Developed Countries

Executive Summary To understand the economy and the market we must think of them as non-linear systems which experience sudden phase-shifts. The pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives, which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand, which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation. As our lives phase-shift back to normality, goods demand will phase-shift back to low growth, and monthly core inflation prints will phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, justifying a cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. The leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Fractal trading watchlist additions: JPY/CHF, non-life insurance versus homebuilders, US homebuilders (XHB), cotton versus platinum, healthcare versus resources, and biotech versus resources. Bottom Line: With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, and the leadership of the equity market will flip back to long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Feature Inflation is a non-linear system, meaning that you cannot just dial it up or down gradually like the volume on your music system. Instead of gradual changes, non-linear systems suddenly phase-shift from quiet to loud, from cold to hot, from solid to liquid, or from stability to instability (Box I-1). Box 1: A Classic Non-Linear System – A Brick On An Elastic Band To experience the sudden phase-shift in a non-linear system, attach an elastic band to a brick and try pulling it across a table. As you start to pull, the brick doesn’t move because of the friction with the table. But as you increase your pull there comes a tipping point, at which the brick does move and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick’s acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability – the brick doesn’t move – to instability – the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is impossible to pull the brick across the table smoothly. In this non-linear system, the choice is either stability or instability. Back in 2017, in Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation – An Update, I posed a crucial question: “Given that price stability could phase-shift to instability, when should we worry about it?” I answered that “the risk remains low until the next severe downturn – when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation.” The words proved prescient. Three years later, the desperate situation was a global pandemic, and the desperate measures were economic shutdowns combined with fiscal stimuluses of unprecedented scope and size.   A Phase-Shift In Our Lives Produced A Phase-Shift In Inflation Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. Since 2007, the US core month-on-month inflation rate remained consistently below 3.5 percent.1 Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns combined with policymakers’ massive response, and month-on-month inflation didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 6 percent. Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. The remarkable fact is that since 2007, there have been over a hundred monthly core inflation prints below 4 percent, and nine prints above 6 percent, but just one solitary print between 4 and 6 percent! In other words, monthly core inflation shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-1).       Chart I-1Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System So, what caused the phase-shift in core inflation? The simple answer is a phase-shift in durable goods spending, which itself was caused by the pandemic’s shutdown of services combined with massive fiscal stimulus. Again, this is supported by a remarkable fact. Since 2007, the monthly increase in US (real) spending on durables remained consistently below 3.5 percent. Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns and stimulus checks, and the growth in durables demand didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 8 percent.  In other words, the growth in durable goods demand also shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System The connection between the phase-shifts in goods demand and the phase-shifts in core inflation is staring us in the face – because the three separate phase-shifts in inflation have each been associated with a preceding or contemporaneous phase-shift in goods demand, which themselves have been associated with the separate waves of the pandemic (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Pulling all of this together, the pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives – lockdown or freedom. Which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand – above 8 percent or below 3.5 percent. Which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation – above 6 percent or below 4 percent. The key question is, what happens next? Bond Yields Are Close To A Peak As we learn to live with the pandemic, and assuming no imminent ‘super variant’ of the virus, our lives are phase-shifting back to a semblance of normality. Which means that our spending on goods is phase-shifting back to low growth. If anything, the recent overspend on goods implies an imminent corrective underspend. At the same time, it will be difficult to compensate a phase-shift down on goods spending with a phase-shift up on services spending. This is because the consumption of services is constrained by time and biology. There is a limit to how often you can eat out, go to the theatre, or even go on vacation. The upshot is that monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’ – even if the monthly headline inflation prints are kept up longer by the commodity price spikes that result from the Ukraine crisis. Monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. Meanwhile central banks and markets focus on the 12-month core inflation rate – which, as an arithmetic identity, is the sum of the last twelve month-on-month inflation rates.2  To establish the 12-month core inflation rate, the crucial question is: how many of the last twelve month-on-month inflation prints will be high phase versus low phase? As just discussed, the new month-on-month core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift to low phase. At the same time, the historic high phase prints will disappear from the last twelve month window. Specifically, by June 2022, the three high phase prints of April, May, and June 2021 – 10 percent, 9 percent, and 10 percent respectively – will no longer be included in the 12-month core inflation rate, with the arithmetic impact of pulling it down sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. Clearly, the bond market anticipates some of this ‘base effect’ on 12-month inflation. This explains why turning points in the bond yield have led by 2-3 months the turning points in the 12-month core inflation rate (Chart I-5). With the 12-month core inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, this suggests that – absent some new shock – the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May. Reinforcing our cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Chart I-5The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation This also carries important implications for equity investors. Rising bond yields favour short-duration equity sectors such as resources and financials versus long-duration equity sectors such as healthcare and biotech. And vice-versa. Indeed, the recent performance of resources versus healthcare and financials versus healthcare is indistinguishable from the bond yield (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield Chart I-7The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield With bond yields likely to peak soon, the leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. Fractal Trading Watchlist Reinforcing the fundamental analysis in the previous section, the 130-day outperformance of resources versus healthcare and biotech has reached the point of fractal fragility that has marked previous trend exhaustions, suggesting that the recent outperformance of resources is nearing an end. Also new on our watchlist is a commodity pair, cotton versus platinum, whose strong outperformance is vulnerable to reversal. And US homebuilders (XHB), whose recent underperformance is at a potential turning point. There are two new trade recommendations. First, the massive outperformance of world non-life insurance versus homebuilders is at the point of fractal fragility that has consistently marked previous turning points (Chart I-8). Hence, go short non-life insurance versus homebuilders, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 