of NAIRU. Currently, those estimates range from 3.5% to 4.5% (Chart 2). Practically, we view this as the least important of the three criteria. NAIRU estimates are revised based on what happens with inflation, and the Fed has already acknowledged that it is now less inclined to view a sub-NAIRU unemployment rate as an inflationary signal. In short, if inflation were to rise sustainably above 2% with the unemployment rate still at 5%, the Fed would simply revise up its NAIRU estimates and begin the rate hike cycle. Chart 2Criteria For Lifting Rates The Fed’s second criterion for lifting rates is also the most specific. Inflation must rise to 2 percent before the Fed will consider hiking rates. In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida said he interprets this to mean that 12-month PCE inflation must be at least 2% before the Fed will consider hiking (Chart 2, bottom panel).4 This is helpful for bond investors. We can be certain that no rate hikes will occur at least until 12-month PCE inflation reaches 2%. Finally, the Fed also wants to be certain that inflation is “on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.” This means that the event of 12-month PCE reaching 2% won’t automatically lead to a rate increase. The Fed must also view inflation gains as sustainable. This will likely become an issue in the first half of 2021 when we know that base effects will push 12-month PCE sharply higher, possibly even above 2%. However, we also know that those gains will be short lived.5 Of course, the Fed also knows about the impact of base effects and it will look past any temporary jump in inflation in H1 2021. More generally, while we advise investors to not pay much attention to the Fed’s NAIRU estimates, the unemployment rate will play a role in the Fed’s determination of whether above-2% inflation is sustainable. That is, the Fed is more likely to view above-2% inflation as sustainable if the unemployment rate is 4% than it is if the unemployment rate is 6%. What Does The Market Think? The bond market has been quick to price-in the big shift in the Fed’s interest rate guidance. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a single 25 basis point rate hike in mid-2023 and only one more by mid-2024 (Chart 3). We see a good chance that the Fed’s three liftoff criteria are met before then, a view that forms the basis of our below-benchmark portfolio duration recommendation for 2021.6 In addition, the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants shows that only 43% of respondents expect liftoff before the end of 2023 and only 31% before the end of 2022 (Table 2A). This is further evidence that bond yields have room to rise if it looks like the Fed’s three liftoff criteria will be met in 2022 or the first half of 2023. Finally, the New York Fed’s survey shows that market participants understand the Fed’s three liftoff criteria and that differences in opinion about the timing of liftoff reflect differences in views about the economic outlook, not differences in understanding the Fed’s reaction function. The bulk of survey respondents think that the unemployment rate will be between 3.5% and 4.2% (consistent with the Fed’s NAIRU estimates) and that 12-month PCE inflation will be between 2.2% and 2.5% at the time of liftoff (Table 2B). Chart 3The Fed May Lift Rates Sooner Than Markets Expect Table 2ALiftoff Expectations Table 2BMarkets Understand The Fed’s Guidance The Pace Of Tightening And Why We’re Watching Inflation Expectations We’ve seen the three criteria upon which the Fed will condition its decision to hike rates off the zero bound. But the timing of liftoff is not the only thing that bond investors need to consider. We also need to get a sense of how quickly rate hikes will proceed once the next tightening cycle begins. According to the Fed’s interest rate guidance, even after liftoff the Fed will seek to maintain accommodative monetary conditions until it has achieved its price stability goal under its new Average Inflation Target. Recall that this goal is defined as achieving “inflation that averages 2 percent over time”. This is somewhat vaguer than the Fed’s liftoff guidance. Over what time period should we seek to hit average 2% inflation? One option is to start calculating the average when the new regime was adopted in August. In that case, average PCE inflation is running at 0.96%, well below 2%. Alternatively, we could calculate average inflation since the Fed last cut rates to zero in March 2020 (1.50%) or average inflation since the Fed cut rates to zero in December 2008 (1.43%). The point is that the Fed has not given us a clearly defined target. Differences in opinion about the timing of liftoff reflect differences in views about the economic outlook. For this reason, it’s important for bond investors to understand why the Fed has shifted to an Average Inflation Target. The reason has to do with trying to re-anchor inflation expectations. Box 1 shows an example of an Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve, the Fed’s go-to framework for thinking about inflation. As the accompanying quote from Janet Yellen explains, the Fed thinks about inflation’s long-run trend as being driven by expectations. Shocks to economic slack and import prices can cause inflation to deviate from its long-run trend, but expectations drive the trend itself. This makes it critical for a central bank to keep expectations well anchored