Disasters/Disease

As 2021 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2022. Highlights Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. For now, we remain of the view that the pandemic will recede in importance over the course of the next year. Relative to the assessment that we published in our 2022 Outlook report, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Our base case view of above-trend growth and above-target inflation remains the most likely scenario for 2022. We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. The true risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. Beyond 2022, the main risk to financial markets is that investors raise their longer-term interest rate expectations closer to the trend rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the coming year, investors should watch for the following when deciding whether to reduce exposure to risky assets: a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, a significant flattening in the yield curve, or a rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%. Feature Our recently published 2022 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations.1 In this month’s report, we discuss the most relevant risks to our base case view in more depth, and update our fixed-income view in the wake of the December FOMC meeting. The Near-Term Risks Chart I-1DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System Over the coming 0-3 months, the greatest risks to economic growth stem from the likely impact of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 on the medical system and the evolution of Europe’s energy crisis. News about the Omicron variant emerged just a few days prior to the publication of our annual outlook, and considerable uncertainty remains about its impact. Some early evidence suggests that the variant causes less severe disease, with a recent press release from South Africa’s largest private health insurance administrator suggesting that the risk of hospital admission was 29 percent lower for adults with the Omicron variant after adjusting for age, sex, underlying health conditions, and vaccine status. More recent studies from South Africa have suggested a much larger reduction in the severity of disease,2 but it is not yet clear whether these findings are applicable to advanced economies,given South Africa’s more recent vaccination campaign and higher proportion of a previously infected population. If Omicron turns out to result in 30 percent less hospitalizations, that only reduces the net impact on the medical system if the Omicron variant is no more than 1.5x as transmissible as the Delta variant. The sheer speed at which Omicron is spreading suggests it is far more contagious than this, the result in part to its ability to evade two-dose immunity. The potential for Omicron to quickly overwhelm available health system resources has alarmed authorities in several advanced economies, especially given that cases and hospitalizations have already trended higher in several countries even while Delta remained the dominant variant (Chart I-1). Additional restrictions on economic activity in the DM world appear to be likely over the coming weeks, and may be in effect until booster doses have been fully administered and/or Pfizer’s drug Paxlovid becomes widely available. For Europe, a worsening of the COVID situation has the potential to exacerbate the economic impact of the region’s ongoing energy crisis. Chart I-2 highlights that European natural gas prices have again exploded, reaching a new high that is fourteen times its pre-pandemic level. We noted in our Outlook report that European natural gas in storage is well below that of previous years, and Chart I-3 highlights that the gap in stored gas relative to previous years persists. This is occurring despite roughly average temperatures in central Europe over the past month (Chart I-4), underscoring that, barring atypically warmer temperatures, European natural gas prices are likely to remain elevated throughout the winter. Chart I-2Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Chart I-3 Chart I-5For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices Chart I-4   For now, it appears that the rise in COVID cases is having a more pronounced effect on the European economy than the energy price situation. Chart I-5 highlights that the flash December euro area manufacturing PMI fell only modestly, and that Germany’s manufacturing PMI actually rose in December. By contrast, the euro area services PMI fell over two points, reflecting the toll that recent pandemic control measures have taken on non-goods producing activity. Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies to some degree, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. Investors will have more information on hand in a few weeks by which to judge the extent of this risk. We will provide an update to our own assessment in our February report. Risks Over The Next Year In our Outlook report, we assigned a 60% chance to an above-trend growth and above-target inflation scenario next year, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, and a 10% chance of a recession. We present below our assessment of the risk that one of the latter two scenarios occurs in 2022. The Risk Of “Stagflation-Lite” Chart I-6Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Over the past few months, supply-side pressures have been modestly improving outside of Europe. Chart I-6 presents our new BCA Supply-Side Pressure Indicator, which measures the impact of supply-side restrictions across four categories: energy prices, shipping costs, the semiconductor shortage impact on automobile production, and labor availability. When we include all eleven components, the index has been trending higher of late, but trending flat-to-down after excluding European natural gas prices. While Omicron has the potential to reduce energy price pressure outside of Europe, it has the strong potential to cause a further increase in global shipping costs and postpone US labor market normalization. On the shipping cost front, we noted in our Outlook report that supply-side effects have been a significant driver of higher costs this year. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has been seemingly caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May. While China has made enormous progress in vaccinating its population over the course of the year, and has prioritized the vaccination of workers in key industries, recent reports suggest that the Sinovac vaccine provides essentially no protection against contracting the Omicron variant of COVID-19. It is possible that Sinovac will offer protection against severe illness, but in terms of preventing transmission of the disease, Omicron has essentially returned China’s vaccination campaign back to square one. Chart I-7Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending That fact alone makes it almost certain that China will maintain its zero-tolerance COVID policy for most of 2022, which significantly raises the risk of additional factory and port shutdowns – and thus even higher shipping costs and imported goods prices. One optimistic point is that these shutdowns are more likely to occur in mainland China than in Taiwan Province or Malaysia, two key semiconductor exporters. This is because these two regions have distributed doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, and thus presumably have the ability to provide three-dose mRNA protection to workers in crucial exporting industries (should policymakers choose to do so). Still, US consumer goods prices would clearly be impacted by even higher shipping costs, which would likely have the combined effect of slowing growth and raising prices. Chart I-7 highlights that the recent sharp deterioration in US households’ willingness to buy durable goods has been closely linked to higher goods prices, arguing that goods spending may slow meaningfully if prices rise further alongside renewed weakness in services spending. Omicron’s contagiousness may also exacerbate the ongoing US labor shortage. The shortage has occurred because of a surge in the number of retirees, difficult working conditions in several industries, and increased childcare requirements during the pandemic. The increase in the number of retirees has not happened for structural reasons; it has been driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”, which has occurred because of health concerns. None of these factors are likely to improve meaningfully while Omicron is raging, suggesting that services prices are likely to remain elevated or accelerate further even if services spending falls anew. Chart I-8 To conclude on this point, we estimate that the odds of a stagflation-lite scenario have risen to 35% (from 30%), and the odds of our base-case scenario of above-trend growth and above-target inflation have fallen to 55% (Chart I-8). Still, our base-case view remains the most probable outcome, given that we do not believe the odds of a recession next year have risen. The Risk Of Recession We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. Such a scenario would have a material impact on cyclical investment strategy, and thus warrants a discussion. Following the December FOMC meeting, BCA’s baseline expectation is that a first Fed hike will occur in June 2022 and that rate increases will proceed at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter through the end of the year. BCA’s house view on this question is now in line with the view of The Bank Credit Analyst service, which published in a September Special Report that the Fed could hit its maximum employment objective as early as next summer.3 The Fed’s shift implies that the 2-year yield should rise to 1.85%, and the 10-year yield to 2.35%, by the end of next year (Chart I-9).  Chart I-9A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year We doubt that US monetary policy will become economically restrictive next year. If the Omicron variant of COVID-19 causes a serious slowdown in economic activity, the Fed will ramp down its expectations for rate hikes. And if the Fed meets our baseline expectations for hikes next year in the context of above-trend economic growth, we do not believe that a 2.35% 10-year Treasury yield will be, in any way, limiting for economic activity. However, investors do not agree with our view about the boundary between easy and tight monetary policy, and may begin to fear a recession in response to Fed tightening next year. We noted in our Outlook report that we believe the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) is likely higher that investors believe, but the fact remains that the Fed and market participants have judged, with deep conviction, that the neutral rate remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy. Chart I-10 presents the fair value path of the 2-year Treasury yield based on our expectations for the Fed funds rate, alongside the actual 10-year Treasury yield. The chart highlights that the 2/10 yield curve could flatten significantly or even invert in the second half of 2022 if long-maturity yields rise only modestly in response to Fed tightening, which could occur if investors focus on the view that the neutral rate of interest is low and that Fed rate hikes will not prove to be sustainable. Based on two different measures of the yield curve, fixed-income investors believe that the current economic expansion is already 50-60% complete (Chart I-11), implying a recession at some point in the first half of 2023. Chart I-10The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally Chart I-11More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve Chart I-12A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks If the yield curve were to flirt with inversion and investors began to price in the potential for a recession, it would cause significant financial market turmoil regardless of whether the risk of recession is real or not. Chart I-12 highlights that the S&P 500 fell 20% in late 2018 as the 2/10 yield curve flattened towards 20 basis points, in response to the economic impact of the China-US Trade War and the global impact of US tariffs on the auto industry. So it is possible that a “recessionary narrative” negatively impacts risky asset prices in the second half of 2022, even if an actual recession is ultimately avoided. Based on this, we would be much more inclined to reduce our recommended exposure to equities if the US 2/10 yield curve were to flatten below 30 basis points next year. In our view, the risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only legitimately rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. We noted in our Outlook report that this has not yet occurred for either household or market-based expectations, although it is a risk that cannot be ruled out. The odds of a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations will rise the longer that actual inflation remains elevated, and our inflation probability model suggests that core PCE inflation will remain well above 3% next year and potentially above 4% – although Chart I-13 highlights that the odds of the latter are falling. Chart I-13US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year A dangerous breakout in inflation expectations would raise the risk of a recession because of the Fed’s awareness of the “sacrifice ratio”, a very important economic concept that has been mostly irrelevant for the past 25 years. The sacrifice ratio is an estimate of the amount of output or employment that must be given up in order to reduce inflation by one percentage point. Table I-1 highlights some academic estimates of the sacrifice ratio, which have typically varied between 2-4% in output terms. For comparison purposes, real GDP has typically fallen no more than 2% on a year-over-year basis during most post-war US recessions. Real GDP growth fell 4% year-over-year in 2009, highlighting that the cost of reducing the rate of inflation by 1 percentage point is effectively a severe recession. Chart I- In his Senate testimony in late-November, Fed Chair Jay Powell noted that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery. He also implied that to reach its maximum employment goal, the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. This was implicit recognition of the sacrifice ratio, and should be seen as an expression of the Fed’s desire to avoid a scenario in which persistently high inflation causes inflation expectations to become unanchored (to the upside), as it would force the Fed to sacrifice economic activity in order to ensure price stability. By acting earlier to normalize monetary policy, the Fed hopes to keep inflation expectations well contained. Chart I-14Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control For now, we see no signs that the Fed will fail to keep inflation expectations from rising dangerously. Chart I-14 highlights that long-dated market expectations for inflation have been falling over the past two months, and are essentially at the same level that they were on average in 2018. Given this, we maintain the 10% odds of recession that we presented in our Outlook report, although investors will need to monitor inflation expectations closely over the coming year to judge whether the risks of a monetary policy-induced recession are indeed rising. Risks Beyond The Next Year Beyond 2022, the main risk to risky asset prices is probably not overly tight monetary policy. Instead, the risk is that investors will come to the conclusion that the Fed funds rate will ultimately end up rising above what the Fed is currently projecting, and that the economy will be capable of tolerating interest rates that are closer to the prevailing rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. Chart I-15US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth Chart I-15 drives the point home by comparing the current S&P 500 forward P/E ratio to a “justified” P/E. Here, we calculate the justified P/E using the average ex-ante equity risk premium (ERP) since 1980, and real potential GDP growth as a stand-in for the real risk-free rate of interest. The chart highlights that US stocks would experience a 30% contraction in equity multiples should real long-maturity bond yields approach 2%. A decline in the ERP could potentially reduce losses for equity holders in a higher interest rate scenario, but it is very likely that the net effect would still be negative for stocks. We detailed in our Outlook report why we believe that the neutral rate of interest is higher than most acknowledge. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but we strongly question that it is as low as the Fed and investors believe. The neutral rate of interest fell during the first half of the last economic cycle because of a persistent period of household deleveraging and balance-sheet repair, which was a multi-year consequence of the financial crisis and the insufficient fiscal response to the 2008-09 recession. We highlighted in our Outlook report that US household balance sheets have been repaired, and that the household debt service ratio has fallen to mid-1960s levels. However, Chart I-16 highlights that even the corporate sector, which has leveraged itself significantly over the past decade, has seen its debt service ratio plummet. In a scenario in which long-maturity Treasury yields were to rise to 4%, we estimate that the debt service burden of the nonfinancial corporate sector would rise to its 70th-80th percentile historically. Chart I-16The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise That would be a meaningful increase from current levels, but it would not be unprecedented, and thus would not render a 4% 10-year Treasury yield to be economically unsustainable. In addition, we strongly suspect that corporations would reduce their interest burden in such a scenario by issuing equity to retire debt. That would lower firms’ debt burden and reduce the economic impact of higher interest rates, although it would be additionally negative for equity investors given that this would dilute earnings per share. We argued in our Outlook report that a shift in investor expectations about the neutral rate of interest is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, presented further evidence of this perspective in a Special Report earlier this week.4 Ryan highlighted results from a recent academic paper, which showed that the entire decline in the 10-year Treasury yield since 1990 has occurred during three-day windows centered around FOMC meetings (Chart I-17). Ryan argued that this suggests investors change their neutral rate expectations in response to Fed interest rate decisions, rather than in response to independent macroeconomic factors that are distinct from monetary policy action. This argues that a shift in neutral rate expectations is unlikely before the Fed begins to lift interest rates in the middle of the year, and probably not until the Fed has raised rates a few times. We are thus unlikely to recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure in response to this risk until 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the Fed’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which is 80 basis points above current levels (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart I-18We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5% We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5% We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5%   Investment Conclusions We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the following 12-months, we expect the following: Global stocks to outperform bonds Short-duration fixed-income positions to outperform long High-yield corporate bonds to outperform within fixed-income portfolios Value stocks to outperform growth Non-resource cyclicals to outperform defensives Small caps to outperform large A modest rise in commodity prices led by oil A decline in the US dollar However, our discussion of the risks to our views has highlighted three things for investors to monitor next year when deciding whether to reduce exposure to stocks (and risky assets more generally): A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, as that would likely cause the Fed to raise interest rates more aggressively than it currently projects. A significant flattening in the yield curve, as that would indicate that investors ultimately expect existing Fed rate hike projections to prove recessionary. A rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%, as that would indicate that investors may be upwardly shifting their expectations for the neutral rate of interest. Over the shorter-term, our discussion also underscored that the Omicron variant will likely disrupt economic activity to some degree over the coming three months, and that the risks of a stagflation-lite scenario next year have modestly increased because of the likely maintenance of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy. We continue to expect that the widespread rollout of booster doses, as well as the progressive availability of effective and safe antiviral drugs, will limit Omicron’s impact on economic activity to the first half of 2022, and that the pandemic will recede in importance next year on average in comparison to 2021. As noted above, this assessment will be monitored continually in response to the release of new information, and we will provide an update in our February report. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 23, 2021 Next Report: January 27, 2022 II. Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Dear Client, This month’s Special Report is a guest piece by Doug Peta, BCA Research’s Chief US Investment Strategist. Doug’s report examines the impact of US stock buybacks using a median bottom-up approach, and presents a different perspective of the value vs. growth distribution of buybacks than we did in our October Section 2. I trust you will find his report interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Elected officials’ antipathy for buybacks is unfounded, … : For the companies that are the primary drivers of buyback activity, returning cash to shareholders is more likely to have a positive impact on employment and investment than retaining it.  and the idea that they boost stock returns may be, as well, … : Over the last ten years, a cap-weighted bucket of large-cap stocks that most reduced their share counts underperformed the bucket that most increased their share counts by 2% annually.  especially within the Tech sector, which has most enthusiastically executed them: Despite the success of Apple, which has seen its market cap soar since embarking on a deliberate strategy to shrink its shares outstanding, a strategy buying Tech’s biggest net reducers and selling its biggest net issuers would have generated sizable negative alpha over the last ten years. The problem is the relative profile of net buyers and net issuers: In general, companies that consistently buy back their own stock are mature companies that cannot earn an accretive return by redeploying the capital their incumbent business generates. Net issuers, on the other hand, are often young companies seeking fresh capital to realize their abundant growth opportunities. The next year is likely to see a pickup of share buybacks nonetheless, … : Our US Equity Strategy service’s Cash Yield Prediction Model points to increased buyback activity in 2022. … as management teams are wedded to them and buying back stock is the best use of capital for the mature companies executing them: Better to return cash to shareholders than to enter new business lines beyond the company’s area of expertise or embark on dubious acquisitions, even in the face of a potential 1% surtax. In Capitol Hill’s current polarized state, stock buybacks are in select company with the tech giants and China as issues that unite solons on both sides of the aisle. They are also a hot-button issue for some investors, who see them as telltale signs of a market kept aloft by sleight of hand. Although we do not think they’re worth getting worked up over – they do not promote the misallocation of capital and they may not actually boost stock prices – they come up repeatedly in client discussions and are likely to remain a feature of the landscape even if they are eventually subjected to a modest federal surtax. We have therefore joined with the BCA Equity Analyzer team to pore over its bottom-up database for insights into the buyback phenomenon. After ranking nearly 600 stocks in our large-cap universe in order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding across the last ten years, we were surprised to discover that the companies that most reduced their share count underperformed the companies that most grew it. We were also surprised to find that Tech was by far the worst performer among the six sectors with negative net issuance. Ultimately, the performance story seemed to boil down to Growth stocks’ extended recent edge over Value stocks. We present the data, our interpretation of it, and some future investment implications in this Special Report. Buybacks’ Bad Rap From Capitol Hill to the White House, prominent Washington voices bemoan buybacks. In a February 2019 New York Times opinion piece,5 Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Schumer (D-NY) argued that equity buybacks divert resources from productive investment in the narrow interest of boosting share prices for the benefit of shareholders and corporate executives. To counter the increasing popularity of buybacks, they proposed legislation that would permit buybacks only after several preconditions for investing in workers and communities had been met. Echoing their concerns, the White House's framework for the Build Back Better bill included a 1% surcharge on stock buybacks, “which corporate executives too often use to enrich themselves rather than investing in workers and growing the economy.” Chart II-1The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back Buybacks’ opponents may mean well, but they seem to be missing an essential point: by and large, the companies that buy back their own stock lack enough attractive investment opportunities to absorb the cash their operations generate. Companies with more opportunities than cash don’t buy back stock; they issue it (and/or borrow) to get the capital to pursue them. The simple generalization that large, mature companies buy back shares while small, growing companies issue new ones is borne out by rolling 12-month percentage changes in shares outstanding by large-cap and small-cap companies (Chart II-1). On an equal-weighted basis, large-cap companies’ rolling share count was flat to modestly down for ten years before the pandemic drove net issuance. Adjusting for market cap, rolling net issuance has been uninterruptedly negative, shrinking by more than 2% per year, on average. The equally weighted small-cap population has been a net issuer to the tune of about 4% annually, with the biggest small-caps issuing even more, pushing the cap-weighted annual average to north of 6%. The bottom line is that large-cap companies in the aggregate have been modestly trimming their share counts, with the biggest companies retiring more than 2% of their shares each year, while small-cap companies are serial issuers, led by their largest (and presumably most bankable) constituents. We are investors serving investors, not policymakers, academics or editorial columnists charged with developing and evaluating public policy. Our mandate is bullish or bearish, not good or bad. We point out the flaws in the prevailing criticism of buybacks simply to make the point that buybacks are not an impediment to productive investment and that no one should therefore expect that productivity and income will rise if legislators or regulators restrict them. On the contrary, since we believe that buybacks represent an efficient allocation of capital, we would expect that successful attempts to limit them will hold back growth at the margin. The Buyback Calculus A company that buys back more of its shares than it issues reduces its share count. All else equal, a company with fewer shares outstanding will report greater earnings per share and a higher return on equity. Increased earnings per share (EPS) does not necessarily ensure a higher share price; if a company’s P/E multiple declines by more than EPS rises, its price will fall. Distributing retained earnings to shareholders reduces a company’s capital buffer against shocks and limits its ability to fund investment internally, but companies that embark on the most ambitious buyback campaigns likely face limited investment opportunities and have much more of a buffer than they could conceivably require. Revealed preferences suggest that management teams like buybacks. They have every interest in getting share prices higher to maximize the value of their own compensation, which typically contains an equity component that accounts for an increasing share of total compensation the more they rise in the company’s hierarchy. It is unclear, however, just how much their attachment to buybacks is founded on an expectation that buying back stock will boost its price. The opportunity to extend their tenure by pursuing a shareholder-friendly policy may well offer a stronger incentive. Do Buybacks Boost Share Prices? Returning cash to shareholders is widely perceived as good corporate governance. It increases the effective near-term yield on an equity investment and denies management the cash to pursue dubious expansion schemes or squander capital on lavish perquisites. It facilitates the reallocation of capital away from cash cows to more productive uses. Buybacks are squarely beneficial in theory, but are they good for investors in practice? (Please see the Box II-1 for a description of the methodology we followed to answer the empirical question.) Box II-1 Performance Calculation Methodology After separating stocks into large- and small-cap categories based on Standard & Poor’s market cap parameters for inclusion in the S&P 500 and the SmallCap 600 indexes, we ranked the constituents in each category in reverse order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding at the end of each month from 2011 through 2021. We then placed the top three deciles (the biggest reducers of their share counts) into the High Buybacks bucket and the bottom three deciles (the biggest net issuers) into the Low Buybacks bucket. We used the buckets to backtest a zero-net-exposure strategy of buying the stocks in the High bucket with the proceeds from shorting the stocks in the Low bucket, calling it the High-Minus-Low (“HML”) strategy. We computed two sets of HML results for the large-cap and small-cap universes. The first populated the buckets without regard for sector representation (“sector-agnostic”) and the second populated the buckets in line with the sector composition of the S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 Indexes (“sector-neutral”). We also track equal-weighted and cap-weighted versions of each HML bucket to gain a sense of performance differences between constituents by size. The experience of the last ten years fails to support the widely held view that stock buybacks boost share prices. Following a zero-net-exposure strategy of owning the top three deciles of large-cap companies ranked by the rolling 12-month percentage reduction of shares outstanding and shorting the bottom three deciles generated a modest positive annual return above 1% (Chart II-2). Small caps merely broke even, largely because their biggest share reducers sharply underperformed in Year 1 of the pandemic. On a cap-weighted basis, however, the large-cap strategy generated a negative annual return a little over 1% during the period, indicating that the largest companies pursuing buyback programs lagged their net issuer counterparts. For small caps, the cap-weighted strategy also lagged the equal-weighted strategy, albeit by a smaller margin. On a sector-neutral basis, the large-cap HML strategy roundly disappointed. The equal-weighted version was never able to do much more than break even, slipping into the red when COVID arrived, while the cap-weighted version continuously lagged it, shedding about 1.5% annually (Chart II-3). Though it was hit hard by the pandemic, the equal-weighted small-cap HML strategy managed to generate about 1% annually, and boasted a 3.5% annualized return for the eight years through 2019. Chart II-2Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Chart II-3... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor ... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor   Drilling down to the sector level offers some additional insights. While changes in shares outstanding vary across large-cap sectors, with six sectors reducing their shares outstanding and five expanding them, every small-cap sector has been a net issuer in every single year, ex-Discretionaries and Industrials in 2019 (Chart II-4). Relative sector capital needs are largely consistent regardless of market cap, however, with REITs, which distribute all their income to preserve their tax-free status, unable to expand without raising cash in the capital markets, and Utilities, Energy and traditional Telecom Services being capital-intensive industries (Table II-1). Many Tech niches are capital-light, and established Industrials and Consumer businesses often throw off cash. Chart II-4 Chart II- There is less large- and small-cap commonality in HML relative sector performance than in relative sector issuance. Away from Real Estate, Tech and Discretionaries, small-cap HML sector strategies generated aggregate positive returns, led by Communication Services and Energy (Chart II-5). For the large caps, most HML sector strategies produced negative alpha, though the four winners and the one modest loser (Financials) are among the six sectors that have net retired shares outstanding since 2012. Tech is the conspicuous exception, with its HML strategy yielding annualized losses exceeding 3%, contrasting with the sector’s enthusiastic buyback embrace. Chart II-5 The Corporate Life Cycle Surprising as they may be on their face, negative cap-weighted ten-year HML returns do not mean that buybacks are counterproductive. We simply think they illustrate that net issuance activity follows from a company’s position in the corporate life cycle (Figure II-1). Investors have prized growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and the companies with the best growth prospects are often younger companies just beginning to tap their addressable markets. They have a long pathway of market share capture ahead of them and need to raise capital to begin traveling it. Many of these strong growers populate the Low basket, especially in the Tech sector. Chart II- Chart II- Companies that return cash to their owners via share repurchases are often more mature. Their operations are comfortably profitable and generate more than enough cash to sustain them. They have already captured all the market share they’re likely to gain in their primary business and may not have an outlet for its proceeds in a space in which they have a plausible competitive advantage. Lacking a clear path to bettering the returns from their main operations, they have been steadily accumulating cash for a long time. Through the lens of the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) growth share matrix,6 a successful business in the Maturity stage of the business life cycle is known as a Cash Cow. Cash Cows have gained considerable market share in their industry, affording them a competitive advantage based on scale, brand and experience, but little scope for growth because they have saturated a market that is itself mature (Figure II-2). BCG advises management teams with a portfolio of business lines to milk Cash Cows for capital to reinvest in high-share, high-growth-potential Stars or low-share, high-growth-potential Question Marks that could be developed into Stars. In the public markets, a mature large-cap company that retains its excess capital impedes its owners’ ability to redeploy that capital to faster growing investments, subverting the overall economy’s ability to redirect capital to its best uses. Walmart, Twentieth-Century Growth Darling Chart II-6From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder From Young Turk To Respected Elder Walmart fits the business life cycle framework to a T and has evolved into a textbook Cash Cow. It is a dominant player that executed its initial strategy so well that it has maxed out its share in the declining/stagnating brick-and-mortar retail industry. Its international attempts to replicate its domestic success have uniformly failed to gain traction, and it currently operates in fewer major countries than it's exited. Given Walmart’s star-crossed international experience and the dismal history of large corporate combinations, returning cash may be the optimal use of shareholder capital. Walmart began life as a public company in fiscal 1971 squarely in the Growth phase. It was profitable from the start and grew annual revenues by at least 25% for every one of its first 23 years of public ownership (Chart II-6, top panel). It was a modest issuer of shares during its Growth phase, conducting just one secondary common stock offering 12 years after its IPO and otherwise limiting growth in shares outstanding to acquisitions, management incentive awards and debt and preferred stock conversions. Once its revenue growth slipped into the low double-digits in the late nineties, it began retiring its shares at a deliberate pace (Table II-2). That retirement inaugurated a ramping up of Walmart’s annual payout ratio (Chart II-6, bottom panel) and cash yield (dividend yield plus buyback yield), underlining its transition from Growth to Maturity. Walmart’s 2010 admission into the S&P 500 Pure Value Index marked its ripening into full maturity, and it has been a Pure Value fixture since 2013. Today’s stolid icon is a far cry from the ambitious disruptor on display in its 1980 Annual Report: Chart II- Subsequent to year end, your Company’s directors authorized [a one-third] increase in the annual dividend[.] This continues your Company’s approach of distributing a portion of profits to our shareholders and utilizing the balance to fund our aggressive expansion program. [T]he decade of the ’70’s … has been a tremendous growth period for your Company. In January 1970, we … had 32 stores …, comprising less than a million square feet of retail space. In the next ten years, we added 258 … stores, … constructed and opened three new distribution facilities, and increased our retail space to 12.6 million square feet. During that same period of time, we increased our sales and earnings at an annual compounded rate well in excess of 40 percent. Reflecting upon the progress we have made in the ‘70’s makes it apparent that there is even more opportunity in the ‘80’s for your Company, and we are better positioned to maximize our opportunities … than ever before. The Exception That Proves The Rule Apple has shined so far in the twenty-first century much like Walmart did in the latter stages of the twentieth, growing its revenues and net income at compound annual rates exceeding 20% and 25%, respectively. Unlike Walmart, however, Apple hasn’t required a steady stream of capital to grow. While Walmart had to plow its earnings right back into the business to fund the acquisition and buildout of property to create stores, warehouses and distribution centers, Apple has simply had to make incremental improvements to its music players, phones and tablets while shoring up the moats around its virtual app and music marketplaces. As a result, cash and retained earnings began silting up on Apple’s balance sheet, lying fallow in short-term marketable securities and crimping a range of return metrics. Chart II- Beginning in its 2013 fiscal year, Apple embarked on a lengthy strategy of returning that cash to shareholders, buying back stock at a rate that has allowed it to reduce its shares outstanding