14 percent. Second, the strong underperformance of the Japanese yen is also at the point of fractal fragility that has marked several previous turning points (Chart I-9). Accordingly, go long JPY/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. Please note that our full watchlist of 19 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is now available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Chart I-8The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-9Go Long JPY/CHF The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton’s Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal US Homebuilders’ Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Annualized month-on-month inflation rate. 2 Strictly speaking, the 12-month inflation rate is the geometric product of the last 12 month-on-month inflation rates. Chart I-1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart I-6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart I-7The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart I-8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart I-9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart I-10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart I-11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart I-12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart I-13Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart I-14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart I-15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart I-16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-17The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-18Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-19US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point   Fractal Trading System   Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Long Small Cap Energy Versus Large Cap President Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the Ukraine war. If he has not by now then it is increasingly unlikely that he will do so. Yet Biden performs worse in polls for his handling of economic policy than foreign policy, despite falling unemployment and rising real wages. The economy should help stabilize his approval rating but not in time to prevent Democrats from losing the Senate as well as the House this fall.  Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve exemplifies our 2022 trend of executive action. However, the oil outlook still depends on Biden’s Iran talks and OPEC’s reaction. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.56 26-Jan-22 14.9% Bottom Line: The return of gridlock is bad for stocks in 2022 but good in 2023. Feature Investors need answers to three questions about US policy at the moment: 1.   Will President Biden’s reaction to the Ukraine war exacerbate the hit to the global and US economy? 2.   Will Biden’s domestic agenda revive? If so, how will it impact corporate earnings expectations? 3.   Will Biden’s foreign and domestic policies cause any changes to the midterm election outlook and hence US policy in 2023-24? In recent reports we have answered these questions as follows. Related Report  US Political StrategySecond Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms First, Biden will continue to pursue a defensive or reactive foreign policy, meaning that he will not force Europe or other allies to adopt Russia sanctions beyond their near-term economic and political capabilities. If Europe wants to boycott Russian energy then that is fine but it is Europe’s decision. In fact, Europe is pursuing gradual rather than immediate diversification. Russia needs the funds. So Europe is unlikely to experience a sharp energy cutoff that plunges its economy into recession. Nevertheless, the risk is substantial enough that we remain long DXY and defensive US sectors on a tactical time frame. Second, Biden’s congressional agenda is getting back on track, with the war providing Democrats with a basis for redesigning and rebranding their budget reconciliation bill. Therefore we did not downgrade our 65% subjective odds that Congress will pass a bill. The bill will be close to deficit neutral and focused especially on energy policy. The Senate version of the bill is not yet available but we will examine the likeliest policy options in a forthcoming special report with our US Equity Strategy. Third – our focus for this report – current political changes do not substantially alter the midterm election odds, which suggest Republicans will retake Congress. Gridlock will return – and is the norm in US policy. In an inflationary context gridlock may well be positive for equities in 2023 since it will curb fiscal spending. However, uncertainty is negative for equities this year. We remain tactically defensive. We recommend renewable energy, cyber stocks, defense stocks, and infrastructure stocks as cyclical plays. Biden’s Approval Stabilizing At Low Level Foreign policy shocks are likely to hurt the ruling party – especially if the nature of the shock exacts a toll on the voter’s pocketbook. We showed evidence to this effect just before Russia re-invaded Ukraine. We concluded that Biden would experience a bounce in opinion polls as the nation rallied around him in the face of the Russian menace but the likely rise in gasoline prices would end up hurting the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.  Yet 40 days after Russia’s attack Biden’s general job approval is still at the lowest of his presidency, in the 41-42% range, while his disapproval is still high, in the 52-53% range. So far the war has not given him an appreciable boost, outside of his own party (where the boost has still been small). The results are even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. Here his approval is 39% and disapproval 54%. In foreign policy, Biden’s approval stands at 40% and disapproval at 52% (Chart 1). Presidential approval has a big influence on the midterm election – as does perception of the two parties. Republicans have taken the lead in the generic congressional ballot, at 43.7% support versus 42.2% for Democrats. The war has blunted the Republican rally but nothing more. The economy is the likeliest source of good news for Biden and the Democrats over the coming six months but even here there is not a basis for optimism among Democrats, as we will see in the next section.  Chart 1No ‘War Bounce’ For Biden Jobs And Wages Not Boosting Biden Either Our Political Capital Index shows that the Biden administration now has weak or moderate political capital in every category except economic conditions and financial markets (Appendix). Yet economic conditions are still mixed. While they will likely improve before November, they do not look to improve enough to change the election outlook: Both Republicans and Democrats are viewing the economy more negatively. Republican economic sentiment declined by 16% in March, while Democrat economic sentiment declined by 6%. The partisan gap widened, which means Republicans will remain motivated to vote (Chart 2). Manufacturing activity is slowing down (though not shrinking). The reading slipped lower than its level in November 2020, when Biden took office. This drop is the first sign of the negative effect of inflation and geopolitical risk on the economy. New manufacturing orders declined while inventories increased. The new-orders-to-inventories ratio, which should be a leading indicator of economic activity, fell by 15.7% compared to its February reading. It is now the weakest since May 2020 (Chart 3). Chart 2Economic Sentiment Declines For Both Parties The budget deficit is “normalizing” and weighing on demand. The fiscal thrust – or change in the budget deficit – turned negative as the stimulus of 2020 waned. The intensity of the drag is now lessening, both on the federal and state level, but it would require a massive new crisis for the US to outdo the stimulus of 2020, so the drag will persist for the foreseeable future (Chart 4). Any last-minute reconciliation bill from congressional Democrats would reduce the drag further, but not generate positive thrust, and not in time to affect the election. To pass the bill, Democrats need to reduce the deficit impact in the face of inflation and paper-thin congressional majorities. Chart 3First Sign Of Inflation, Geopolitics Hitting Manufacturing Chart 4US Fiscal Drag In Wake Of 2020 Stimulus Most worrisome for President Biden, his approval rating has suffered despite a tight labor market and real wage growth. The headline unemployment rate declined to 3.6% in March, down 3.1 percentage points since November 2020. The ISM manufacturing employment index stands at