near its inflation target. Box 1The Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve (aka The Fed’s Inflation Model) This is the underlying rationale for the Fed’s Average Inflation Target. The Fed has observed that inflation expectations have been too low in recent years. In the Fed’s model, this signals that inflation’s long-run trend has shifted down. In order to get expectations back up to target, the Fed understands that it will probably need to accept a period of above-target inflation. Since economic agents have just experienced a long period of sub-2% inflation, it will probably require a significant period of above-2% inflation before their expectations sustainably shift higher.7 To sum it all up, the Fed will seek to keep monetary conditions accommodative, and thus supportive for risk assets, until inflation expectations are deemed to be re-anchored. At that point, monetary policy will shift to a neutral or restrictive stance and risk asset performance will be challenged. But don’t just take our word for it. Here is what Vice-Chair Clarida said in a recent speech (referenced above): It is important to note, however, that the goal of the new framework is to keep inflation expectations well anchored at 2 percent, and, for this reason, I myself plan to focus more on indicators of inflation expectations themselves – especially survey-based measures – than I will on the calculation of an average rate of inflation over any particular window of time. It is clear that inflation expectations will dictate the eventual pace of Fed tightening. But the question of what measure of inflation expectations to track remains unresolved. Measures of inflation expectations fall into three main categories: Market-based measures Survey measures Trend measures Market-based measures are derived from inflation-linked bonds. Specifically, we derive TIPS breakeven inflation rates for different time horizons by taking the difference between a nominal yield and TIPS yield of the same maturity. In this publication, we often refer to the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates and have found that a range of 2.3% to 2.5% has historically been consistent with periods when inflation expectations were deemed “well anchored” (Chart 4A). One potential issue with using market-based measures of inflation expectations is that TIPS prices can sometimes move around for reasons unrelated to changing inflation expectations. That is, regulations or broader portfolio diversification concerns could change the risk premium an investor is willing to accept from TIPS, even if that investor’s underlying inflation view is unchanged. Academics have made attempts to solve this problem by using affine term structure models to decompose yields into various components. Chart 4B presents one such model from D’Amico, Kim and Wei (DKW).8 The DKW model splits the TIPS breakeven inflation rate (or inflation compensation) into an inflation expectation, a liquidity premium that compensates investors for the lower liquidity in TIPS compared to nominal Treasuries and an inflation risk premium that represents the extra compensation investors require to take inflation risk. We are skeptical of the usefulness of affine term structure models. In general, these models have too few inputs to reliably generate the components they purport to measure. However, the Fed clearly pays some attention to the DKW decomposition. If a future increase in TIPS breakeven inflation rates is driven entirely by movement in the liquidity or inflation risk premium components, it would be reasonable to question whether the Fed will react. Chart 4AInflation Expectations: Market-Based Measures Chart 4BA Decomposition Of TIPS##br## Breakevens Survey measures of inflation expectations are exactly that: Responses from surveys, usually of professional forecasters or households (Chart 4C). One drawback of survey measures compared to market-based measures is that they are updated less frequently. Another is that survey respondents, particularly households, may only be able to distinguish very large swings in prices. That said, the Fed tracks a wide range of survey measures and they were even singled out by Vice-Chair Clarida as being particularly important in the above quote. Trend inflation measures are statistical measures of the trend in the actual PCE or CPI inflation data. Chart 4D shows both a very simple trend measure, the 10-year annualized rate of change, and a slightly more complex trend measure based on an exponential smoothing rule. Academics have developed even more complex trend inflation measures.9 The logic behind these measures is that expectations tend to adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. Chart 4CInflation Expectations: Survey Measures Chart 4DInflation Expectations: Trend Measures Finally, we should point out a relatively new measure that the Fed will be using to track inflation expectations going forward. It is called the Common Inflation Expectations Index and it is a composite of 21 different survey and market-based inflation measures (Chart 4E), no trend inflation measures are included.10 Chart 4EIntroducing The Common Inflation Expectations Index To summarize, the Fed has given us a checklist of three criteria that must be met before it will lift rates off the zero bound. After those criteria are met, the pace of the eventual rate hike cycle will be determined by how quickly inflation