by 37.5% in the space of nine years (Table II-3). It has reduced its retained earnings by more than $90 billion over that span and is on course to wipe them out completely in the fiscal year ending next September. Equity issuance in the form of incentive compensation augments Apple’s capital by about $5 billion per year, but if it continues to distribute more than 100% of its annual earnings in the form of dividends and repurchases, it could wipe out the rest of its recorded equity capital as well. Does this mean Apple is in danger of sliding into insolvency? Not in the least. The value of its assets dramatically exceeds the value of its liabilities, as evidenced by its nearly $3 trillion market cap and the top AAA credit rating Moody’s awarded it this week. Its reported book value is artificially suppressed by generally accepted accounting principles’ inability to value organically developed intellectual property (IP). Apple’s book value and that of other companies that generate similar IP, or benefit from internally generated moats, are dramatically undervalued. Takeaways For now, Apple is an anomaly when it comes to aggressively returning cash to shareholders while it is still in the Growth stage of its life cycle. Returning cash is typically the province of mature companies with steady operations that are unlikely to grow. It is generally good for the economy when those companies return excess cash to shareholders, freeing it up for more productive uses. If lawmakers or regulators manage to restrict the flow of capital from cash-cow companies to potential stars, we should expect activity to slow at the margin, not quicken. The experience of the last ten years suggests that companies that shrink their share counts do not outperform their counterparts that expand them. The trading strategy of shorting the biggest net share issuers to purchase the biggest net share reducers has produced negative returns. It is unclear if shareholders of companies who cannot redeploy their internally generated capital to augment the returns from their primary operations would be better served if their manager-agents retained the capital, though we suspect they would not. It seems inevitable that manager-agents with access to too much capital will eventually get into mischief. If buying back stock represents good corporate stewardship at mature companies, their shareholders should someday be rewarded for it. Given that the companies most suited to buying back stock tend to fit in the Value style box, the zero-net-exposure HML strategy may continue to accrue losses. Apple remains an outlier among Growth companies as an avid buyer of its stock; much more common are the S&P 500 Life and Multi-Line Insurer sub-industry groups, without which the S&P 500 Pure Value Index would have a hard time reaching a quorum (Table II-4). Their constituents have assiduously bought back their stock over the last ten years, albeit to no relative avail (Chart II-7). However, they should be better positioned once Value returns to favor and rising interest rates make investing their cash flow a more attractive proposition. Chart II- Chart II-7... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To ... But No One Else Seems To Want To   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to move in a tighter direction over the coming year, which is in line with the Fed’s recent hawkish shift. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are rolling over, but there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury Yield remains well below the fair value implied by a mid-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is quite likely. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6 months. We expect stronger metals prices in the back half of 2022. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?", dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in South Africa by Wolter et al., medRxiv preprint, December 21, 2021. 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy “The Fed In 2022”, dated December 21, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5   Opinion | Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed December 17, 2021. 6   https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix Accessed December 19, 2021. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Dear Client, Thank you for your continued readership and support this year. This is the last European Investment Strategy report for 2021. In this piece, we review ten charts covering important aspects of the European economy and capital markets. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 10th, 2022. The European Investment Strategy team wishes you and your loved ones a wonderful holiday season, and a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary   Highlights European growth continues to face headwinds as it enters 2022. The ECB will be slow to remove more accommodation than what is implied by the end of the PEPP. Value stocks and Italian equities will enjoy a modest tailwind from rising Bund yields. The lower quality of European stocks creates a long-term headwind versus US benchmarks. The outperformance of European cyclicals relative to defensives will resume and financials will have greater upside. The relative performance of small-cap stocks will soon stabilize, but a weak euro will create a near-term risk. President Emmanuel Macron’s real contender is the center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, not populists. Feature Chart 1: Wave Dynamics The current wave of COVID-19 infections continues to surge in Europe. As Chart 1 highlights, Austria and the Netherlands just witnessed intense waves that eclipsed those experienced earlier this year. However, these waves are already ebbing because of the containment measures implemented in recent weeks. In these two severely hit nations, hospitalization rates also increased significantly; however, they did not reach the degree experienced in France or the UK in the first half of 2021 (Chart 1, right panel). Chart 1Wave Dynamics Wave Dynamics I Wave Dynamics I Chart 1Wave Dynamics Wave Dynamics II Wave Dynamics II Europe will experience another test in the coming weeks as the highly contagious Omicron variant becomes the dominant COVID-19 strain. However, data from South Africa continues to suggest that this mutation is much less pathogenic than previous variants and will not place as much strain on the healthcare system as potential case counts would indicate. Nonetheless, it is too early to make this prognosis with great confidence. Importantly, even if a small proportion of infected people is hospitalized, a large enough a pool of infections could cause a rupture in the healthcare system. As a result, politicians will likely remain cautious until a larger share of the population receives its booster dose. Hence, Omicron still represents a near-term risk to economic activity, albeit one that will prove ephemeral. Chart 2: The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet European growth remains highly dependent on the fluctuations of the global economy because exports and capex account for a large share of the continent’s output. Consequently, global economic trends remain paramount when considering the European economic outlook. In the near-term, Europe continues to face headwinds beyond the uncertainty caused by the potential effects of the Omicron variant. Global economic activity, for instance, is likely to face some further near-term headwinds caused by the supply shock typified by elevated commodity prices and bottlenecks (Chart 2). Not only does this shock limit the ability of producers to procure important inputs, but it also increases the costs of production. Historically, this combination results in downward pressure on global manufacturing activity. Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet I The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet I Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet II The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet II The second problem remains the deceleration in the Chinese economy. Declining credit growth in China results in slower European exports, which also hurts the region’s PMI. The recent Central Economic Work Conference suggests that China is ready to inject more stimulus in its economy, which will help Europe. However, the beginning of 2022 will still witness the lagged impact of previous tightening in credit conditions on European economic indicators. Moreover, BCA’s China Investment Strategy team expects the stimulus to be modest at first and only grow in intensity later.  It is unlikely to be as credit-heavy as in the past, which also means it will be less beneficial to Europe. Chart 3: A Careful ECB Last week, the European Central Bank aggressively upgraded its inflation forecast for 2022 and announced the end of the PEPP for March, however, it will increase temporarily the APP program to EUR40bn. Moreover, President Christine Lagarde remains steadfast that the Governing Council will not raise rates in 2022. Our Central Bank Monitor points to the need for tighter policy, yet the ECB continues to adopt a cautious tone, even if the Eurozone HICP inflation has reached 4%—the highest reading in thirteen years. First, the ECB still runs the risk of dislocation in the periphery, where Italian and Spanish spreads may easily explode if monetary accommodation is removed too quickly. Second, European inflationary pressures remain significantly narrower than they are in the US (Chart 3, left panel). Our Eurozone trimmed-mean CPI continues to linger well below core CPI readings, while in the US both measures track each other closely. Third, the decline in energy prices and the ebbing transportation bottlenecks mean that odds are growing that sequential inflation will soon experience an interim peak (Chart 3, right panel). Chart 3A Careful ECB A Careful ECB I A Careful ECB I Chart 3A Careful ECB A Careful ECB II A Careful ECB II This view of the ECB implies that German yields will not rise as much as US yields next year, which BCA’s US Bond Strategy team expects to reach 2.25% by the end of 2022. Moreover, the more tepid pace of the removal of accommodation and the implicit targeting of peripheral bond markets also warrant an overweight position in Italian bonds. Spreads will be volatile, but any move upward will be self-limiting because of their role in the ECB’s reaction function. As a result, investors should continue to pocket the additional income over German paper. Chart 4: A Murky Outlook For The Euro The market continues to test EUR/USD. Any breakdown below 1.1175 is likely to prompt a pronounced down leg toward 1.07-1.08, near the pandemic lows. The euro suffers from three handicaps. First, Europe’s economic links with China are greater than those of the US with China. Consequently, the Chinese economic deceleration hurts European rates of returns more than it hurts those in the US. Second, the acceleration of US inflation is inviting investors to reprice the path of the Fed’s policy rate, which accentuates the upside pressure on the dollar. Finally, the energy crisis is ramping up anew following Germany’s suspension of the approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders. Surging European natural gas prices act as a powerful headwind for EUR/USD because they accentuate stagflation risks in the Eurozone (Chart 4, left panel). While these create downside pressures on the euro, the picture is more complex. Our Intermediate-Term Timing Model shows that EUR/USD is one-sigma oversold (Chart 4, right panel). Over the past 20 years, it was more depressed only in 2010 and in early 2015. Such a reading indicates that most of the bad news is already embedded in EUR/USD and that sentiment has become massively negative. Thus, we are not chasing the euro lower, even though we will respect our stop-loss at 1.1175 if it were triggered. Instead, we will look to buy the euro at lower levels in the first quarter of 2021. Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro A Murky Outlook For The Euro I A Murky Outlook For The Euro I Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro A Murky Outlook For The Euro II A Murky Outlook For The Euro II Chart 5: German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities The performance of European value stocks relative to that of growth stocks continues to exhibit a close relationship with the evolution of German Bund yields (Chart 5, left panel). Value stocks are less sensitive than growth stocks to higher yields because they derive a smaller proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows; which suffer more from rising discount factors than near-term cash flows. Moreover, value stocks overweight financials, whose profitability increases when yields rise. The same relationship exists between the performance of Italian equities relative to the Eurozone benchmark (Chart 5, right panel). This correlation holds because of Italy’s significant value bias and its large exposure to financials. Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities I German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities I Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities II German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities II Based on these observations, BCA’s view that German Bund yields will rise toward 0.25% is consistent with a modest outperformance of value and Italian equities in 2022. For a more robust outperformance by value and Italian stocks, the Chinese economy will have to re-accelerate clearly and the dollar will have to fall significantly. However, these two outcomes could take more time to materialize than our bond view. Chart 6: Europe’s Quality Deficit The gyrations in the performance of European equities relative to US stocks continue to be influenced by China’s economic fluctuations. The deterioration in various measures of China’s credit impulse remains consistent with further near-term underperformance of European equities (Chart 6, left panel). Moreover, if Omicron has a significant impact on consumer behavior (via personal choices or government measures), it will once again hurt spending on services and boost the appeal of growth stocks, which Europe underrepresents. These headwinds will not be long lasting. Europe has an opportunity to outperform next year if global yields rise. However, European equity markets continue to suffer from a potent long-term disadvantage relative to those of the US. American benchmarks are composed of higher quality stocks than European ones. As a result of greater market concentration, more innovative applications of research, and the development of greater moats, US stocks generate wider profits margins than European companies and have a higher utilization of their asset base. Consequently, US shares sport significantly higher RoEs and earnings growth than European large-cap names (Chart 6, right panel). Historically, the quality factor has been one of the top performers and is an important contributor to the current strength of growth equities. Thus, even if Europe’s day in the sun arrives before the middle of 2022, it will again be a temporary phenomenon. Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Europe's Quality Deficit I Europe's Quality Deficit I Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Europe's Quality Deficit II Europe's Quality Deficit II Chart 7: Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? For most of 2021, European cyclicals equities have not performed as well against defensive stocks as many investors hoped. In fact, the relative performance of cyclicals is broadly flat since March. Going forward, cyclicals will resume their uptrend against defensive equities and even break out of their range of the past twenty years. From a technical perspective, cyclicals have expunged many of their excesses. By the spring, European cyclicals had become prohibitively expensive compared to their defensive counterparts (Chart 7, left panel). However, their overvaluation has now passed and medium-term momentum measures are not overbought anymore, which creates a much better entry point for cyclical equities. From a fundamental perspective, cyclicals will also enjoy rising yields after being hamstrung by Treasury yields that have moved sideways for more than nine months (Chart 7, right panel). Moreover, the eventual stabilization of the Chinese economy will create an additional tailwind for these stocks. Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? I Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? I Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? II Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? II The biggest risk to cyclical stocks lies in inflation expectations. Ten-year CPI swaps have stopped increasing despite rising inflation. As the yield curve flattens and long-term segments of the OIS curve invert, markets register their fears that the Fed might tighten too much over the next two years. In other words, markets continue to agonize over the effect of a very low perceived terminal rate. These worries may cause the CPI swaps to decline significantly as the Fed hikes rates next year, creating a headwind for cyclicals. Chart 8: Favor Financials Financials in general and banks in particular have outperformed the European benchmark this year. This trend will persist in 2020. More than the positive impact of higher yields on the profitability of financials justifies this view. One of the key drivers supporting our optimism toward this sector is the continued improvement in the balance-sheet health of the European banking sector (Chart 8, left panel). Capital adequacy ratios remain in an uptrend and NPLs continue to be well-behaved. Meanwhile, both the governments’ liquidity support during the pandemic and the nonfinancial sector’s cash buildup over the past 18 months limit the risk that a brisk rise in insolvencies would threaten the viability of the banking system. European bank lending is also likely to remain superior to that of the post-GFC years. Consumer confidence is still sturdy, despite the recent increase in COVID cases and the tax hike created by rapidly climbing energy prices (Chart 8, right panel). Companies also benefit from an environment of low real rates and limited fiscal austerity. Unsurprisingly, capex intentions are elevated, which should support credit demand from businesses going forward. Chart 8Favor Financials Favor Financials I Favor Financials I Chart 8Favor Financials Favor Financials II Favor Financials II These factors imply that the current large discount embedded in European financials’ valuations remains excessive (even if a smaller discount is still warranted). As long as peripheral spreads do not blow out durably, financials will have scope to outperform further. Banks should also beat insurance companies. Chart 9: Small-Caps Are Nearly There Despite a sideways move followed by a 4% dip, the performance of European small-cap stocks remains in a pronounced uptrend relative to large-cap equities. The recent bout of underperformance is likely to end soon, unless a recession is around the corner. Small-cap stocks are becoming oversold (Chart 9, left panel) and will benefit from their pronounced procyclicality, especially if the recent improvement in global economic surprises continues next year. Moreover, above-trend European growth as well as an ECB that will maintain accommodative monetary conditions will combine to prevent a significant widening in European high-yield spreads, particularly once natural gas prices are turned down after the winter. This process will also help small-cap equities. The biggest risk for the European small-caps’ relative performance is the currency market. The relative performance of small-cap names is still closely correlated to the euro (Chart 9, right panel). As a result, if EUR/USD were to falter in the coming weeks, the underperformance of small-cap stocks could deepen. At the very least, small-cap stocks would languish before resuming their uptrend later in the year. Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Small-Caps Are Nearly There I Small-Caps Are Nearly There I Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Small-Caps Are Nearly There II Small-Caps Are Nearly There II Chart 10: A Risk to Macron’s Second Term The emergence of the new populist candidate Éric Zemmour has galvanized the media in recent weeks. However, he is very unlikely to pose a credible threat to French President Emmanuel Macron, unlike center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, who just won the Les Républicains (LR) primary. In a Special Report published conjointly with our geopolitical strategists last summer, we identified the emergence of a single candidate able to unite the center-right as one of the biggest risks to Macron. As Chart 10 shows, Pécresse has made a comeback in the polls and is now expected to face Macron in the second round. According to an Elabe poll conducted after her victory in the primary, if the second round of the elections were held now, she would beat Macron. Chart 10 Chart 10 Will Pécresse manage to keep her momentum going until April 2022? First, she has to ensure the center-right remains united behind her. Up until the primaries, the center-right was divided. While she won the primary by a wide margin, her main opponent Éric Ciotti won the first round (25.6%), and Michel Barnier as well as Xavier Bertrand came close behind, with 23.9% and 22.7% respectively. Second, Pécresse must work hard to prevent voters from succumbing to the siren songs of Zemmour and Marine Le Pen, or to lean toward former Prime Minister Phillippe Edouard, a declared supporter of Macron. Investors should ignore Le Pen and Eric Zemmour. The real threat to Macron lies in Valerie Pécresse’s ability to keep the center-right united under her banner. Considering that the center-left does not represent an option and that the far-right is entangled in a tug-of-war, there is a high probability that Pécresse will reach the second round.   Footnotes Tactical Recommendations Europe In Charts Europe In Charts Cyclical Recommendations Europe In Charts Europe In Charts Structural Recommendations Europe In Charts Europe In Charts Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Dear Client, This week we present our annual Commodities & Energy Strategy outlook, which contains our key views on the principal markets we cover – energy, base metals and bulks, precious metals, and ags.  Over the coming decade, we expect industrial commodity prices to move higher in an increasingly volatile fashion, not unlike these markets' recent experience.  In the short term, commodity markets will remain exquisitely sensitive to the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The highly transmissible omicron variant of the coronavirus – now spreading at more than 4x the rate of the delta variant – appears to be less lethal than previous mutations, suggesting it could become the dominant variant globally.  We remain wary, however, particularly as China still is operating under a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and has relied on less efficacious vaccines that appear to offer no protection against the omicron variant of the coronavirus.  This also is a risk for EM economies that rely on these vaccines.  However, the roll-out of mRNA vaccines globally via joint ventures will be gathering steam in 2H22, which is bullish for commodity demand. Longer term, the effort to decarbonize global energy markets is gaining traction, with the three largest economies in the world – the US, China and EU – embarked on a massive transition to renewables.  This will be a multi-decade undertaking that literally could transform the world.  We expect this to continue to unfold in an erratic and uncoordinated fashion, as states work out how to decarbonize the production, delivery and consumption of goods and services.  Markets critical to this transition, particularly base metals, face long odds developing the supply that will be necessary for this effort.  Conventional energy markets – oil, gas and coal – are in a forced wind-down imposed by courts, investors, governments, climate activists, public opinion and policymakers, which is reducing supply at a faster rate than demand.  This leaves markets exposed to volatile price bursts.  As is our custom, this will be the last CES report of the year.  This decade promises to be extraordinary for commodities, and we are hopeful we will continue to be of service in navigating the epic transition to a low-carbon future.  As you gather with friends and loved ones, we wish you all the best in this beautiful season, Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Highlights Macro: Bullish. Systematically important central banks will remain wary of moving too strongly too soon, in the wake of the COVID-19 omicron variant. US real rates will remain low and the USD will weaken, which will support commodities. Energy: Bullish. OPEC 2.0 and the price-taking cohort will maintain existing production policies, which will restrain oil supply. The omicron variant likely will dent demand, not tank it. Our 2022 Brent forecast is slightly weaker on omicron risk, averaging $78.50/bbl, with most of the demand hit in 1H22 made up in 2H22, while our 2023 forecast is $80/bbl. Base Metals: Bullish. Supply-demand balances will remain tight. Climate activism in courts and boardrooms; ESG-related costs, local and geopolitical uncertainty will continue to weigh on supply. COMEX copper will average $4.80/lb next year and $6.00/lb in 2023. Precious Metals: Bullish. Rising commodity prices will feed directly into inflation gauges favored by the Fed. Inflation and inflation expectations will remain elevated. Gold will push to $2,000/oz and silver to $30/oz in 2022. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Ag markets will remain balanced, with a bias to the upside from higher costs of fertilizer and transportation. Erratic weather remains an upside risk. Risk: Elevated. On the upside, a less lethal omicron variant that dominates other COVID-19 variants will rally markets. A more virulent mutant would hit demand harder and push prices lower. Hospitalizations/Cases and Deaths/Cases remain the critical ratios – trajectories need to remain flat to downward for growth (Chart of the Week). Recommendations: Our COMT ETF position was stopped out on 13 December 2021, which is when the ETF went ex-dividend. The ETF paid $5.4941/share for an 18.44% dividend (p.a.). Our stop-loss is being overridden, and we remain long the COMT ETF, in the expectation commodity markets will remain tight and backwardation will continue to drive returns. Feature COVID-19 continues to determine the trajectory of global growth – hence commodity demand – and how it will be distributed in the short run. Reports this week indicating the widely used Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine used in China and EM states is ineffective in neutralizing the omicron variant will renew the focus on an underappreciated risk: High vaccination rates in and of themselves are not useful indicators of successful public-health responses.1 More than anything, what appears to matter most is the vaccine that's been used to address the public-health threat posed by COVID-19. A booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, e.g., appears to neutralize the omicron variant, and to convey a higher likelihood of avoiding serious illness and hospitalization.2 Chart 1 This will be important going forward, as the COVID-19 omicron variant appears to be transmitted at a rate that is 4.2x as contagious as the delta variant. This raises the odds that hospital beds will fill faster as the omicron mutant spreads.3 This could again lead to reduced availability of health care, and additional lockdowns to contain the spread of the omicron variant, which would again radiate through global supply chains. Oil Market Outlook Hinges On Omicron Response The risk exposed in these public-health developments is the global commodity recovery – particularly for crude oil and refined products like gasoline and jet fuel – could become more bifurcated this year, with economies using primarily mRNA technology continuing to open and recover. States without access to or distribution of these vaccines will have to rely more on social distancing and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. We would expect this to be a powerful inducement to accelerate local production and distribution of mRNA vaccines in Asia, Latin America and Europe. Successful implementation of this strategy would boost commodity demand, particularly for transportation fuels.4 Our prior regarding the omicron variant is it will dent demand but not tank oil demand. To account for the so-far-unknown effects of omicron, we are assuming 1H22 global crude and refined-product demand falls to 100.4mm b/d, versus our earlier estimate of 101.5mm b/d. Most of this demand is recovered in 2H22, when we expect oil consumption to average 101.8mm b/d versus our earlier expectation of 102.5mm b/d. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 core producers – KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE and Kuwait – will continue to implement the coalition's production-management strategy – i.e., keeping the level of supply just below demand. Meanwhile, the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers will continue to focus on profitability, not production for the sake of production. Accelerating production too rapidly at this point would undo much of the work and effort undertaken to establish oil and gas companies as attractive alternatives for investors. Our 2022 Brent forecast is weaker by $1.50/bbl vs last month's estimate, averaging $78.50/bbl. Our 2023 forecast is $1/bbl lower, with our average expectation at $80.00/bbl (Chart 2). Longer term, oil + gas capex remains weak (Chart 3). As we have stressed repeatedly, this is wicked bullish for prices in 2024 and beyond. Chart 2Brent Forecast Slightly Weaker In 2022 Brent Forecast Slightly Weaker In 2022 Brent Forecast Slightly Weaker In 2022 Chart 3 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities Weak Capex Keeps Base Metals Outlook Bullish Weak capex is a common theme in the industrial commodities – oil and base metals – which points to tight supply-demand balances for these markets going forward. This is as true for base metals as it is for oil (Chart 4). The principal drivers of the capex squeeze are similar in both markets: A desire to regain investors' favor after years of poor returns. This has managements focused on returning capital to shareholders either in the form of share buybacks or higher dividend payments. However, there are additional pressures adding to the cost structures of industrial commodities, particularly the seismic shifts in the political underpinnings of commodity-exporting countries, where left-of-center politicians are proving more attractive to the median voter in states with contestable elections. Once elected – e.g., in Peru, and, likely Chile after this weekend's elections – politicians push hard to secure a greater share of mining revenues for long-neglected poor and indigenous populations.5 Chart 4 The bellwether base metal market – copper – best highlights these factors, which, in our view, will keep base-metals capex tentative and restrained over the medium term. Miners are almost forced to exercise capex restraint until they get greater clarity on how newly elected governments will deliver on their avowed intent to secure a greater share of mining revenues for their constituents. This is particularly true in Chile and Peru – which together account for a combined 40% of global copper ore output – where poor and indigenous populations are engaging in more frequent civil disobedience.6 In addition to the contentious changing of the guard at the political level, ESG-related initiatives brought to the fore by climate activists elected to corporate boards and in court proceedings are adding new layers of cost to base-metals mining (and oil and gas exploration for that matter). This week, Reuters reported on separate court decisions in Australia and Chile that redress mistreatment of aboriginal peoples in key metals-exporting states.7 We believe political and ESG-related costs will raise miners' all-in sustaining costs, which will have to be covered by higher prices going forward. The additional costs that will be imposed on miners trying to meet the demand that will be driven by the global decarbonization and renewable-energy buildout now kicking into high gear will require prices to spur investment in new mine production, and to keep existing and brownfield production up and running.8 Copper prices will get an assist from a weaker USD, which will boost demand for the metal ex-US (Chart 5). We are expecting copper to push to $4.80/lb on average next year and $6.00/lb in 2023 on the COMEX, on the back of stronger supply fundamentals and a weaker USD. Chart 5A Weaker USD Will Boost Copper A Weaker USD Will Boost Copper. A Weaker USD Will Boost Copper. Gold Will Rally As Inflation, Uncertainty Remain Elevated Gold prices will move higher in 2022 – our target remains $2,000/oz – as investors seek cover from higher commodity prices, which will feed directly through to higher inflation (Chart 6).9 This has been apparent in the recent US PCEPI and core PCEPI – the Fed's preferred inflation gauge – and CPI data, and at the wholesale level in PPI data. Most of this results from tight supplies for commodities and strong demand for goods, which is driving the price increases. We expect this to continue into 2022, as pent-up consumer demand continues to drive goods purchases and supply-side tightness for most manufacturing inputs. Higher prices across commodity markets will keep inflation gauges elevated in 2022. In addition to the inflation-hedging demand we expect next year, investors also will turn to gold as a hedge against economic policy uncertainty: As inflation and policy uncertainty increase, gold prices move higher (Chart 7). Chart 6Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Chart 7Investors Will Use Gold To Hedge Inflation, Uncertainty Investors Will Use Gold To Hedge Inflation, Uncertainty Investors Will Use Gold To Hedge Inflation, Uncertainty   Lastly, in line with our colleagues in BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we remain USD bears in 2022. As is the case with all commodities, gold will benefit from a weaker USD.10 Ags Remain Balanced In 2022 Global ag markets, by and large, will remain balanced over the current crop year (Chart 8), with a bias to the upside as input and transportation costs – chiefly fertilizers and grain vessels, respectively – remain high (Charts 9 and 10). Erratic weather, as always, remains an upside risk. Chart 8 Chart 9 Chart 10… And Fertilizer Costs Will Push Grains, Beans Higher Natgas Price Surge Pushes Fertilizer Prices Higher Natgas Price Surge Pushes Fertilizer Prices Higher While we remain neutral grains, the periodic price spikes resulting from higher freight rates and natural gas prices will support overall commodity exposures. Over the short term, the risk of higher prices is acute: Markets still are contending with the possibility of another colder-than-normal winter. This would push natgas prices – and, because it is 70% natgas, fertilizer costs – sharply higher next year. This will have to be recouped by higher food prices, particularly if shipping costs spike higher due to COVID-19-induced port closures. Surging food prices will keep inflation rates higher globally, making them more persistent (vs. transitory). Investment Implications Global supply-demand fundamentals continue to support our conviction commodity markets will remain tight in 2022. As such we remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – expecting market tightness to result in renewed backwardation. We also remain long the PICK expecting continued tightness in base metals. Risks to our views remain elevated – and occur in both directions. On the upside, commodities will rally if a less-lethal omicron variant becomes the dominant COVID-19 strain and does not overly tax hospital resources or drive death rates higher. It could actually convey a global benefit as the dominant strain, crowding out other mutations and pushing states to herd immunity. On the downside, it's still too early to tell how this new variant and other mutations will behave. Given the fragility of the current global recovery and reopening shown in the initial response to omicron, a more virulent mutant likely would hit aggregate demand hard, forcing yet another supply-side adjustment in commodities generally. Upside risks dominate in our assessment, but, as always, we remain cautious.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Sinovac shot offers inadequate shield from Omicron variant, says HK study published by straitstimes.com on December 15, 2021. The Sinovac vaccine is almost half as effective as mRNA-based vaccines, and is widely distributed in EM economies. We flagged this risk earlier in July in our report titled Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views; it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Pfizer Booster Shots Are Effective Against Omicron Variant, Israeli Study Says published by wsj.com on December 12, 2021. 3    Please see Omicron four times more transmissible than Delta in Japan study published by straitstimes.com on December 9, 2021. 4    Please see Upside Price Risk Rises For Crude, which we published on September 16, 2021, for addition discussion of the global joint-ventures engaged in local production of mRNA vaccines. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021 and Chile: Prepare For A Boric Win, published by BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service on December 15, 2021. The latter report discusses the growing odds of a victory for the left-of-center candidate in Chile's election this weekend. 6    Please see, e.g., Peru's poor Andean hamlets, backed by state, unleash anger at mines, published by reuters.com on December 14, 2021. 7     Please see Australian mining state passes Aboriginal heritage protection law, and Chile's Supreme Court orders new evaluation of Norte Abierto mining project published by reuters.com on December 15 and 14, 2021, respectively. 8    Incremental investment needed to meet 2050 net-zero climate goals will come to almost $2 trillion per year, half of which will go into renewable power generation, industrial processes, and transportation, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs, published on December 13, 2021. 9    Please see More Commodity-Led Inflation On The Way, which we published on December 9, 2021. It is worthwhile reiterating Granger-causality between realized and expected inflation gauges (US PCEPI, core PCEPI, CPI, along with 5-year/5-year CPI swap rates) and commodity price indices (the S&P GSCI and Bloomberg Commodity Index) is very strong. 10   Please see 2022 Key Views: Tug Of War, published by BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service on December 10, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021 Image