the highest point since March of 2021, and 17% higher than in November 2020 (Chart 5). Inflation is apparently eating away the benefits of low unemployment. Real wages grew by 3.3% on an annual basis in February, up from 2.5% in January. This wage growth is higher than that of November 2020, at 2.2%. Biden’s approval rating is probably in the process of stabilizing, if we assume that unemployment stays low and real wages keep growing. But it is stabilizing at a low level and not perking up as a result of the Russian menace. The likeliest culprit for Biden’s troubles is inflation. Fortunately for the Democrats inflation is likely to fall in the coming months. However, voters are likely to respond to year-on-year rather than month-on-month inflation. And voters make up their minds early in midterm election years. Plus, if inflation does not subside, or if Biden is perceived as making a foreign policy mistake, then his approval rating will not stabilize. Bottom Line: Biden’s approval rating is not perking up despite a foreign threat. His approval on economic policy is even worse than on foreign policy, despite low unemployment and real wage growth higher than when he took office. A drop in inflation would improve his fortunes but taken together the evidence suggests that the war has not helped, and may have hurt, the Democrats’ chances this fall. Chart 5Will Jobs And Real Wages Stabilize Presidential Approval? Biden Taps Strategic Oil Reserve But Implications Depend On Iran One of our key views for 2022 (reiterated in our Q2 outlook) is the Biden administration’s transition from congressional to executive action. Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) on March 31 exemplifies this trend. Gasoline prices have spiked to $4.20 per gallon, which is more than double the level in November 2020 (Chart 6). Biden’s SPR order aims to mitigate the rise in prices. Biden ordered the release of 1 million barrels per day of crude oil over the next 180 days (six months). This would constitute the largest release since the SPR came into being in 1975 (Chart 7).1 Chart 6Prices At The Pump Trigger Red Alert In White House Chart 7Biden Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) originated in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to protect the US from supply shocks. Faced with “severe petroleum supply interruptions” the president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 396 million barrels over 90 days, which begin reaching the market roughly 13 days after the decision. The current inventory is 570 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last 92 days of crude imports and 72 days of crude and petroleum product imports (Chart 8). Unlike during the 1970s, today the US is the world’s largest oil and refined products producer. It is a net exporter as well. However, it is still vulnerable to external shocks. It imports 6.3 million barrels per day and has already cut off 283 thousand barrels per day of imports from Russia (Chart 9). Global price shocks still affect the US prices at the pump, as Chart 6 above shows in the relationship between domestic gasoline prices and Brent crude. Chart 8SPR Can Be Tapped For Six-To-Nine Months Easily Chart 9US Energy Independent But Still Vulnerable To Shocks The Ukraine crisis is just the sort of geopolitical crisis that the SPR was invented to address – but the magnitude of Biden’s action is larger than normal. The SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. However, because of US net exporter status, Biden has much more room for maneuver. The SPR would be tapped for 180 million barrels if Biden’s current plan is fully implemented. The SPR can be released at a rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for about 90 days, though after that the drawdown rate begins to decline for technical reasons (e.g. contaminants). Biden’s 180 days would end in early October, a month before the midterm election. If the SPR has at least 282 million barrels left (90 days of US net crude imports in 2021), the president can continue to release oil from it. The minimum storage level is 282 million barrels of crude. Thus at the end of Biden’s current order, he would have 390 million barrels left and would still be able to release 1 million barrels per day for 108 days.  There are various interpretations of Biden’s decision to tap the SPR today: Currently the Russians and Europeans are in a standoff over energy flows. Russia is demanding payment in rubles and Europe is rejecting Russia’s demands while threatening to ban Russian coal imports. Since crude oil is generally interchangeable, an EU-Russia breakdown in crude trade would not prevent Russian barrels from reaching global markets eventually (Chart 10). In short Biden did not tap the SPR in anticipation of a breakdown. Biden could have tapped the SPR because of difficulties convincing the core OPEC states to increase production. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait are rapidly increasing production already, though their 90-day spare capacity enables them to bring out as much as 3.5 million additional barrels per day. But on March 31 they ruled out any massive near-term adjustments. Their relations with the US under the Biden administration have been strained, namely as Biden is still trying to rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. If the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 deal, the US would lift sanctions and Iran could quickly bring about 1.3 million barrels per day back to global markets. Biden’s SPR release is roughly equal to this amount, which means it could be insurance for a failure to do a deal (Chart 11). Chart 10Russian Oil Exports To Europe And World An Iran deal on top of the SPR release would add 2.3 million barrels per day in positive supply surprises, while reducing the short-term risk of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. This would have a significant short-term negative impact on oil prices this year. Chart 11Biden Struggles For Help From OPEC What is clear is that our Geopolitical Strategy’s base case of a failure of US-Iran talks would imply a significantly higher risk of oil disruptions in the Middle East over the short and long run. In that case the OPEC states would need to change their position and increase production or else a new supply shock would be added on top of the Russian shock. Biden’s SPR release would make up for production bottled up in Iran but regional supply disruptions would intensify and Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Biden’s executive action to tap the SPR removes one option from the table. The ultimate impact of this move depends on whether Biden also uses executive action to do a deal with Iran. We cannot rule it out, because Biden has the authority to lift sanctions unilaterally, but we would not bet on it. Bottom Line: Market fundamentals suggest that Brent prices will fall from their current $105 per barrel toward their likely average of $93 per barrel this year and in 2023. Quant Model Points To Republican Senate Last week we highlighted that our Senate election model flipped from predicting the status quo to predicting a Republican victory, in line with our subjective view of the situation. The latest model findings, using data from the state coincident economic indicators released on April 5, suggests that Republicans have a 51.6% chance of gaining control of the Senate (Chart 12). Democrats only need to lose a single seat to slip from 50 to 49 seats and thus yield the majority. The model suggests they will lose two seats, in Arizona and Georgia. The result is a Republican majority of 52-48 seats. Chart 12Senate Election Model Flips To Republicans Our presidential election model still shows Democrats holding onto the White House in 2024 with 308 electoral college votes but their chances are declining. Specifically Democrats’ odds of retaining the White House have fallen from 54.9% to 54.7% now that the March data is taken into account (Chart 13). North Carolina is still considered a toss-up state, with a 45% probability that Democrats win it, but that means that a single percentage point drop puts it firmly in the Republican camp, along with Arizona and Georgia. Democrats’ odds are falling in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada especially, although they are improving in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Chart 13Presidential Election Model Still Slightly Favors Democrats Florida presents an interesting difference between the two models: the Senate model gives Florida to the Republicans, while the presidential model gives it to the Democrats. This