expectations move back to levels that are considered “well anchored”. Once that happens, the Fed will no longer have an incentive to keep monetary conditions accommodative and risk asset performance will be challenged. Charts 4A-4E in this report provide a wide array of different measures of inflation expectations to monitor. We will keep an eye on all of them, but in particular, we will track the Common Inflation Expectations Index’s progress back to 2.1% and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate’s progress back to a range of 2.3%-2.5%. While we don’t expect the Fed’s rate hike criteria to be met in 2021, a 2022 liftoff is possible if the COVID vaccine spurs a rapid economic recovery. However, we do expect that, in 2021, the market will start to price-in an earlier liftoff date and quicker pace of tightening than is currently discounted, thus pushing bond yields higher. The Financial Conditions Wildcard Chart 5Financial Conditions Our base case view is that the eventual pace of Fed tightening will be determined by inflation expectations. However, there is one wildcard that could cause the Fed to abandon its inflation expectations goal and tighten policy earlier. That wildcard is financial conditions. Presently, financial asset valuations are a mixed bag (Chart 5). Corporate bond spreads are tight, but not at all-time expensive levels. Equity P/E ratios are very elevated, but equities don’t look expensive compared to bonds. If these valuations stay relatively stable, the Fed will continue to rely on inflation expectations to guide the pace of tightening. However, if inflation expectations take a long time to rise, it is conceivable that such a long period of low interest rates could lead to historically stretched financial asset valuations. In short, if inflation doesn’t return within the next couple of years, the Fed may have to tighten policy to take the wind out of an asset bubble that might otherwise burst and lead to an economic recession. We stress that we are not yet close to this point and that the bar for the Fed to abandon its inflation goal will be very high, but we would place financial conditions alongside inflation expectations as the two most important variables to monitor to assess the eventual pace of Fed tightening. Balance Sheet Policy With the funds rate pinned at zero and the Fed’s interest rate guidance essentially set in stone, changes to the pace and composition of asset purchases are the principal tool that the Fed will use to provide more or less immediate monetary accommodation in 2021. The Fed is currently purchasing $80 billion of Treasuries and $40 billion of Agency MBS each month, with Treasury purchases spread out across the yield curve. If this pace and distribution of Treasury purchases is maintained in 2021, the Fed will end up purchasing less and less of the Treasury flow. The Treasury Department has a stated policy goal of increasing the average maturity of the outstanding debt and it has been pursuing that goal by raising the amount of coupon issuance at the expense of bills. The Treasury has already given us its planned coupon issuance schedule for Q4 2020 and Q1 2021. Chart 6 shows that net Fed coupon purchases will gradually decline as a percentage of gross issuance, assuming the Treasury follows through with its plan and the Fed’s balance sheet policy is unchanged. Chart 6The Path For Treasury Supply And Fed Demand Can The Fed Do More? … Will The Fed Do More? It is possible that the Fed will use its balance sheet to provide more monetary easing in 2021. There are two ways it could do this. First, it could simply increase the monthly pace of asset purchases. Alternatively, it could keep the same pace of purchases but shift Treasury buying toward the long-end of the curve. The idea here would be to prevent long-dated yields from rising too quickly. One or both of these changes could happen in 2021, but only if the economy experiences a negative growth shock or risk asset prices (equities and corporate credit) fall significantly. In that case, the Fed will want to be seen as responding to a negative shock, but absent that, the Committee seems comfortable with its current balance sheet strategy. Chart 7Rate-Sensitive Sectors Have Recovered Some have suggested that, even if the economic recovery stays on track, the Fed will try to use its balance sheet to lean against rising long-maturity bond yields. We doubt this. First, it is not obvious that the Fed would be able to stop the 10-year Treasury yield from rising to a range of, say, 1.25% to 1.5% by increasing bond purchases in that maturity range by a few billion dollars. As long as the Fed’s interest rate guidance is unchanged, the market’s interest rate expectations will continue to exert a powerful influence on bond yields across the entire curve. Unless the Fed announces a cap on long-dated bond yields, and pledges to buy enough securities to enforce that cap, we are skeptical about the effectiveness of just changing the quantity of asset purchases. Second, it is also not clear that a 10-year Treasury yield between 1.25% and 1.5%, in the context of a steepening yield curve and improving economic growth, would be a problem for either the economy or risk assets. In fact, these sorts of environments tend to be very positive for risk asset performance.11 It is only when the Fed is shifting to a more restrictive monetary policy stance and the yield curve is flattening