Highlights The helicopter drops are over, … : The economic impact payments and supplemental unemployment insurance benefits may have stopped, but their full impact has yet to be felt.  … but fiscal and monetary policy will continue to support demand, … : US households are sitting on more than $2 trillion of excess pandemic savings. If they were to spend just half of their stash over the next two or three years, the economy would gain a steady tailwind.  … and the macro backdrop will remain equity-friendly, … : Monetary policy will be less accommodative going forward but it will remain solidly supportive of markets and the economy across all of 2022.  … so investors should stick around for one last round: Equities and spread product outperform when monetary policy is easy. As long as COVID-19 doesn’t spring a nasty surprise, the expansion will continue and risk assets will once again generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Feature BCA editors’ annual sit-down with Mr. and Ms. X provides a welcome opportunity to gather our thoughts for the coming year and review how this year’s calls panned out. Looking back to this time last year,1 our risk-friendly recommendations performed well as the rationale behind them proved to be sound. Financial markets thrived in the wake of monetary and fiscal policy measures intended to err on the side of providing too much accommodation. The policy efforts were massive, and their support for markets and the economy has yet to be fully exhausted; indeed, their lengthy half-life is a key pillar of our sanguine 2022 outlook. Unlike last December, investors cannot look forward to peak accommodation in the year ahead; the peak is behind us and monetary and fiscal stimulus will be throttled back. The Fed is currently deliberating how much to accelerate its taper timetable, with an eye toward gaining the flexibility to hike rates sooner than previously planned. The hawkish turn foreshadowed by Chair Powell two weeks ago in Congressional testimony unsettled markets somewhat, but it is important to note that monetary policy settings are merely on track to become less accommodative – they are nowhere near crossing the line to restrictive and will not approach it anytime soon. Investors can be certain that markets will enjoy ample policy support across all of 2022 and we expect that equities will still be in a bull market when Mr. and Ms. X return to discuss the outlook for 2023. We are on board with the BCA consensus as detailed in the Bank Credit Analyst’s 2022 outlook.2 Early indications suggest that the Omicron variant will not be enough of a threat to provoke a negative growth surprise and we expect that the pandemic will recede in importance as the year unfolds. As it fades, supply chains should become less snarled, easing the near-term pressures that have been pushing prices higher. We expect that markets are overestimating inflation in the near term and that growth will be robust in the US and other developed economies. Despite the dialing back of some accommodation, monetary policy will remain easy, supporting economic activity and market valuations. We foresee another year of solidly positive excess returns for risk assets. The Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders You wouldn’t necessarily know it to talk with investors, much less consumer confidence survey respondents, but aggregate demand is surging and ought to remain robust going forward. Households are in fantastic shape. Although their net worth growth slowed in the third quarter, its 13% annualized seven-quarter (1Q20 through 3Q21) pace is within a whisker of all-time highs (Chart 1). They have accumulated $2.3 trillion of excess savings since the pandemic began and have plenty of capacity to borrow to augment their spending power. Just about anyone who wants a job can have one: the ratio of job openings to unemployed workers is making new highs (Chart 2) and the share of people in the labor force filing initial jobless claims is approaching the all-time lows set before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 1The Wealth Effect Will Support Consumption The Wealth Effect Will Support Consumption The Wealth Effect Will Support Consumption ​​​​​​ Chart 2More Jobs Than People Without Them ... More Jobs Than People Without Them ... More Jobs Than People Without Them ... ​​​​​​ Businesses are on a solid financial footing, as well. Debt as a share of net worth is near the lower end of its typical range since the high yield bond market got going in the late ‘80s (Chart 4). Borrowing costs are scraping all-time lows (Chart 5) and profit margins are wide (Chart 6). Banks and fixed income asset managers are falling all over themselves to lend to businesses and will continue to do so while default rates remain low. Chart 3... And Almost No Layoffs ... And Almost No Layoffs ... And Almost No Layoffs ​​​​​​ Chart 4Corporations Have Less Debt And More Equity, ... Corporations Have Less Debt And More Equity, ... Corporations Have Less Debt And More Equity, ... ​​​​​​ Chart 5... But Debt Has Never Cost Less ... ... But Debt Has Never Cost Less ... ... But Debt Has Never Cost Less ... ​​​​​​ Chart 6... And Profit Margins Are Wide ... And Profit Margins Are Wide ... And Profit Margins Are Wide ​​​​​​ Financial conditions will remain highly accommodative despite the Fed’s and other major developed world central banks’ moves to make them less easy at the margin. Below-equilibrium policy rates will continue to encourage financed purchases of homes, autos and other durable goods and entice investment via low hurdle rates. If sovereign bond yields rise modestly in 2022 in line with our high-conviction base case, governments won’t feel any pressure to tighten the fiscal screws. That may nourish modern monetary theory fantasies to the ultimate detriment of public finances, but it should ensure that all three engines of domestic demand – households, businesses and government – will hum in 2022. Omicron has reminded everyone that the pandemic is not over, but the shadow it casts on public health and economic activity is set to shrink. Booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine apparently provide effective protection, and Omicron’s mutations will not allow it to evade Merck’s and Pfizer’s soon-to-be-approved antiviral pills. The availability of pills to treat those who contract COVID could possibly be a game-changer in terms of neutralizing its global threat. Distributing shelf-stable pills is vastly simpler than delivering vaccines that need to be transported at temperatures below -70 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earnings Bar Has Been Set Very Low Our constructive view would not translate into risk friendly investment strategy if asset prices already discounted it or were expecting something even better. Just as the economy is on a better path than consumers seem to perceive and investors believe can persist, S&P 500 earnings per share are poised to grow over the next four quarters by more than the bottom-up analyst consensus expects. As compared to the simple annualized run rate of last quarter’s earnings ($215.76, or $53.89 times 4), the analyst consensus is calling for effectively no growth ($215.87) over the four quarters through 3Q22. That is a surprising prediction based on two sets of empirical evidence. First, earnings typically rise outside of recessions (Chart 7). Second, analysts have consistently forecast that forward four-quarter earnings would top the run rate of the last reported quarter’s earnings for four decades (Chart 8). This year, though, analysts have repeatedly called for quarter-over-quarter declines in earnings (Table 1), only to have reported numbers shred their estimates by jaw-dropping margins, just as they have in all six full quarters since COVID-19 arrived (Chart 9). We interpret the phase shift in the magnitude of earnings beats as evidence that companies have surprised themselves by how much they’ve been able to increase efficiency and/or cut costs during the pandemic. Our interactions with the investment community suggest that it has also been surprised but views the gains as one-off events that are unlikely to continue. Chart 7Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Chart 8This Has Been An Odd Time To Expect 40-Year Lows In Earnings Growth This Has Been An Odd Time To Expect 40-Year Lows In Earnings Growth This Has Been An Odd Time To Expect 40-Year Lows In Earnings Growth Table 1Grim Expectations 2022 Key Views: Stay For One More Round 2022 Key Views: Stay For One More Round Expectations of sequentially declining earnings would fit if the economy were flirting with falling below stall speed, as it regularly did during the sluggish post-GFC expansion. But they are completely at odds with the Bloomberg economist consensus that GDP will grow at a 5% real annualized rate this quarter and 3.9% in calendar 2022 (Table 2). Over time, S&P 500 revenue growth should converge with nominal GDP growth, so the current expectations for around 10% and 7% annualized nominal GDP growth in 4Q21 and 2022, respectively, are a decent starting point for estimating S&P 500 revenue growth over those periods. While we expect that S&P 500 profit margins have peaked, we do not foresee a sharp decline in 2022, and operating leverage should ensure that high single-digit revenue growth will translate into healthy earnings gains. Chart 9 ​​​​​​ Table 2Above-Trend Growth Ahead 2022 Key Views: Stay For One More Round 2022 Key Views: Stay For One More Round ​​​​​​ Bottom Line: The S&P 500 should have no trouble topping consensus estimates that foresee next to no growth in earnings over the next four quarters. There is ample room for corporate earnings to surprise to the upside. Our Major Disagreement With Markets Differences of opinion make markets and our biggest one pertains to the future direction of interest rates. We think the widespread conviction that the Fed will be unwilling or unable to raise the fed funds above 2%, if that, lest it crush financial markets and the real economy is way off base. The majority of investors seem to have taken the decade between the crisis and the pandemic as evidence that rates will remain very low for very long. Many of them must be buying the longer end of the Treasury curve in anticipation that an expedited liftoff date is the first step on the path to the next recession (Chart 10). Chart 10The Bond Market Sees Ice, Not Fire The Bond Market Sees Ice, Not Fire The Bond Market Sees Ice, Not Fire The risk asset selloff that ensued in December 2018 after the FOMC marched the fed funds rate up to 2.5% looms large in the markets’ minds and feeds the widespread view that an ambitious program of rate hikes will pull the rug out from under financial assets and the economy. Many investors have also been conditioned by the post-crisis decade to assume that inflation cannot exceed 2% for a sustained period. The market view is rooted in honest-to-goodness evidence, but we think it is of little relevance now, given the way the massive pandemic fiscal stimulus programs have altered the backdrop. In the space of thirteen months from March 2020 through March 2021, Congress passed bills injecting over $5 trillion of aid – 25% of a year’s GDP – into the economy. The Herculean effort contrasted sharply with the skittish disbursement of less than 5% of GDP on the Bush and Obama administrations’ watch from 2008 through 2010. The aftermath of the crisis demonstrated that even multiple rounds of QE do not by themselves trigger inflation, especially if demoralized households and businesses are disinclined to borrow money to consume or invest, and chastened banks are subjected to regulatory strictures forcing them to maintain sizable new capital buffers and discouraging them from making any but plain-vanilla loans to highly rated borrowers. The Bernanke Fed’s three rounds of QE presumably tamped down interest rates, but the cash that bought the Treasury and agency securities barely tiptoed into the wider world before the primary dealer banks sent it right back to the Fed as excess reserves. With banks hiding their QE money under the mattress, the money supply didn’t expand in any notable way after the crisis. Thanks to Congress’ series of 2020-21 helicopter drops, the money supply has been growing at rates that would make the late Paul Volcker’s head spin (Chart 11). Inflation is fiendishly more complicated than Milton Friedman’s always-and-everywhere dictum suggests, but there’s now a whole lot of money chasing a limited amount of goods, services and assets. We expect that a receding pandemic will allow greater quantities of goods and services to be produced, and that securities underwriters and their clients are hard at work ramping up asset supply, but inflation has far more of a chance to gain traction now than it did in the decade before the pandemic. Chart 11Bringing "Always And Everywhere" Back Into Vogue? Bringing "Always And Everywhere" Back Into Vogue? Bringing "Always And Everywhere" Back Into Vogue? We therefore think the lower-for-longer and lower-for-ever crowd will find itself offsides at some point in the next few years. We do not think it will get its comeuppance in 2022, however, as we see long yields rising only modestly, with the 10-year Treasury yield ending next year at 2-2.25%. Though we expect the fed funds rate will end the upcoming hiking cycle well north of 2%, bringing about the end of the bull markets in equities and credit, and quite possibly inducing the next recession, we do not think markets will abandon their new-normal rates view by the end of next year. This story will be continued, likely with a greater sense of urgency, in our 2023 outlook. Investment Recommendations Consistent with the foregoing, we make the following recommendations for 2022: Overweight equities in multi-asset portfolios. Although they are not cheap, and may experience a turbulent ride in 2022 as inflation concerns wax and wane, COVID-19 infections periodically surge and the Fed tries to adjust its messaging and actions on the fly, stocks should continue to generate sizable positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors within equity portfolios. If we’re right to be constructive on the global economy, Energy, Industrials, Materials and Financials are better positioned to benefit than Health Care, Staples and Utilities. Overweight small-cap equities versus large-cap equities. The S&P 600 SmallCap Index has greater exposure to our cyclicals-over-defensives call and our US Equity Strategy colleagues highlight that its constituents are cheaper than the S&P 500’s and are projected to have better earnings growth. Adding small-cap exposure to equity portfolios aligns with our constructive view on the economy and markets. Underweight fixed income in multi-asset portfolios. Underweight Treasuries within bond portfolios. Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Though we do not expect the bond market to see things entirely our way next year, we think the long end of the yield curve will shift out somewhat. We therefore have little appetite for duration and Treasuries and expect spread product will outperform Treasuries and high-yield corporate bonds will outperform investment-grade corporates. Consider hybrid alternatives to traditional fixed income securities. When we roll out our multi-asset ETF portfolio next month, it will include a hybrid bucket of income-generating assets to help multi-asset investors seeking income find low-beta destinations with a fighting chance of generating positive real total returns.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the December 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy Report, "2021 Key Views: It’s The Policy, Stupid." 2     Please see the December 2021 Bank Credit Analyst, "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?"

Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1.  How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2.    Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend   Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). Image The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4.    How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock ...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock ...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive.  This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5.    Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6.    How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Chart I-11 Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7.    Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Chart I-12 Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. 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 Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area     Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed     Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations     Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights As investors’ hunt for yield continues, REITs emerge as an attractive asset class. Characterized by an attractive risk-adjusted return (comparable to public equities), and high dividend yields, REITs can add value to investors’ portfolios. The macro backdrop is supportive: Moderate levels of inflation and rising rates have historically been positive for REITs’ performance. Valuations, albeit currently looking frothy, are reflective of a recovery that was broad-based and swift. REITs’ risk premium is attractive, currently 540 basis points. Fundamentals remain supportive of a positive outlook on REITs. Even though cap rates (which historically have moved in lockstep with interest rates) could rise given our macro outlook, the cap-rate spread remains close to its historical average. The pandemic has accelerated some existing trends in the real-estate sector and established new ones. Those will create opportunities for investors. For example, the decline of retail and rise of e-commerce, working from home, and migration away from city centers are observable patterns with investable opportunities. Accordingly, the Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service upgraded the Real Estate sector to Overweight in its July 2021 Quarterly Outlook. In the near-term – given current elevated levels of inflation – we prefer REITs with short-term leases (such as self-storage and residential REITs) over those with long-term leases (such as retail and office) since the former can adjust rents more quickly. Structurally, we favor sectors supported by the growth of the digital economy. The post-pandemic environment should be positive for sectors such as data centers and industrial REITs. Feature In today’s environment of accommodative monetary policy, low interest rates, unattractive valuations and poor return prospects for income-generating assets, investors have been forced to dial up their risk appetite. Real estate stands out as a particularly attractive alternative. The Global Asset Allocation (GAA) service turned positive on real estate in July given the favorable macro backdrop in which: Inflation – while likely to come down from current elevated levels – will be higher in future than in recent decades; There is tight supply in some segments of commercial real estate (CRE); Rental growth is accelerating. This Special Report focuses on REITs, which are the simplest way for most investors to get liquid exposure to the real estate market.  The report is structured as follows. We first look at the broad US REITs market (mainly equity REITs) and analyze its historical risk-return characteristics, fundamentals, and valuations. We then assess how REITs fared in previous environments of rising rates and inflation. In the second section, we analyze various sectors of the REITs market, identifying likely losers and winners from our base-case expectations for inflation and growth, and based on our views of how long-term demand for real estate will shift following the pandemic. While we have concerns about potential weaknesses in some segments of commercial real estate (e.g., retail), we highlight opportunities in more technology-driven segments of CRE. Introduction The REITs market in the US as of Q3 2021 has a market value of close to $1.5 trillion. The bulk of this is equity REITs – trusts that own and operate income-producing assets and earn income mostly through rents. The remaining are mortgage REITs which lend money directly to real-estate owners or indirectly by purchasing mortgages or securitized securities such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and earn income on those investments. While technically considered equities, the business model of mortgage REITs makes them more like bonds than equities. The composition of the REITs market has changed over the years. While the traditional retail and residential segments dominated the market in the first years of the millennium, structural changes have shifted the balance towards segments such as infrastructure, data centers and industrial (Chart 1). The pandemic accelerated trends that were already in play: For example, the rise of e-commerce, digitalization of services, increased teleworking, and reshoring of manufacturing and supply chains. These have had adverse effects on traditional real estate segments such as retail. Chart 1 Historical Risk And Return, Valuations, Fundamentals & Correlations Since 1973, US all-equity1 REITs have outperformed both public equities and fixed-income assets (both government bonds and investment-grade corporate bonds) on an absolute basis, providing investors with an 11.9% annualized return versus 10.8%, 6.8%, and 7.6% respectively. On a risk-adjusted basis however, REITs’ performance was equal to that of their public equity counterparts, but lower than fixed-income assets because of REITs’ higher volatility. The negative skewness and excess kurtosis also indicate a high probability of large negative returns.  