requires some explanation: The incumbent advantage plays a role. Biden did not win Florida in 2020 but that does not stop the model from ascribing Democrats a good chance of winning Florida given that they are the incumbent party. Incumbency would be punished if Democrats held the White House for eight years due to the variable that accounts for the public sentiment that it is “time for change.” The Senate model works differently. The model only helps the party that controls a state Senate seat by means of the partisan leaning of the state in recent elections. This is helpful for Republicans in the model’s 2022 prediction. Meanwhile the model only punishes an incumbent party if it has held control of the US Senate for three or more terms, which is not the case today. Our sample periods across the two election models are the same (1984-2020), but in this period, Democrats only held Senate seats for three out of nine changes. There have been nine different senators from Florida since 1989, three of which have been Democrats. The last Democratic senator was Bill Nelson but he was beaten by Republican Rick Scott in 2018. The other Senate seat has been held by a Republican since around 2004, most recently Marco Rubio, who is up for re-election in 2022. So the model will “lean” more Republican based on total outcomes and how recently recurring they were. Finally, a caveat: we should be careful about explicitly comparing the two election models. Although they are both Probit models, the variables are not all the same. Some are shared but their interaction with one another and the election outcome (dependent variable) should not be assumed to be exactly the same. There can be little doubt in the model’s outlook for the Florida Senate race. Senator Marco Rubio is a young incumbent, has strong name recognition, and is up for re-election in a favorable year for Republicans. As of February he was leading his top Democratic opponent Val Demings by 12 percentage points in opinion polls. Confirming the state’s Republican leaning, Governor Ron DeSantis was leading his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist by 21 percentage points in February polls, with over 50% favoring DeSantis. (Other than former President Trump, DeSantis is currently the favored Republican nominee for 2024.) Moreover the presidential model is catching up to the Senate model, with the odds of a Democratic win in Florida dropping from 59% to 55% over the past month alone. If the odds fall beneath 50% then the model naturally awards all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes to the Republicans. This would leave Democrats hanging by a thread at 279 votes. What is clear is that the 2024 election is a long way off. Democrats benefit from an incumbent advantage as a political party, aside from whether President Biden runs again. Yet the quantitative model suggests that the US will experience another hotly contested presidential election. Bottom Line: Republicans are now tipped to take the Senate in our quantitative model as well as our subjective judgment. Meanwhile Democrats are still favored to win the 2024 election but only slightly, and their odds are falling. These views support the market consensus but in general US investors will remain risk averse ahead of the midterm election.  Investment Takeaways Stay tactically long the US dollar and defensive stocks like in the health care sector. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports to Europe, which is considering a ban on Russian coal. Until this dispute is resolved, risk appetite will suffer, the euro will be limited, and the dollar will stay strong. Stay long renewable energy, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, defense stocks, oil and gas distribution, and small cap energy stocks (Chart 14). Chart 14Investment Takeaways Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” March 31, 2022, whitehouse.gov; Department of Energy, “Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Providing Energy Security For America,” March 28, 2022, energy.gov; and Heather L. Greenley, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Background, Authorities, and Considerations,” Congressional Research Service, R46355, May 13, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov.   Appendix Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

Today we upgrade the S&P Metals & Mining industry from underweight to neutral: This industry is one of the few beneficiaries of the war in Ukraine, as the military action and global sanctions take offline copious amounts of metals produced by Russia and Ukraine. It also enjoys increased demand resulting from a shift toward green energy and offers inflation protection. The West’s official sanctions affect Russian exports of certain commodities but there is also a reluctance on the part of private companies to buy or ship Russian exports. In addition, Putin has announced his decision to suspend some commodity exports at least until 2023. Assuming that in the near term a considerable share of Russia’s commodity exports will be blocked from global markets, the largest impact will be on oil, palladium, copper, nickel, fertilizer, and grains (Table 1). Russia’s standoff with the West is still in the early innings and further disruption of the international supply chains is to be expected. The last round of sanctions against Russia is a case in point.  Table 1Russia’s Global Share In Various Commodities In addition, the West’s shift toward green energy further exacerbates metal shortages as clean technologies require astronomical amounts of metals. It will take years and billions of dollars in investments for the other metals producers to fill the void left by Russia and Ukraine. As a result, a supply squeeze is a likely outcome. Rampant inflation is another tailwind for the mining names, which are quintessential real assets, and offer substantial inflation protection. All of these structural trends will enhance the profitability of the miners and metals producers and will translate into gains for the S&P 500 Metals & Mining index. Overall, we are structurally bullish on the sector and will be looking to upgrade the Mining and Metals industry to an overweight once a compelling entry point presents itself. Bottom Line: Upgrade the S&P Metals & Mining index to neutral. Look for a compelling entry point to increase exposure to an overweight.  

Highlights Chart 1Reduce Credit Exposure Corporate bond spreads staged a nice rally during the past month. The average index spread for investment grade corporates is only 22 bps above its pre-COVID low and 33 bps above last year’s trough. The average High-Yield index spread is 5 bps above its pre-COVID low and 49 bps above last year’s trough (Chart 1). This rally occurred even as inflation data continued to surprise to the upside and employment data confirmed that the US labor market is extremely tight. With the economic data justifying the Fed’s hawkish pivot, the Treasury curve has flattened dramatically, and both the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes are now inverted (Chart 1, bottom panel). An inverted yield curve is a reliable late-cycle indicator, and we think current spread levels offer a good opportunity to reduce corporate bond exposure. This week, we downgrade investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5), placing the proceeds into Treasuries. We also downgrade our recommended allocations EM Sovereigns (see page 8) and TIPS (see page 11), upgrade our recommended allocation to CMBS (see page 13) and adjust our recommended yield curve positioning (see page 10). Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 86 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -154 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread shifted down to its 21st percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). As noted on the first page of this report, corporate spreads have rallied to within striking distance of their pre-COVID lows at the same time as the yield curve has become inverted beyond the 2-year maturity. We showed in last week’s report that an inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is not necessarily a harbinger of imminent recession, but it does typically coincide with very low (and often negative) excess corporate bond returns.1 The combination of reasonably tight spreads and an inverted yield curve causes us to recommend downgrading investment grade corporate bond allocations from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). It’s important to note that corporate balance sheets remain healthy (bottom panel) and we see no indication that a recession or default cycle will unfold during the next 6-12 months. That said, we must acknowledge that an inverted yield curve signals that the economic recovery is entering its late stages. Economic growth will be slower going forward and corporate spreads are unlikely to tighten much, especially from current depressed levels. Against this backdrop it makes sense to be more cautious on credit, sacrificing small positive excess returns in the near-term to ensure that we aren’t invested when the next downturn hits. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 119 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -96 bps. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – shifted down to 3.7% (Chart 3). An inverted yield curve sends the same negative signal for high-yield excess returns as it does for investment grade. However, high-yield valuation is currently more attractive. The option-adjusted spread differential between Ba-rated bonds and Baa-rated bonds remains elevated at 86 bps, 41 bps above its pre-COVID low (panel 3). It is also likely that economic growth will remain sufficiently strong for defaults to come in below the spread-implied threshold of 3.7% during the next 12 months (bottom panel). The greater attractiveness of high-yield valuations relative to investment grade causes us to maintain a higher allocation to the sector, even as we downgrade our portfolio’s overall credit risk exposure. We therefore recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield corporates.     MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -74 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 3 bps on the month as a 4 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 1 bp increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021 despite the back-up in yields.2 This valuation picture is starting to change. The option cost is now up to 40 bps, its highest level since 2016, and refi activity is slowing as the Fed lifts rates. At 28 bps, the index OAS remains unattractive. However, the elevated option cost raises the possibility that the OAS may be over-estimating the pace of mortgage refinancings for the first time in a while. If these trends continue, it may soon make sense to increase exposure to agency MBS.       Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -505 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 40 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -609 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 62 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -439 bps. The EM Sovereign Index underperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 7 bps in March. This comes on the heels of a sharp underperformance in February that was driven by Russian bonds which have since been removed from the index. Russian bonds have also been purged from the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index, and this index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 11 bps in March (Chart 5). The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative. As such, we downgrade our recommended allocation to EM sovereigns from underweight (2 out of 5) to maximum underweight (1 out of 5). In sharp contrast, the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index continuous to offer a significant yield advantage (panel 4). We retain our neutral (3 out of 5) recommendation for EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -122 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). While the war in Ukraine has introduced a great deal of uncertainty into the economic outlook, the municipal bond sector should be better placed than most to deal with the fallout. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will continue to support state & local government coffers for some time. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past two months. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently at 94%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratios between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds are also up significantly off their lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched corporates is 93%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 101%, meaning that Revenue bonds carry a before-tax yield advantage versus duration-matched corporates. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve’s bear-flattening trend continued through March. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 35 bps on the month and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope flattened 44 bps. These slopes are now both inverted, sitting at -6 bps and -12 bps respectively. In last week’s report we noted the unusually wide divergence between very flat slopes at the long end of the yield curve and very steep slopes at the front end.3 For example, the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope is -18 bps but the 3-month/5-year slope is 204 bps. This divergence is happening because the market has moved quickly to price-in a rapid near-term pace of rate hikes that will end in roughly one year. However, so far, the Fed has only delivered 25 bps of those hikes and this is holding down the very front-end of the curve. The oddly shaped curve presents us with an excellent trading opportunity. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade looks attractive on our model (Chart 7) and will profit if the rate hike cycle moves more slowly than what is currently priced in the market but lasts longer, as is our expectation. By entering our new 5-year bullet over 2-year/10-year barbell trade we also close our previous 2-year bullet over cash/10-year barbell trade at a loss. We continue to recommend a position long the 20-year bullet versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell as an attractive carry trade. TIPS: Underweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 143 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +271 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 22 bps on the month and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 21 bps. Since last May we have been recommending that clients maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long end of the curve and an underweight allocation to TIPS at the front end. This recommendation was premised on the view that the breakeven curve would steepen as falling inflation put downward pressure on short-maturity TIPS breakevens and long-dated breakevens remained at levels close to the Fed’s target. Recently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has shot up to levels well above the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 8) and our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indictor has shifted into “expensive” territory (panel 2). Further, while inflation has remained high for longer than we expected, it still seems more likely than not that it will roll over between now and the end of the year as pandemic fears fade and consumers shift their spending patterns away from goods and toward services. As such, we think investors should take this opportunity to further reduce exposure to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at both the short and long ends of the curve. That is, within our overall underweight allocation to TIPS we continue to recommend positioning in breakeven curve steepeners and in real yield curve flatteners. We also continue to recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -31 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 21 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -27 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 49 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -51 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth has rebounded, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. This also indicates that while surging gasoline prices will weigh on consumer activity in the coming months, household balance sheets are starting from such a good place that we don’t expect a meaningful increase in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -78 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 25 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -67 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -110 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products. Further, commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards have recently shifted into “net easing” territory and demand for CRE loans is strengthening (Chart 10). In light of today’s downgrade of corporate credit, non-agency CMBS look like an attractive alternative to add some spread to a portfolio. Increase exposure from neutral (3 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -39 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 5 bps on the month. It currently sits at 48 bps, not that far from its average pre-COVID level (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 255 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. 