that bond yields start to exert a negative influence on the economy and risk assets. Even if the Fed is not worried about a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve, a case could be made for providing more easing right now in order to spur a quicker recovery. This question was posed to Chair Powell several times at the last FOMC press conference. In response, Powell noted that the sectors of the economy that are most sensitive to interest rates – residential investment and consumer spending on durable goods – have already recovered (Chart 7). The lagging sectors of the economy – particularly consumer spending on services – cannot recover until the COVID vaccine is widely distributed, irrespective of the level of interest rates. In our view, this is an acknowledgement that the Fed does not see much value in trying to provide further accommodation through the balance sheet channel. All in all, our base case scenario is that the Fed will maintain its current pace and maturity distribution of asset purchases throughout 2021. However, it will increase the pace and/or lengthen the maturity if there is a significant shock to the economy and/or financial markets. Later in 2021, if the recovery stays on track, Fed communications will increasingly take up the issue of when it will be appropriate to taper its pace of asset purchases. The Exit From Asset Purchases And The Possibility Of A Taper Tantrum Chart 8Remember The Taper Tantrum The Fed has already given us a timeline for how it will wind down its asset purchases. According to the minutes from the November FOMC meeting, most participants support a timeline where the Fed will start tapering its pace of asset purchases sometime before the first rate hike. It will then begin lifting interest rates and will stop purchases altogether sometime after that. At the December FOMC meeting, the Fed gave us additional guidance on when it will start the tapering process. Unfortunately, this guidance is quite vague and only confirms the fact that tapering will start before the liftoff date. Specifically, the Fed said that tapering will begin when “substantial further progress has been made toward the Committee’s maximum employment and price stability goals.” Because the guidance around the timing of the tapering process is quite vague, we think it’s possible that it could sneak up on investors and lead to a sharp upward re-adjustment in rate hike expectations, and thus a bond sell-off. In essence, a tamer version of the 2013 Taper Tantrum is possible in late-2021 or 2022. On May 22, 2013, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke explained the Fed’s plan to eventually start tapering its asset purchases. Because investors took this to mean that the rate hike cycle would start much sooner than anticipated, the bond market underwent a sharp re-adjustment. The market quickly went from pricing-in only 35 bps of rate hikes over the next 24 months to 116 bps, and Treasury returns fell precipitously as a result (Chart 8). The Fed has learned a few lessons about communications since then, and it will do its best to keep market expectations aligned with its own strategy. However, unless firmer guidance is provided about when tapering will begin, the risk of a hawkish surprise around the tapering announcement remains.  Bottom Line: The Fed will only increase the pace or lengthen the maturity of its asset purchases if the economy or risk assets undergo a significant negative shock in 2021. Absent that, Fed communications in late-2021 will increasingly focus on the eventual tapering of asset purchases. Given the current vague guidance about when tapering will start, a scaled-down repeat of the 2013 Taper Tantrum is possible in late-2021 or 2022. Emergency Lending Facilities In addition to cutting rates to zero and massively scaling up the size of its balance sheet, the Fed also responded to the COVID recession by launching a slew of emergency lending facilities, some re-treads from the financial crisis and some brand new. Facilities to support the corporate bond market (The Primary and Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facilities) and the Municipal Liquidity Facility were particularly successful at capping bond spreads versus Treasuries, even if their actual usage was quite low. In fact, corporate bond spreads peaked on the very day that the Fed announced its corporate credit facilities in March (Chart 1). More recently, however, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to authorize the continuation of most of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities beyond the end of the year. We wrote in November that, even with the Treasury taking back the funds used to set up the facilities, the Fed could re-launch them in 2021 if incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen provides her approval.12 However, a late addition to the recently passed fiscal stimulus package appears to prohibit the re-authorization of the facilities without Congressional approval. At the time of publishing, we have not been able to see the details of the new provision, so there remains some uncertainty about what the Fed can and cannot do in this regard. Credit spreads are no longer trading at distressed levels, primary issuance markets are functioning properly, and the Fed’s facilities have hardly been used at all. Nonetheless, while the new bill raises interesting questions about Fed independence