Mortgage REITs (split between Home Financing and Commercial Financing), on the other hand, have returned only 5.2% on an annualized basis, while racking up annualized volatility 3.5 percentage points higher than their all-equity counterparts (Table 1). Table 1Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive? In order to generate the sort of yields investors expect, mortgage REITs resort to leverage (about 6-8 times) which increases volatility (Chart 2). For example, REITs focusing on residential/home financing buy low credit-risk securities (with almost zero default risk), add leverage, and hedge changes in interest rates via derivatives. Mortgage REITs focusing on commercial financing use less leverage, but take on additional credit and default risk embedded in their underlying assets. Both types of REITs remain highly exposed to the economic cycle and financial conditions. Despite disappointing returns (mainly stemming from narrowing net interest spreads), mortgage REIT investors have been entranced by the high dividend yields. These have averaged 11.3% over the past four decades and are still close to 8% today, much higher than the yields of their all-equity counterparts and other assets (Chart 3). Chart 2Mortgage REITs Are Volatile... Mortgage REITs Are Volatile... Mortgage REITs Are Volatile... Chart 3...And Have High Dividend Yields ...And Have High Dividend Yields ...And Have High Dividend Yields   Table 2Attractive Dividend Yields Across Sectors Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive? Dividend yields for all-equity REITs are also attractive in today’s low-yielding investment environment, even though they are at all-time lows – currently they average 2.9%, 150 basis points higher than for public equities. In fact, all REIT sectors and subsectors (with the exception of the lodging/resorts sector) currently have dividend yields higher than those of public equities (Table 2). Even though REITs are considered equities, analyzing them requires different indicators. Whereas equity investors rely on multiples such as price-to-earnings (P/E) or price-to-book (P/B), for REITs price-to-funds from operations (P/FFO) is a more important valuation tool. FFO is favored over earnings since it adds back depreciation and amortization expenses, and adds to net income any gains (or subtracts any losses) from sales of underlying assets. REITs traded at a steady 17x FFO between the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the start of the pandemic. FFO fell by 30% in the first two quarters of 2020 compared to Q4 2019, pushing the P/FFO multiple to 24.7 – an all-time high.  But FFO as of Q3 2021 has inched back above its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). The risk premium for REITs (calculated as the FFO yield minus the real 10-year treasury yield) – currently at 5.4% – remains higher than the pre-GFC bottom of 3.5%. (Chart 5). Chart 4Valuations Reflect A Swift Recovery Valuations Reflect A Swift Recovery Valuations Reflect A Swift Recovery Chart 5REITs Risk Premium Is Still Elevated REITs Risk Premium Is Still Elevated REITs Risk Premium Is Still Elevated     With the exception of the lodging/resorts sector, REITs’ FFO as of Q3 2021 is higher than one year ago. The occupancy rate for major sectors of the REITs market is starting to rise. Overall net operating income (NOI) for Q3 2021 was 4.5% higher than its pre-pandemic (Q4 2019) level (Chart 6). Chart 6Occupancy Rates Are Rising Again Occupancy Rates Are Rising Again Occupancy Rates Are Rising Again This however is the result of a large year-on-year increase in inorganic or non-same-store net operating income (NOI) – income from assets owned for less than 12 months (either recently acquired or developed) (Chart 7). M&A activity has been increasing, and amounted to almost $47 billion over the past four quarters – driven by activity in the infrastructure, self-storage, and free-standing2 segments (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8...As M&A Activity Rose ...As M&A Activity Rose ...As M&A Activity Rose Chart 9REITs Have Low Leverage... REITs Have Low Leverage... REITs Have Low Leverage...   The real-estate sector has historically been seen as risky due to its high leverage, but leverage has been on the decline. Over the past decade, REITs’ reliance on equity capital has increased, with the equity/assets ratio rising from 32% in 2008 to 43% in 2021. The ratio of debt to book assets stands at around 49%, much lower than the 58% during the GFC (Chart 9). REITs have also extended the average maturity of their debt from 5 years in 2008 to over 7.5 years today. The fall in interest rates over the past two decades has benefited equity REITs: As rates fell, so did the interest they paid on their debt. Liquidity ratios also improved, with REITs’ coverage ratio (earnings relative to interest expense) at 6x, cash levels and undrawn lines of credit relative to interest expense close to 2x and 7x, respectively (Chart 10).  In summary, REITs are an attractive asset class, since leverage is lower, earnings continue to rise, and cap rates – while declining – remain high compared to the risk-free rate. REITs, however, remain highly correlated to public equities: The current 3-year rolling correlation between REITs and public equities is above its historical average of 0.57 (Chart 11). This high correlation undermines the diversification benefit of REITs to investors’ portfolios. Moreover, investors should note that the correlation between REITs and direct real estate (DRE) has averaged only 0.1 over the past four decades. Even when DRE is lagged to account for its appraisal-based methodology, correlation does not rise. Chart 10...And Ample Liquidity Buffers ...And Ample Liquidity Buffers ...And Ample Liquidity Buffers Chart 11REITs Remain Highly Correlated To Equities REITs Remain Highly Correlated To Equities REITs Remain Highly Correlated To Equities In a previous Special Report we showed however that, while both direct and indirect real estate exposure can add value to investors’ portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis, direct real estate should be favored given its low correlation to other financial assets (such as equities and bonds) as well as the illiquidity premium that investors with no need for immediate liquidity can harvest. The Macro Outlook Our base case is that interest rates will inch higher over the next 12 months and that inflation will moderate but remain higher than during the past decade. How would such an environment affect the outlook for real estate – and REITs in particular? Interest rates and cap rates tend move in lockstep (with the exception of a divergence from mid-2003 until the GFC). This implies that rising rates could lead to higher cap rates, and thus lower property values (Chart 12, panel 1). The current cap-rate spread (the difference between the cap rate and the 10-year Treasury yield) is close to its long-term average of 365 basis points. This should help mitigate downward pressure on property values and act as a buffer when rates rise (Chart 12, panel 2). As long as rising rates are reflective of strengthening economic growth – and we expect US growth to remain above trend for the next two years at least (Chart 13) – and do not hurt the health of corporate tenants or increase defaults, demand for real estate should rise. Chart 12Interest Rates And Cap Rates Tend To Move In Lockstep Interest Rates And Cap Rates Tend To Move In Lockstep Interest Rates And Cap Rates Tend To Move In Lockstep Chart 13Above-Trend Growth Should Bolster Demand For Real Estate Above-Trend Growth Should Bolster Demand For Real Estate Above-Trend Growth Should Bolster Demand For Real Estate Historically, rising rates coincided with strong performance from REITs. On average, REITs returned 25.4% during episodes of rising interest rates, even higher than the return from equities of 24.5%. However, that figure is distorted by some outliers:  REITs returned over 100% between 1976 and 1980, and in 2003-2007 (Table 3). The median return of REITS was only 7.1% versus 22.5% for equities. Excluding those two periods lowers REITs’ mean return to 9.4%. Valuation data begins only in 2000, but we can see that REITs were attractively valued in 2003, trading at about 9x P/FFO. By the peak of the market in Q1 2007, they were trading at more than 17x P/FFO. Table 3REITs Fared Well In Previous Periods Of Rising Interest Rates Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive? Chart 14 REITs however fared poorly in periods of rising inflation. In a Special Report published in mid-2019, we showed that REITs were a poor hedge against very high inflation and that, much like equities, once the economy overheats and inflation rises sharply (which we define as CPI above 3.3%), REITs produced negative excess returns over cash (Chart 14 and Table 4). For investors able to be more granular in REIT allocations, drilling down to sub-categories of the market might be beneficial, particularly given the low correlation between REIT sectors (Chart 15). Table 4REITs Are Not A Good Inflation Hedge (II) Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive? Chart 15Low Correlation Between REIT Sectors Low Correlation Between REIT Sectors Low Correlation Between REIT Sectors The real estate market is diverse. Each sector is driven by different dynamics, reacts differently to the business cycle and changes in consumer behavior, and therefore has different return characteristics. Annual returns by sector have ranged from 4% to 19% since 1994 (Table 5). Moreover, sectors do not react in the same way to rising interest rates or inflation. Properties with short-term leases, such as hotels, storage, and apartments, can reprice and adjust rents as prices rise. On the other hand, those on the other end of the lease spectrum, e.g., retail and healthcare, have less flexibility to do so (Diagram 1). REITs with shorter-term leases (an equally-weighted basket of lodging, self-storage, and residential) outperfomed those with longer-term leases (an equally-weighted basket of healthcare, industrial, retail, and office) during periods of rising interest rates (Chart 16). Table 5REIT Sector Historical Returns Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive? Diagram 1Short-Term Leases Outperform... Are REITs Still Attractive? Are REITs Still Attractive?   Chart 16...During Periods Of Rising Interest Rates ...During Periods Of Rising Interest Rates ...During Periods Of Rising Interest Rates Bottom Line: The REITs market has recovered after the slump early in the pandemic. Current multiples appear expensive. However, they may just reflect a recovery that has been broad-based and swift. Cap rates historically have moved in lockstep with rising rates. If rates rise, as we expect, cap rates are likely to rise in tandem, putting downward pressure on property prices. The cap rate spread however remains close to its historical average and this should act as a buffer when rates rise. Moderate levels of inflation and rising rates are usually a positive for REITs’ performance. However, just like equities, once inflation rises too high (historically above 3.3%), REITs’ returns fall. We prefer REITs with short-term leases compared to those with long-term leases, as the former can reprice and adjust rental pricing more quickly. The Post-Covid Environment The pandemic has accelerated some existing trends in the real-estate sector and established new ones. Some sectors will struggle in this new environment, while others will flourish. In this section, we describe the likely post-pandemic world and how it will impact various segments of the real-estate market. We also assess where there are opportunities that investors can capitalize on.   Retail The “death of retail” is not a new phenomenon. As technological advances led to the rise of e-commerce, consumer spending shifted from in-store to online. Over the past two decades, non-store retail sales in the US have grown at an annualized 9.5%, compared to 3.1% for in-store sales. E-commerce has risen to almost 14% of total retail sales (Chart 17). This shift is reflected in the halving of the weight of retail REITs in the REITs index over the past decade. The composition of the sector has also changed and is no longer dominated by regional malls and shopping centers but by free-standing properties: These include restaurants, theaters, fitness centers, pharmacies, etc.  (Chart 18). Chart 17The Rise Of E-Commerce... The Rise Of E-Commerce... The Rise Of E-Commerce... Chart 18...Had An Adverse Impact On The Retail Sector ...Had An Adverse Impact On The Retail Sector ...Had An Adverse Impact On The Retail Sector   The headwinds facing the sector – particularly shopping centers –  have not abated. The size of vacant shopping center space has increased to 220 million square feet, approximately 11% of total retail space available: This is close to its post-GFC high. Private multi-retail capex continues to decline and is below its post-GFC low (Chart 19). Retail REITs’ occupancy rate is among the lowest among CRE: 94% as of Q3 2021, although it is higher than during the past two recessions. Funds from operations (FFO) and net operating income (NOI) have been declining over the past few years, with the exception of free-standing properties which saw low but positive growth (Chart 20). Chart 19Plenty Of Vacant Inventory In Shopping Centers... Plenty Of Vacant Inventory In Shopping Centers... Plenty Of Vacant Inventory In Shopping Centers... Chart 20...But There Could Be Opportunities In Free-Standing Properties ...But There Could Be Opportunities In Free-Standing Properties ...But There Could Be Opportunities In Free-Standing Properties   The pandemic exacerbated some other underlying trends and threats. Smaller in-store retailers have shifted to an online presence, aided by companies like Shopify, which saw the numbers of merchants on its platform grow from 1.07 to 1.75 million in 2020. Consumers are also likely to favor shopping in smaller-scale, local shops as they find convenience in stores close to home. Additionally, given the positive correlation between household density and retail space, as households migrate from city centers to the suburbs there will be less need for retail space within city centers. Bottom Line: We recommend investors underweight the retail sector within their broad real estate exposure. The structural headwinds are not likely to disappear. Within retail, we would favor free-standing properties over shopping centers and regional malls.   Office There has long been a close link between office demand and employment. As the labor market tightens, demand for offices increases and rents tend to rise (Chart 21). Investors in office REITs have earned 9.6% annualized returns, 90 basis points annualized below the overall return of the all-equity REITs index, over the past two decades. The sector is currently flush with supply. Estimates show that almost 18% (close to 800 million square feet) of total office space is vacant, yet capex has continued to increase over the past decade (Chart 22). Chart 21The Pandemic Has Changed Office Demand Dynamics The Pandemic Has Changed Office Demand Dynamics The Pandemic Has Changed Office Demand Dynamics Chart 22...Leaving The Sector With Empty Space ...Leaving The Sector With Empty Space ...Leaving The Sector With Empty Space   The pandemic, however, might be the catalyst for change. After social restrictions were imposed and offices shut down, the BLS estimates that in May 2020 as many as 35-40% of US employees were telecommuting, strictly because of the pandemic (Chart 23). Since then, as restrictions were lifted and vaccination rates rose, this number has come down to 12%,3 as more employees returned to some sort of pre-pandemic normalcy. The US Household Pulse survey (published by the US Census Bureau), however, shows close to 40% of employees working at home as of the end of September (Chart 24). Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25Mobility Data Showing No Full Return To Offices Mobility Data Showing No Full Return To Offices Mobility Data Showing No Full Return To Offices The true number of employees who telework likely lies in between the BLS’s 15% and the Census Bureau’s 40%. A study by Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman estimated, based on job characteristics,4 that 37% of jobs in the US can be done entirely from home (46% if weighted by wages). Whether employees will favor a work-from-home versus a return-to-office environment is still unclear. Most surveys show a 50-50 split. High-frequency data such as the Google Mobility Trends show that the number of people going to their workplace has not yet returned to normal (Chart 25). It is likely however that office utilization rates will not return to pre-pandemic levels. This might incentivize firms to search either for offices with flexible leases or co-shared space. Chart 26Are Employers Leaving City Centers With Their Employees? Are Employers Leaving City Centers With Their Employees? Are Employers Leaving City Centers With Their Employees? Companies face the choice of downsizing and so reducing business costs, or keeping the same premises which would allow for lower office density and enable social distancing between employees who return to the office. Estimates by CBRE suggest that office demand will not fall by as much as the reduction in the time employees will be in the office. CBRE argues that, while the average US employee is likely to spend 24% less time in an office, demand for office space will fall by only 9%. This calculation factors in more space per employee to allow for social distancing and collaborative working. Additionally, as more employees move away from inner cities, employers could move with them. This trend is reflected in suburban office prices which have risen by 15.1% since the beginning of 2020, compared to those in central business districts (CBD) which have risen by a mere 0.2% (Chart 26). Bottom Line: Investors in office space should be wary of corporates which are unwilling to return to offices operating at full capacity, and instead focus on single-tenant assets with long-term leases.   