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 March 31, 2022) 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 March 31, 2022) 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 -55 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 55 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 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of March 31, 2022)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom index by a robust +48bps in Q1/2022 – an impressive performance given the significant uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine war, surging commodity prices and hawkish central banks. This outperformance came entirely from the rates side of the portfolio (+52bps) as global government bond yields surged, driven by a large underweight to US Treasuries. The credit side of the portfolio was largely unchanged versus the benchmark (-4bps). Looking ahead, we see global bond yields as being more rangebound over the next six months. A lot of rate hikes in 2022 are already discounted (most notably in the US) and global inflation is likely to decelerate in Q2 & Q3. As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Bottom Line: In our model bond portfolio, we are downgrading US investment grade corporates to underweight, and reducing high-yield exposure in the US and Europe to neutral. We are also reducing inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and euro area to underweight versus nominals. Feature The first three months were horrific for global bond markets. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate index delivered a total return of -6.2%, the second worst quarter since 1990. No sector, from government bonds to corporate debt to emerging market spread product, was immune to the pressures from soaring energy prices, war-driven uncertainty and hawkish central bankers belated responding to the worst bout of global inflation since the 1970s. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyOur Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely That toxic cocktail for bond returns may lose some potency in the coming months if a de-escalation of the Ukraine tensions can be reached. However, the bigger drivers of bond market volatility – high global inflation and the monetary tightening necessary to combat it – are more likely to linger for longer than expected. Government bond yields are unlikely to fall much in this environment. Increasingly, global credit spreads, especially for corporate debt in the US, will face intensifying widening pressure as central banks rapidly dial back pandemic-era monetary accommodation, led by the US Federal Reserve. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the first quarter of 2022. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months, as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2022 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Regional Allocation Drives Outperformance Chart 1Q1/2022 Performance: Big Gains From Rising Bond Yields The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was -4.6%, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +48bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +52bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -4bps. In an extremely negative quarter for fixed income both in terms of the breadth and depth of losses, our regional allocation choices helped us continue generating outperformance after we transitioned to a neutral overall portfolio duration stance in mid-February. Throughout the quarter, we maintained a significant underweight on US Treasuries in the portfolio, even after we tactically upgraded our duration tilt. We expected US government debt to still underperform that of other developed markets, even in an environment where the rise in global bond yields was due for a breather. Our rationale worked – admittedly helped by the inflationary shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - with the US Treasury part of our portfolio generating a whopping +63bps of outperformance (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Overall Return Attribution Meanwhile, our biggest government bond overweights were in Europe, a market we expected to perform defensively in a portfolio context. We were obviously caught offside on this call as energy prices and inflation expectations in Europe surged in response to the Ukraine conflict. In total, our portfolio lost -30bps in active return terms in euro area government bonds, with the losses spread evenly between the core and periphery. We did staunch the bleeding somewhat by reducing our allocation to the periphery in the last two weeks of the quarter and using the proceeds to fund an increased allocation to European investment grade corporates. The European corporate index spread has tightened -23bps since that switch. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful position was our underweight tilt on emerging market (EM) USD-denominated corporates (+10bps) and sovereigns (+9bps) during a catastrophic quarter for EM risky assets driven by the conflict as well as weakness in the Chinese economy. We sustained losses from our overweight on US CMBS (-11bps) which was broadly offset by gains from our underweight on US MBS (+10bps). Lastly, while we were hurt by the sell-off in euro area high-yield (-13bps), where we were overweight to start 2022, we did scale back some of that exposure towards the end of the quarter when markets started to discount the risk of a “worst case” scenario of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector in our model portfolio are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+23bps) Underweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10 years (+14bps) Underweight US treasuries with a maturity between 3 and 5 years (+12bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight euro area high-yield corporates (-13bps) Overweight US CMBS (-11bps) Overweight Spanish Bonos (-5bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2022. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2022 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. That pattern largely held true in Q1/2022, especially at the tail ends of the chart. During a quarter where all the major asset classes in our portfolio lost money on a hedged and duration-matched basis, we outperformed by selectively underweighting the worst performers. Notably, we were underweight UK Gilts (-1280bps) and EM Sovereigns (-1103bps) on the extreme right side of the chart. We were also underweight US Treasuries (-531bps) which, despite being in the middle of Chart 4, contributed hugely to our portfolio outperformance due to their large market cap weighting in the benchmark index. Broadly, this means that, except for Europe and Australia, our highest conviction calls worked in our favor during the quarter. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +48bps – a positive result coming largely from underweight positions in US Treasuries, UK Gilts, and EM credit. Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio Allocations The uncertainty stemming from the Russia/Ukraine conflict led us to temporarily neutralize many of the recommended exposures in the model bond portfolio. We not only moved to neutral on overall portfolio duration, we also neutralized individual country yield curve tilts and inflation-linked bond allocations. While the situation remains fluid, the worst-case scenarios of the conflict expanding beyond the borders of Ukraine appear to have been avoided. This leads us to reconsider where to once again take active risks on the rates side of the portfolio. Chart 5Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum Duration On overall portfolio duration, we are maintaining a neutral (“at benchmark”) stance in the portfolio. Our Global Duration Indicator is currently signaling that the strong upward momentum of global bond yields should fade over the next few months (Chart 5). Slowing global growth expectations – a trend that was already in place prior to the Ukraine conflict - are the major reason why our Duration Indicator has turned lower. The war-fueled surge in energy prices has helped push global bond yields higher through rising inflation breakevens, which also prompted central banks – most notably the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE)- to signal a need for a faster pace of interest rate hikes in 2022 despite softening growth momentum. Looking ahead, that strong link between oil prices and bond yields will not be broken until there is some sort of de-escalation of the Ukraine conflict, which does not appear imminent. This supports a near-term neutral overall duration stance. Yield Curve Allocations In terms of yield curve exposure, we see some opportunities to adjust allocations (Chart 6). US curves have inverted and UK curves are flirting with inversion as markets are pricing in more Fed/BoE tightening, while curves in Germany and France have bear-steepened with longer-term inflation expectations going up faster than shorter-term interest rate expectations. In the US and UK, the yield curve flattening also reflects the “front loading” of Fed/BoE rate hike expectations. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are pricing in 190bps of rate hikes in the US, and 134bps in the UK, by the end of 2022. This is followed quickly by rate cuts discounted in H2/2023 and 2024 in both countries. We see it as more likely that both central banks will deliver fewer hikes than discounted in 2022 and but will push rates to higher levels than priced by the end of 2024. That leads us to add a mild steepening bias into our US and UK government bond allocations in the model bond portfolio. We offset that by inserting a flattening bias in the German and French yield curve allocations to keep the overall portfolio duration at 7.5 years, matching that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). Chart 6Curve Flattening In The US & UK Is Overdone​​​​​ Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral​​​​​ Chart 8No Change To Our Country Allocations To Begin Q2/22 Country Allocations Turning to our country allocations, we see no need to make major changes right now (Chart 8). We still prefer to maintain an underweight stance on countries that are more likely to see multiple central bank rate hikes in 2022 (the US, UK, Canada) versus those that are less likely (Germany, France, Japan, Australia). We are also staying neutral on Italian and Spanish government bonds with the ECB set to taper the pace of its asset purchases in Q2. Less ECB buying raises the risk that higher yields will be required to entice private sector buyers to buy Italian and Spanish debt with a smaller central bank backstop. Inflation-Linked Bonds Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation (CBI) indicators assess the potential for a significant move in 10-year breakeven inflation rates, based on deviations from variables that typically correlate with breakevens like oil prices or survey-based measures of inflation expectations. At the moment, none of the CBIs for the eight countries in our model bond portfolio are below zero (Chart 9), which would be a signal that breakevens are too low and can move higher. Chart 9Inflation-Linked Bond Exposure: Reduce Europe & The US, Increase Canada Canada has the lowest CBI, and last week, we added a tactical trade to go long 10-year Canadian inflation breakevens. We will add that position to our model bond portfolio this week, moving the Canadian “linkers” allocation to overweight versus nominal Canadian government bonds (within an overall underweight allocation to Canada in the model bond portfolio). On the other side of our CBI rankings are countries where the CBIs are well above zero and breakevens are more stretched: Germany, Italy, France and the US. We are currently neutral inflation-linked bonds in those four countries, but strictly as a hedge against the war-fueled risks of further increases in oil prices. Now, however, 10-year breakevens have widened to levels that already factor in more expensive oil, even with oil prices struggling to break out to new highs. As a result, we are downgrading the allocation to linkers in Germany, Italy, France and the US to underweight within the model bond portfolio (Chart 10). Corporate Bonds The most meaningful changes we are making to our model bond portfolio, and in our strategic investment recommendations, are to our corporate bond allocations: We are downgrading US investment grade corporate bond exposure from neutral to underweight (2 out of 5) We are downgrading US high-yield corporate bond exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) We are also downgrading euro area high-yield exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) Credit spreads across the developed market and EM space have fully unwound the surge seen after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 (Chart 11). We had turned more cautious on global spread product exposure in early March because of the war-fueled shock to energy prices and investor sentiment. We viewed this as a bigger issue for European and EM credit, with Europe heavily reliant on Russian energy supplies and EM market liquidity impacted by bans on trading of Russian assets. We therefore reduced exposures to European high-yield and EM hard currency debt in the model bond portfolio. Chart 10Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations Now, while markets have become more sanguine about the prospects of a long war that can more directly draw in Western forces, a bigger threat to financial market stability has emerged – more aggressive tightening of global monetary policy led by the Fed. Chart 11Global Credit Spreads Have Returned To Pre-Invasion Levels​​​​​​ Chart 12Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Already, the move away from quantitative easing by the Fed, ECB and BoE has led to a negative impulse for global credit returns (Chart 12). Excess returns for the Bloomberg Global Corporate and High-Yield indices are now essentially flat on a year-over-year basis, and the riskiest credit tiers of both indices are seeing the greater spread widening (bottom panel). Another indicator of tightening monetary policy, the flat US Treasury curve, is also signaling a poor environment for US credit market returns. Our colleagues at our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy, have noted that when the 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattens below +25bps, the odds of US investment grade credit outperforming duration-matched Treasuries decline sharply. Dating back to 1973, the average excess return (over Treasuries) for the Bloomberg US investment grade index over the twelve months after the 2/10 curve flattens below +25bps is -0.56%. The 2/10 US Treasury curve is now inverted at -3bps, even with the Fed having only delivered a single +25bp rate hike so far in the current cycle. This is a highly unusual occurrence, as the Treasury curve typically inverts after the Fed has delivered multiple rate hikes in a tightening cycle. Bond investors are clearly “front-running” the Fed in discounting aggressive rate hikes in 2022 in response to US inflation near 8%. We think the Fed will deliver fewer hikes than markets are discounting this year, but will do more in 2023 and 2024. Yet the message from the now-inverted yield curve, and what it means for corporate bond performance, is too powerful to ignore. This underpins our decision to downgrade our recommended allocation to US investment grade to underweight. We do not, however, see a need to move the allocations for other corporate bond markets as aggressively. The credit spread widening seen so far in 2022 in the US and Europe – a trend that was already in place before the start of the Ukraine war – has restored more value to European corporate spreads compared to US equivalents. That can be seen when looking at our preferred measure of spread valuations, 12-month breakeven spreads.2 The historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spread is 63% for euro area investment grade and a much lower 23% for US investment grade (Chart 13). The absolute level of the euro area ranking justifies maintaining an overweight stance on euro area investment grade, both in absolute terms and relative to US investment grade. A smaller gap exists for high-yield, where the euro area 12-month breakeven spread percentile ranking is 50% versus 33% in the US. Those lower percentile rankings justify no higher than a neutral allocation to high-yield on either side of the Atlantic. On the surface, maintaining a higher allocation to US high-yield over US investment grade does appear counter-intuitive in an environment where the US Treasury curve is inverted and investors are growing increasingly worried that the Fed will need to engineer a major growth slowdown to cool inflation. However, that same high inflation helps to maintain a fast enough pace of nominal economic growth