in the long-run, we doubt that markets will respond negatively to the absence of the Fed’s emergency facilities in 2021. Credit spreads are no longer trading at distressed levels, primary issuance markets are functioning properly, and the Fed’s facilities have hardly been used at all (Table 3). Table 3Usage Of The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Lending Facilities In short, we don’t see the Fed going out of its way to re-establish the facilities in 2021 because it will become clear that they are no longer needed. The Next Regime Shift In Fed Policy: Fiscal/Monetary Coordination The adoption of an Average Inflation Target represents a major regime shift in Federal Reserve policy. In the final section of this report, we expand our horizon beyond 2021 and speculate about what the next major regime shift for the Fed might be. The 2020 recession made two things crystal clear. First, traditional fiscal policy becomes essentially impotent once interest have been reduced to the zero-lower-bound. Once there, Fed policy is most impactful when it focuses on lending to the private sector. Lending to the private sector through an emergency lending facility is an act that blurs the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy. This was made abundantly clear by Congress’ recent push to legislate the Fed’s activities in this arena. Second, it is difficult for fiscal policy to act quickly enough during an economic downturn. While the CARES act was delivered in a timely manner, it has taken many months to pass a follow-up bill. The Fed’s independence allows it to act immediately when it is economically necessary, while Congress’ increasing polarization makes swift action a challenge. If we take these two observations to their logical conclusion, and throw in the strong chance that the traditional channels of monetary policy will be increasingly blocked in the future as rates bump up against zero, it seems to us that the strict separation of responsibilities between fiscal and monetary policymakers will fade over time. More specifically, greater time spent at the zero-lower-bound will incentivize the Fed to get more and more creative with its quasi-fiscal private lending facilities. Further, Congress will be more than happy to allow this encroachment as it finds itself unable to respond effectively in times of crisis. Of course, this will also lead to periodic push-back as some members of Congress fret about the Fed’s over-reach, but we expect this push-back will be the exception rather than the rule. Greater time spent at the zero-lower-bound will incentivize the Fed to get more and more creative with its quasi-fiscal private lending facilities.  In fact, the best idea might be for fiscal and monetary policymakers to join together proactively to craft programs that can be deployed during the next recession. One example of such an idea was recently presented by Julia Coronado and Simon Potter.13 Coronado and Potter’s idea relies on the use of instant payment processing technology (which the Fed is already working on) to create digital accounts at the Federal Reserve for every household. Once those accounts are in place, the federal government could issue Recession Insurance Bonds, zero coupon bonds with some pre-determined face value, and grant one bond to every household in the country. Then, during the next economic downturn, the Fed could decide to do a “people’s QE” where it buys all the Recession Insurance Bonds leaving every household with a direct cash payment equal to the face value of the bond. This scheme directly addresses the two main problems we named earlier. It is fiscal policy, not monetary policy, so it can still be effective at the zero-lower-bound. Also, Congress can take its time to deliberate on the bill that authorizes the creation of the Recession Insurance Bonds, as this can be done proactively during a period of economic recovery. Then, the Fed can use its ability to move quickly during the next downturn to “activate” the bonds and deliver the fiscal stimulus that Congress actually passed years earlier. While likely not a story for 2021, we see increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal policymakers as the next big regime shift for the Fed.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/monetary20200916a1.pdf 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20201116a.htm 5 For a more complete discussion of our 2021 inflation outlook please see “BCA Outlook 2021: A Brave New World”, dated November 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 This is the theory of adaptive expectations and we use it to model changes in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. For further details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/tips-from-tips-update-and-discussions-20190521.htm 9 Fed Governor Lael Brainard references several of these trend measures in this recent speech: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20201021a.htm&…; 10 More details on how this aggregate measure is constructed can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm 11 For more details on how corporate credit performs during different yield curve environments please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Preparing For A Dark Winter … But Do Markets Care?”, dated November 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/reviving-potency-monetary-policy-recession-insurance-bonds