Healthcare Chart 27Like Equities, Healthcare REITs Are A Defensive Play Like Equities, Healthcare REITs Are A Defensive Play Like Equities, Healthcare REITs Are A Defensive Play REITs within this sector are focused on hospitals, senior and nursing homes, and laboratories. Since 1994, healthcare REITs have returned 10.7% annualized, with 21.1% annual volatility. These numbers, however, mask the underlying reality. Healthcare, being a defensive sector, outperformed the broad REITs market only during the dot-com recession and the GFC. In the short-lived pandemic-driven recession in 2020, healthcare REITs underperformed the broad index by 15%. On the other hand, during bull markets, particularly post the GFC, healthcare REITs significantly underperformed the broad market (Chart 27). The sector also has a high dividend yield, which has averaged 6.7% over the past 25 years, 160 basis points higher than the broad index’s historic average (Chart 28). In a Special Report published last year, we explained the structural reasons for our longstanding overweight position on Healthcare equities. We expect demand for healthcare services to continue to rise as life expectancy increases, populations age, and retiring baby boomers spend their accumulated wealth (mainly on healthcare) (Chart 29). Chart 28Healthcare REITs Have High Dividend Yields Healthcare REITs Have High Dividend Yields Healthcare REITs Have High Dividend Yields Chart 29An Aging Population Will Support Demand For Healthcare An Aging Population Will Support Demand For Healthcare An Aging Population Will Support Demand For Healthcare Elder care facilities will play a major role in supporting the increasingly aging population over the coming years. The pandemic has emphasized the need for high-quality senior housing: In our previous report, we highlighted that lack of funding and mismanagement – particularly in for-profit nursing homes – were reasons why they had almost four times as many Covid infections as those run by the government or non-profits. Chart 30...Increasing Investment In Healthcare Facilities ...Increasing Investment In Healthcare Facilities ...Increasing Investment In Healthcare Facilities Chart 31Healthcare REITs' Fundamentals Are Recovering Healthcare REITs' Fundamentals Are Recovering Healthcare REITs' Fundamentals Are Recovering The private sectors has already began to step in to meet this demand: Healthcare private construction expenditure has risen over the past few years and is likely to rise further (Chart 30). Cap rates continue to inch lower, but still have a decent spread over 10-year Treasurys (Chart 31, panel 1). Fundamentals have also began to improve: FFO and NOI growth seem to have bottomed, after dipping into negative territory as a result of the pandemic (panels 2 & 3). The sector has been going through a phase of consolidation: There have been significant acquisitions over the past few quarters, particularly of distressed operators (panel 4). Bottom Line: There is a structural long-term case to favor REITs in this sector, particularly an aging population with ample savings to spend on healthcare. Federal support and oversight have helped bolster confidence (for both occupants of care homes and investors) during the pandemic, and are likely to continue.   Lodging/Resorts Chart 32Income Has Been The Only Source Of Return For Lodging REITs Income Has Been The Only Source Of Return For Lodging REITs Income Has Been The Only Source Of Return For Lodging REITs Chart 33The Travel Industry Has Not Yet Recovered The Travel Industry Has Not Yet Recovered The Travel Industry Has Not Yet Recovered Lodging REITs have been the worst performing sector over the past 27 years. Since 1994, they have returned only an annualized 4.1%, 640 basis points lower than the all-equity REITs index, with annual volatility 14 percentage points higher. They have steadily underperformed the market since 1997. Property prices within the sector have consistently declined, and income has been the only source of return (Chart 32). Lodging demand is closely linked to travel, which has been deeply impacted by the pandemic. The number of US domestic airline passengers is still only half that of the pre-pandemic period (Chart 33). With vaccines rolled out and most pandemic restrictions likely to be lifted eventually, the travel sector is set to rebound, albeit not equally across segments. Chart 34Personal Travel Likely To Recover Before Business Travel Personal Travel Likely To Recover Before Business Travel Personal Travel Likely To Recover Before Business Travel Chart 35The Hotel Industry's Recovery The Hotel Industry's Recovery The Hotel Industry's Recovery Personal and leisure travel is likely to return first: More people are now comfortable about going on vacation and want to make up for the “lost travel” of the past two years (Chart 34). Hotel occupancy rates, while still below 2019 levels, continue to rise, and revenue per available room (RevPAR) is close to 2019 levels (Chart 35). Business travel, on the other hand, might not recover as fast. The shift to remote working and videoconferencing is likely to push companies to review travel budgets. Business travel, which halved between 2019 and 2020, is forecast to return to its pre-pandemic level only in 2024/2025. This is likely to have a larger adverse impact on higher-end, major-city hotels. Chart 36The Pandemic's Effect On The Lodging Sector The Pandemic's Effect On The Lodging Sector The Pandemic's Effect On The Lodging Sector The industry has been facing other headwinds for the past few years. The threat from online lodging platforms, such as Airbnb, has put downward pressure on occupancy rates, which have been declining recently after having hovered around the mid-60% level over the past 30 years. Bottom Line: Real spending on hotels and motels remains 26% below trend (Chart 36). A revival in leisure travel, the easing of restrictions, and pent-up demand will support the sector in the short-term. However, domestic business travel and international tourism might be slow to recover. Investors in lodging and resorts should reduce exposure to major-city assets and focus instead on rural or resort-based getaways.   Residential Residential REITs are primarily focused on apartments, rather than single-family homes or manufactured (mobile) homes  – although the share of apartments has been declining over the past few years (Chart 37). Since 1994, residential REITs have outperformed the broad market by an annualized 1.8 percentage points. More recently, since the single-family homes segment was added to the sector (in December 2015), residential REITs have continued to outperform the broad market, driven by a 21.4% annualized return from the manufactured homes segment, 19.4% from single-family homes, and 12.3% from apartments. The sector’s outperformance should not come as a surprise. The housing sector has been undersupplied for decades: The ratio of annual housing starts to the total number of households is 1.2% –  0.7 percentage points below its pre-GFC average (Chart 38). This has pushed up prices, increasing unaffordability, particularly for first-time buyers (Chart 39). This increased the percentage of US housing inventory occupied by renters rather than owners (Chart 40). Chart 37Apartments Make Up The Majority Of Residential REITs Apartments Make Up The Majority Of Residential REITs Apartments Make Up The Majority Of Residential REITs Chart 38Housing Undersupply Is No New Issue... Housing Undersupply Is No New Issue... Housing Undersupply Is No New Issue...   Chart 39...Making Home Prices Unaffordable... ...Making Home Prices Unaffordable... ...Making Home Prices Unaffordable... Chart 40...Particularly For Young Adults ...Particularly For Young Adults ...Particularly For Young Adults   Chart 41The Pandemic Pushed Renters Outside Of Major Cities The Pandemic Pushed Renters Outside Of Major Cities The Pandemic Pushed Renters Outside Of Major Cities The pandemic, and its impact on shopping and work, has pushed city residents to the suburbs. This is reflected in the gap between the rental vacancy rate in large cities versus that in the suburbs (Chart 41). It is also noticeable in REITs’ performance: Ones dominated by suburban housing have outperformed those focused on city centers over the past year. Home prices, appreciating faster than rental growth, will remain a tailwind for residential REITs (Chart 42). Supply shortages will keep prices high. Fundamentals also remain supportive of a positive outlook on the sector: The cap rate on residential REITs is about 260 basis points over the 10-year Treasury yield, and both FFO and NOI growth seem to have troughed (Chart 43). Chart 42Rising Home Price Will Be A Tailwind For Residential REITs Rising Home Price Will Be A Tailwind For Residential REITs Rising Home Price Will Be A Tailwind For Residential REITs Bottom Line: Investors should favor the residential sector within the REITs market, favoring single-family homes and manufactured homes over apartments, and out-of-city over downtown properties. Chart 43Improving Fundamentals For The Residential Sector Improving Fundamentals For The Residential Sector Improving Fundamentals For The Residential Sector   Data Centers Data centers are facilities that provide space for customers’ servers and other network and computing equipment. Due to the high and complex technical set-up specifications, leases are usually longer (upwards of five years). Properties that support the digital economy have attracted a lot of demand over the past few years. New technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and autonomous vehicles will prove a tailwind over the coming years. Since data first became available (January 2016), data centers have outperformed the REITs benchmark by almost 60 percentage points (Chart 44). The pandemic has accelerated those trends, as social restrictions led offices, schools, and stores to close. This led to an increase in internet traffic and data creation. Estimates by OpenValut show that broadband usage increased by 51% in 2020 compared to 2019, partly due to remote learning and teleworking. Demand for data centers is expected to continue to grow. Fundamentals for the sector remain supportive: The cap rate – albeit now lower than post the GFC– is still near that of the broad benchmark (Chart 45, panel 1) and both NOI and FFO continue to grow (panels 2 & 3). Chart 44Sectors Supporting A Digitalized Economy Will Be Long-Term Outperfomers Sectors Supporting A Digitalized Economy Will Be Long-Term Outperfomers Sectors Supporting A Digitalized Economy Will Be Long-Term Outperfomers Chart 45...Supporting Fundamentals' Growth ...Supporting Fundamentals' Growth ...Supporting Fundamentals' Growth     Bottom Line: Internet traffic remains the primary driver of the performance of data-center REITs. The move towards a more digitalized economy is likely to prove a tailwind for the sector. This should also immunize the sector over the economic cycle as dependence on data increases structurally. A new normal in remote working and learning, as well as continued investment in new technologies, support an allocation to the sector.     Industrial Technological advances, particularly the rise of e-commerce, have also helped the industrial sector, increasing the need for logistics and fulfillment centers. Research by Prologis shows that e-commerce requires more than 3x the logistics space of brick-and-mortar sales. That is why investment in the sector has been rising over the past decade (Chart 46). Demand shows no signs of cooling: The occupancy rate of industrial REITs is at an all-time high, 4 percentage points higher than its 20-year average (Chart 47). Rental growth for industrial properties – particularly down the value chain closer to the end-consumer – has been robust due to the scarcity of permittable land. Chart 46Increased Demand For Warehouses Has Translated Into More CAPEX... Increased Demand For Warehouses Has Translated Into More CAPEX... Increased Demand For Warehouses Has Translated Into More CAPEX... Chart 47...And Pushed Up Occupancy Rates ...And Pushed Up Occupancy Rates ...And Pushed Up Occupancy Rates   The pandemic has also revealed how vulnerable current supply chains are and has accelerated a trend BCA Research has highlighted for years: The decline of globalization. Going forward, companies will move to reshore some of their production to gain greater control over supply chains (Chart 48). This will amplify the need for industrial space. Bottom Line: We expect the industrial sector to continue to outperform the broad REITs market, supported by continued investment in fulfillment and logistics centers. Fundamentals remain strong: Same-store NOI is growing at over 6% a year, and acquisitions have increased, with more than $5.5 billion over the past four quarters (Chart 49). The industrial sector has been one of the quickest to revive projects put on hold during the pandemic, with the development pipeline as of Q3 2021 34% higher than in Q4 2019. Chart 48The End Of Globalization, And Supply Chain Reshoring Will Increase The Need For Industrial Space The End Of Globalization, And Supply Chain Reshoring Will Increase The Need For Industrial Space The End Of Globalization, And Supply Chain Reshoring Will Increase The Need For Industrial Space Chart 49Increased M&A Activity In The Industrial Sector Increased M&A Activity In The Industrial Sector Increased M&A Activity In The Industrial Sector Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  All-equity REITs refer to equity REITs plus infrastructure and timberland REITs. 2  Free-standing REITs own stand-alone properties away from malls and are a subsector of the retail sector. 3 This does not include those whose telework was unrelated to the pandemic, such as those who worked entirely from home prior to the pandemic. 4 Jonathan I. Dingel and Brent Neiman, "How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home?" NBER Working Paper No. 26948, April 2020.

Dear Clients, Next week, in addition to sending you the China Macro And Market Review, we will be presenting our 2022 outlook on China at our last webcasts of the year “China 2021 Key Views: A Challenging Balancing Act”. The webcasts will be held Wednesday, December 15 at 10:00 am EDT (English) and Thursday, December 16 at 9:00 am HKT (Mandarin). Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Highlights China’s policymakers are balancing between staying the course with structural reforms and stabilizing the economy. This carefully calibrated approach means that Beijing will only initiate piecemeal policy easing in the near term. China will ramp up investment in the new economy, which is too small to fully offset the drag on the aggregate economy from weakening old economy sectors. In the next three to six months, the economy will deteriorate further, but Beijing will only press the stimulus accelerator harder if their pressure points are breached. A zero-tolerance policy towards COVID will be maintained for the foreseeable future. Uncertainties surrounding the Omicron variant will reinforce this approach. The common prosperity policy initiative will likely accelerate ahead of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (NCCCP) in the fall of 2022. While the plan will ultimately benefit income and consumption for the majority of Chinese households, the uncertainties surrounding impending tax reforms will curb demand for housing and luxury goods in the short term. We remain underweight Chinese stocks. Prices for onshore stocks will likely fall in the next three to six months when the market starts to price in lower-than-expected economic growth and disappointing stimulus. Selloffs in the first half of 2022 may present an opportunity to turn positive on onshore stocks in absolute terms. We will turn bullish on Chinese stocks relative to global equities only when credit expansion overshoots weakness in the economy, which has a low likelihood. We continue to favor onshore stocks versus offshore within a Chinese equity portfolio. Tensions between the US and China may intensify leading up to the political events next year. Chinese offshore stocks, highly concentrated in internet companies, still face the risks of being caught in both geopolitical crossfires and domestic regulatory pressures. Feature China’s economy slowed significantly in 2H21, with the extent of policy tightening and magnitude of the decline in growth much larger than global investors expected. As we forecasted in our last year’s Key Views report, 2021 marked the beginning of a new era in which policymakers would switch gears from building a "moderately prosperous society" to becoming a "great modern socialist nation”.The pivot means that officials would tolerate slower economic growth, implement tougher financial and industry regulations, and accelerate structural reforms. On the cusp of 2022, we are cautious about the willingness of China’s top leadership to initiate large-scale policy easing. Even though policy tone has shifted to a more pro-growth bias, authorities are still trying to replace old economic drivers with the new economy sectors. Furthermore, they are struggling to maintain a delicate balance between boosting short-term growth and maintaining long-term reforms goals. As a result, their policies are sending mixed signals. As seen in 2018 and 2019, the policymakers’ reluctance to activate a full-scale stimulus does not bode well for global commodity prices. Chinese onshore stocks underperformed their global counterparts during the 2018-19 period.  Chinese stocks will face nontrivial headwinds in the coming months and warrant a cautious stance until more stimulus is introduced and the macro picture begins to meaningfully improve. The main themes in our outlook for 2022 are discussed below. Key View #1: Balancing Between The Old And New Economies Despite a recent pro-growth bias in the policy tone, the speed of easing has been incremental and the magnitude piecemeal. Moreover, authorities are telegraphing policy support in new economy sectors (such as high tech and clean energy), while only somewhat loosening restrictions in old economy sectors (mainly property and infrastructure).  Chart 1Current Easing Path Is Looking A Lot Like In 2018/19 Current Easing Path Is Looking A Lot Like In 2018/19 Current Easing Path Is Looking A Lot Like In 2018/19 China’s policy framework has shifted since late 2017 as we noted in previous reports. The top leadership is more determined to stay the course with reforms and tolerate slower growth in the old economy. Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator highlights policymakers’ carefully calibrated policy actions to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth; these actions are consistent with 2018/19 and starkly contrast with policy frameworks in 2012 and 2015. Monetary conditions have meaningfully eased, but the rebound in money supply and credit growth has lagged and is muted due to heightened regulatory oversight (Chart 1).  