to limit the default risk for riskier borrowers. Moody’s estimates that the default rate for high-yield corporates will reach 3.1% in the US and 2.6% in Europe by year-end. Using those estimates, we can calculate a default-adjusted spread, or the current high-yield spread minus one-year-ahead expected default losses. That spread is currently 134bps in the US and 206bps in Europe, both well above the low end of the long-run range and closer to the long-run average (Chart 14). Those are levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation to high-yield in both regions, as current spreads offer a decent cushion in an environment of relatively low default risk. Chart 13More Attractive Spread Levels In Europe Vs. US​​​​​​ Chart 14Low Default Risk Helps Support High-Yield Valuations​​​​​​ Chart 15Persistent Headwinds To EM Credit Performance Emerging Markets Finally, we continue to see more reasons to be cautious on EM USD-denominated credit, given the lack of support from typical fundamental drivers (Chart 15). Weak Chinese growth, slowing commodity price momentum (on a year-over-year basis), and a firm US dollar are all factors that weigh on EM economic growth and the ability to service hard-currency debt. We are maintaining an underweight allocation to EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt in our model bond portfolio. Indications that China is ready to introduce more fiscal and monetary stimulus, and/or if the Fed’s messaging turned less hawkish – and less US dollar bullish – would be the signals necessary for us to consider an EM upgrade. Summing It All Up The full list of our recommended portfolio allocations after making all of the above changes can be seen in Table 2. The changes leave the portfolio with the following high-level characteristics: Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Underweight Spread Product Vs Governments the overall duration exposure remains at-benchmark (i.e. neutral) the portfolio has now flipped to an underweight stance on the exposure of spread product to government bonds, equal to four percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16) the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility in excess of that of the benchmark, is 80bps – a level similar to that before the changes were made and still well below our self-imposed 100bps tracking error limit (Chart 17) the portfolio now has a yield below that of the custom benchmark index, equal to 2.51% (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate​​​​​​ Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark​​​​​​ The changes leave the portfolio much more exposed to a widening of global credit spreads than a rise in government bond yields – a desired outcome with bond yields already discounting a lot of tightening but credit spreads still at historically tight levels. Bottom Line: As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. We are expressing that by cutting the exposure to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio. Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the specific changes to our model portfolio weightings, which can be seen in the tables on pages 23-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. 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 3A). 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 3B). Table 3AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 3BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. In the current environment, our scenarios center around developments in the Ukraine/Russia conflict and the impacts on uncertainty and commodity-fueled inflation. Base Case There is no further escalation of the Ukraine/Russia conflict, possibly resulting in a temporary ceasefire. Oil prices pull back on a lower war risk premium, helping lower inflation expectations. Global realized inflation peaks during Q2/2022, alongside some moderation of global growth in lagged response to high energy prices. Within that slower pace of global growth, the US outperforms Europe while Chinese growth remains weak because of COVID lockdowns (although that will eventually lead to more stimulus from Chinese policymakers). The Fed delivers 100bps of rate hikes by July, starting with a 50bp increase at the May meeting, before pausing at the September meeting in response to slowing US inflation and growth. There is a mild bear flattening of the US Treasury curve, but yields remain broadly unchanged over the full six month scenario period with the Fed not hiking by more than currently discounted. The Brent oil price retreats by -10%, the US dollar modestly appreciates by 2%, the VIX stays close to current levels at 20 and the fed funds rate reaches 1.5%. Escalation Scenario The is no reduction in Ukraine war tensions, with increased Russian aggression resulting in greater NATO military involvement. The risk premium in oil prices increases, delaying the expected peak in global inflation until the second half of 2022. Inflation expectations remain elevated. Global growth weakens more than in the base case scenario because of higher energy prices, but with US growth still outperforming Europe. China’s economy remains weighed down by COVID lockdowns and an inadequate fiscal/monetary/credit policy response. The Fed is forced to be more aggressive because of high inflation expectations, delivering 150bps of hikes by September. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens, but with Treasury yields rising across the curve through wider TIPS breakevens and greater-than-expected rate hikes keeping real yields stable. The Brent oil price rises +25%, the VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% thanks to slowing global growth and a more aggressive move by the Fed to push the funds rate to 2%. De-Escalation Scenario There is a full and lasting ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The war risk premium in oil prices collapses, allowing global inflation to peak in Q2 and then decline rapidly. Global growth sentiment improves because of lower energy prices and diminished worries about a wider world war. European growth outperforms US growth (relative to expectations) as European natural gas prices decline. China responds faster than expected to the latest COVID wave with more aggressive policy stimulus. Lower inflation allows the Fed to be more patient on rate hikes, delivering only 75bps of hikes by July before pausing. The Treasury curve moderately bull-steepens, although the absolute decline in nominal Treasury yields is fairly small as lower TIPS breakevens are partially offset by higher real yields (as growth sentiment improves). The Brent oil price falls -20%, the VIX index drifts down to 18, and the US dollar depreciates by -3% as global growth improves and the Fed pushes the funds rate to a less-than-expected 1.25% by July. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 4A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 4B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 19 and Chart 20, respectively. Table 4AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 4BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​​ Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​​ Given our neutral overall portfolio duration stance, and the mild changes in nominal bond yields implied by our forecasts, it should not be surprising that the rates side of the portfolio is expected to not contribute any excess return in Q2 and Q3. However, Fed rate hikes – which push up yields on spread product in the forecasting regressions – result in negative credit returns in all scenarios (especially in the cases where the VIX is expected to rise). Thus, the return on the credit side of the model portfolio, where we are now underweight credit risk, will be the main driver of performance, delivering a range of excess return outcomes between +29bps and +53bps. Bottom Line: The next six months will be about locking in the significant gains in our model bond portfolio performance from rising bond yields, and transitioning to outperforming via wider credit spreads in US investment grade and EM hard currency debt.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate 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. 2     12-month breakeven spreads compare the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of a credit market or sector to its duration, using Bloomberg bond index data. The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that must occur over a one-year horizon to make the total return of a credit instrument equal to that of duration-matched risk-free government debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)