Investors should keep low expectations about the policymakers’ willingness to boost growth in old economy sectors. The easing of restrictions in property sector – from prompting banks to resume lending to qualified homebuyers and developers, to allowing funding for developers to acquire distressed real estate assets – are steps to alleviate an escalating risk of widespread bankruptcies among real estate developers. However, regulators have not changed the direction of their structural policies. Funding constraints placed on both developers and banks since last August remain intact. Banks still need to meet the “two red lines” that set the upper limit on the portion of their lending to the property sector, while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. Maintaining these binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years. The recent easing may reduce the intensity of funding constraints, but the banks will be extremely cautious to extend lending to a broad range of developers. Aggressive crackdowns on property market speculation in the past 12 months has fundamentally shifted both developers’ and consumers’ expectations for future home prices. Growth in home sales and new projects dropped to their 2015 lows, while current real estate inventories are comparable to 2015 highs (Chart 2). Therefore, unless regulators are willing to initiate more aggressive policy boosts, such as cutting mortgage rates and/or providing government funds to monetize inventory excesses in the housing market, the current easing measures probably will not revive sentiment in the property market. Thus, odds are that the property market downtrend will extend through 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 2Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015 Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015 Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015 Chart 3Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Market Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Market Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Market Chart 4Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending We expect some modest increase in infrastructure spending next year from the meager 0.7% growth in 2021, but we are skeptical that policymakers will allow any substantial rebound. Shadow banking activity and infrastructure project approval, two key indicators we monitor for signs of a meaningful easing in infrastructure spending, show little improvement (Chart 4). Our outlook for infrastructure investment is based on the following: Since 2017 policymakers have assumed a much more hawkish approach toward reducing investment in the capital-intensive and unproductive old economic sectors. Next year’s 20th NCCCP will not fundamentally change this policy setting. The 19th NCCCP in late 2017 deviated from the past; infrastructure investment growth downshifted following the event, whereas significant spending boosts had followed previous NCCCPs (Chart 5). Beijing adhered to its structural downshift in infrastructure spending even during the 2018/19 US-China trade war and after last year’s pandemic-induced economic contraction. Chart 5Infrastructure Investment Shifted To A Lower Gear Following The 19th NCCCP Infrastructure Investment Shifted To A Lower Gear Following The 19th NCCCP Infrastructure Investment Shifted To A Lower Gear Following The 19th NCCCP Chart 6 Secondly, government spending since 2017 has tilted towards social welfare over building “bridges to nowhere”, a meaningful change from the past and in keeping with President Xi Jinping’s political priorities (Chart 6). The trend will likely continue next year because local governments need to maintain large social welfare budgets to counter the economic impact of the prolonged domestic battle against COVID. Local government revenues, on the other hand, will be reduced due to slumping land sales. Thirdly, there has been strong policy guidance by the central government to shift investment to the new economy sectors and away from traditional infrastructure projects. The PBoC in early November launched the carbon emission reduction facility (CERF) to offer low interest loans to financial institutions that help firms cut carbon emissions. Chart 7 China’s new economy sectors have experienced rapid growth in recent years, but in the short-term, infrastructure spending in those sectors will not fully offset a reduction in traditional infrastructure (Chart 7). The combined spending in tech infrastructure (including information transmission such as 5G technology and services) and green energy stood at RMB1.6 trillion last year, compared with the RMB19 trillion investment in traditional infrastructure and RMB14 trillion in the real estate sector. Bottom Line: Beijing will continue to push for investment in new economy sectors since the leadership is determined to reduce dependency on unproductive segments of the economy. Even as the economy slows, they will be reluctant to ramp up leverage and channel capital to the old economy sectors. Unfortunately, the small size of the new economy’s sectors versus the old economy will inhibit their ability to stabilize and accelerate economic growth via these policies. Key View #2: The Pressure Points We do not think Beijing will allow the economy to freefall past the “point of no return”.  The economy still needs to grow by 4.5-5.0% per annum between 2021 and 2035 to achieve the target of doubling GDP by 2035 (Chart 8A and 8B). Chart 8AThe Structural Downshift In Chinese Growth Will Continue… The Structural Downshift In Chinese Growth Will Continue… The Structural Downshift In Chinese Growth Will Continue… Chart 8B...But A 5%+/- Rate Of Growth Will Keep China Well On Track Of Doubling Its GDP By 2035 ...But A 5%+/- Rate Of Growth Will Keep China Well On Track Of Doubling Its GDP By 2035 ...But A 5%+/- Rate Of Growth Will Keep China Well On Track Of Doubling Its GDP By 2035 Investors should watch the following pressure points to assess whether China’s leaders will feel the urgency to turn policy to outright reflationary: A collapse in onshore financial market prices. China’s economic fundamentals will weaken further in the next three to six months and the risks to Chinese equity prices are on the downside. However, the odds are still low that the onshore equity, bond and currency markets will plunge as in 2015. Onshore stocks are cheaper than during the height of their 2015 boom-bust cycle, margin trading remains well below its 2015 level and economic fundamentals are stronger (Chart 9). Selloffs by global investors in China’s offshore equity and high-yield bond markets have not triggered much panic in the onshore markets and, therefore, will not drive Beijing to change its macro policy (Chart 10). Chart 9Valuations In Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extreme As In 2015 Valuations In Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extreme As In 2015 Valuations In Chinese Stocks Are Not As Extreme As In 2015 Chart 10Onshore Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Onshore Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Onshore Markets Have Been Relatively Calm Chart 11China/US Growth Rates In 2022 Will Be Uncomfortably Close, Based On IMF Forecasts China/US Growth Rates In 2022 Will Be Uncomfortably Close, Based On IMF Forecasts China/US Growth Rates In 2022 Will Be Uncomfortably Close, Based On IMF Forecasts Narrowing growth differentials between China and the US. In the IMF’s October World Economic Outlook, economic growth in 2022 for China and the US is projected at 5.6% and 5.2%, respectively. The forecast suggests that next year the growth differential between the two largest economies will be narrowed to less than one percentage point, rarely seen in China’s post-reform history (Chart 11). Notably, the most recent Bloomberg consensus estimate for the 2022 US real GDP growth is much lower at 3.9%, whereas China is expected to grow by 5.3% and in line with the IMF forecast. We do not suggest that Beijing will make its policy decisions based on these growth projections. Rather, we expect that if China’s growth in 1H22 falls behind that in the US, Chinese policymakers will feel an urgency to stimulate the economy and show a better economic scorecard ahead of the all-important 20th NCCCP next fall.  Rising unemployment. Current data shows a mixed picture. Unemployment rates have been falling in all age groups (Chart 12). Demand for labor in urban areas, on the other hand, has been shrinking (Chart 13). The employment subindex in China’s service PMIs has also been dropping. Our view is that the resilient export/manufacturing sector has provided strong support to employment this year, while the labor supply in urban areas has been sluggish due to tighter travel restrictions and frequent regional lockdowns. The combination of strong manufacturing demand for labor and a lack of supply has reduced excesses in the labor market and the urgency to stimulate the economy (Chart 13, bottom panels). However, the picture could change if China’s exports start to slow into next year. Chart 12China's Unemployment Rate Is Falling... China's Unemployment Rate Is Falling... China's Unemployment Rate Is Falling... Chart 13...But Demand For Labor Is Also Falling ...But Demand For Labor Is Also Falling ...But Demand For Labor Is Also Falling Bottom Line: In the coming year, investors should watch for three pressure points that may trigger more forceful growth-supporting actions from policymakers: the onshore financial markets, economic growth differentials between the US and China, and labor market dynamics. Key View #3: The Exit Strategy Chart 14Service Sector Activities Have Been Restricted By Domestic Covid Cases And Frequent Lockdowns Service Sector Activities Have Been Restricted By Domestic Covid Cases And Frequent Lockdowns Service Sector Activities Have Been Restricted By Domestic Covid Cases And Frequent Lockdowns China will not completely lift its zero-tolerance policy toward COVID in the coming year. We will likely see tightened domestic preventive measures leading to the Beijing Olympics in February and the NCCCP in October. The zero-tolerance policy cannot be sustained in the long run; China’s stringent counter-COVID measures have created a stop-and-go pattern in China’s service sector, which has taken a toll on household consumption (Chart 14). As such, Chinese policymakers will face a trade-off between hefty economic costs from its current counter-COVID measures, and the potential social costs and risks if there is a dramatic increase in domestic COVID cases. China is estimated to have fully vaccinated more than 80% of its citizens and is close to launching its own mRNA vaccine next year to be used as a booster shot. However, the inoculation rate will likely matter less to Beijing’s decision to relax its draconian approach towards COVID given the emergence of the virulent Omicron variant. Recent statement by China's top respiratory experts suggests that China will return to normalcy if fatality rate of COVID-19 drops to around 0.1%, and when R0 (the virus reproduction ratio) sits between 1 and 1.5. A more important factor that could influence Beijing’s decision is the development and effectiveness of anti-viral drug treatments. Pfizer recently announced that its anti-viral oral drug Paxlovid can reduce the hospitalization and death rates by 89% if taken within three days of the onset of symptoms. The drug-maker has announced its intention to produce enough of the medication to treat 50 million people in 2022. China’s Tsinghua University has also developed an antibody combination drug that may reduce hospitalization and mortality by 78% and is expected to be approved by Chinese regulators within this year.  Beijing’s decision to abandon its zero-tolerance policy, therefore, will be based on the combined effectiveness of both vaccines and treatments. If clinical trials prove that the new antiviral drugs are effective in treating COVID patients, combined with China’s aggressive rollout of booster shots, then Beijing may incrementally relax its COVID containment measures by late 2022 or early 2023.  Bottom Line: China will not loosen its zero-tolerance policy until a combination of vaccines and treatments proves to be effective against COVID. Key View #4: Common Prosperity Will Gather Steam We expect the notion of common prosperity espoused by President Xi Jinping to gain momentum ahead of the 20th NCCCP. Beijing will likely roll out measures to support consumption, particularly for low-income households. At the same time, there is a high possibility that policymakers will introduce taxes on luxury goods and accelerate the legislative process on real estate taxes. Chart 15The Slump In Property Market Will Likely Be An Extended One The Slump In Property Market Will Likely Be An Extended One The Slump In Property Market Will Likely Be An Extended One The property market will remain in a limbo in 2022. In the near term, potential homebuyers will likely maintain their wait-and-see attitude before details of real estate taxes are disclosed. Home sales will remain in contraction despite improved mortgage lending conditions (Chart 15). Consumption taxes are expected to increase, targeting consumer discretionary and/or luxury goods. Chinese consumption of luxury goods benefited from government pro-growth measures last year, flush liquidity in the market and global travel restrictions. Meanwhile, growth in aggregate household income and consumption has been lackluster. President Xi Jinping’s common prosperity policy initiative is intended to narrow the income and wealth gap between the rich and poor. Moreover, empirical studies show that the marginal propensity to consume among lower- and middle-income groups, which account for more than 80% of China’s total population, is significantly higher than that of high-income groups. We expect more support for lower income groups as Beijing looks to stabilize the economy and narrow the wealth gap. Bottom Line: There is a high probability that policymakers will introduce taxes on the consumption of luxury goods and initiate the legislative process on real estate taxes in the next 12 months. Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks in both the onshore and offshore markets have cheapened relative to global equities. However, in absolute terms onshore stocks are not unduly cheap and offshore stocks are cheap for a reason (Chart 16). We remain defensive in our investment strategy for Chinese stocks in the next two quarters, given the headwinds facing the onshore and offshore markets. We do not rule out the possibility that China’s authorities will stimulate more forcefully in the next 12 months. However, for Chinese policymakers to ramp up leverage again, the near-term dynamics in the country’s economic cycle will have to significantly worsen. Chinese stocks will sell off in this scenario, but the selloff will provide investors with a good buying opportunity in the expectation of a more decisive stimulus (Chart 17). Chart 16Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap, While Offshore Stocks Are Cheap For A Reason Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap, While Offshore Stocks Are Cheap For A Reason Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap, While Offshore Stocks Are Cheap For A Reason Chart 17Selloff Risks Are High Before The Economy Stabilizes Selloff Risks Are High Before The Economy Stabilizes Selloff Risks Are High Before The Economy Stabilizes Chart 18A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? If the economy slows in an orderly and gradual manner, then there is a slim chance that policymakers will allow an overshoot in stimulus. The Politburo meeting on Monday sent a stronger pro-growth message, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate by 50bps, and regulators will likely allow a front-loading of local government special-purpose bonds in Q1 next year. However, based on the lessons learned in 2019, regulators can be quick to scale back policy support if they see there is a risk of overshooting in credit expansion (Chart 18). The measured stimulus during the 2018-2019 period did not bode well for Chinese stocks or global commodity prices (Chart 19A and 19B). Meanwhile, we do not think the recent selloff in offshore stocks provided good buying opportunities. In the next 6 to 12 months, any tactical rebound in Chinese investable stocks will present a good selling point. Chart 19AChina's Measured Stimulus In 2018-2019 Did Not Bode Well For Global Commodity Prices China's Measured Stimulus In 2018-2019 Did Not Bode Well For Global Commodity Prices China's Measured Stimulus In 2018-2019 Did Not Bode Well For Global Commodity Prices Chart 19BChinese Stocks Underperformed In 2018-2019 Chinese Stocks Underperformed In 2018-2019 Chinese Stocks Underperformed In 2018-2019 Investable stocks, highly concentrated in China’s internet companies, are caught in domestic regulatory clampdowns and geopolitical crossfires. We expect tensions between China and the US to intensify in 2022 in light of next fall’s 20th NCCCP in China and mid-term elections in the US. Furthermore, Didi Global’s decision to delist from the New York Stock Exchange last week highlights that both China and the US are unanimous in their efforts (although for different reasons) to remove Chinese firms from US bourses. Risks associated with future delisting of Chinese firms will continue to depress the valuations of Chinese technology stocks.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Economy: Chair Powell retired the term “transitory” last week, signaling that the Fed may take a harder line on inflation in the coming year: The Fed coined the transitory term to describe the current inflation backdrop, and publicly throwing in the towel on the idea allows the FOMC to open the door to a more hawkish approach in 2022. Markets: Financial markets continued their post-Thanksgiving gyrations, but the Omicron variant was a more meaningful driver than Fedspeak: Powell’s hints simply brought the Fed’s liftoff date closer to the markets' estimate. Omicron was the main force behind the fall in interest rates, as evidenced by the swoon in oil and pandemic-exposed equities. Strategy: Don’t fight the crowd in the near term, but position for a higher-than-expected terminal rate down the road: We expect rates will remain well behaved in 2022, but we do not share the seeming market conviction that rates will be permanently lower. Feature A US investor who called it a week the day before Thanksgiving may think twice about leaving his/her desk for even a day going forward. Stocks and other risk assets were hammered in the abbreviated Black Friday session on concerns about Omicron, COVID’s latest variant. The S&P 500 recovered much of its losses last Monday, only to be jolted again on Tuesday, as Fed Chair Powell testified before a Senate committee. Stocks duly surged on Wednesday, leaving the S&P off just over 1% from its pre-Thanksgiving close, until news that the Omicron variant had been discovered in California sparked a sharp intra-day reversal. They then came back very strong on Thursday – lather, rinse, repeat. The action was a reminder that volatility often picks up as a perceived inflection point nears. The VIX, which measures implied volatility on S&P 500 index options, spent the week ensconced above the 20 level that has mostly contained it since the financial crisis faded and effective COVID vaccines became widely available (Chart 1). Despite the recent gyrations, our base-case cyclical outlook, as described in last week’s report, remains in place. We expect US growth will come in well above trend for this quarter and all of 2022, monetary policy settings will likely remain easy for another two years, and the accumulated monetary and fiscal stimulus that’s already been injected into the economy will keep the expansion going at least through 2023. Chart 1An Eventful Stretch An Eventful Stretch An Eventful Stretch What The Chair Said Fed Chair Powell testified before the Senate and the House Tuesday and Wednesday last week, respectively. His comments on the pace of tapering, the economy’s progress in meeting the Fed’s inflation criteria for hiking rates, the way inflation might thwart employment gains and the word "transitory" captured the attention of investors and the financial media. On tapering: “At this point, the economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high. It is therefore appropriate in my view to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases, which we … announced at our November meeting, perhaps a few months sooner.” On the inflation criteria for hiking rates: “The test that we’ve articulated clearly has been met [.] … Inflation has run well above 2% for long enough now [given recent data releases].” On inflation as a threat to full employment: “What I am taking on board is it is going to take longer to get labor force participation back. … That means to get back to the kind of great labor market we had before the pandemic, we’re going to need a long expansion. To get that we’re going to need price stability, and in a sense, the risk of persistent high inflation is also a major risk to getting back to such a labor market.” On “transitory” inflation: Though some people interpreted it as short-lived, we used “transitory” to “mean that it won’t leave a permanent mark in the form of higher inflation. I think it’s probably a good time to retire that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.” How Powell’s Comments Might Shift Monetary Policy Table 1The Liftoff Checklist Wiggle Room Wiggle Room The taper timetable will be sped up. It seems clear that the FOMC will vote to accelerate the taper at its meeting ending December 15th. Given how carefully the Fed has telegraphed its asset purchase actions, Powell would not have raised the issue unless it were a done deal. Instead of ending in June upon the purchase of an additional $420 billion of Treasury and agency securities, as per the November FOMC meeting's guidance, this round of QE will end sometime sooner after buying somewhat less. While we do not think that the parameters of the taper matter all that much in themselves, Powell has stated that the FOMC will not begin hiking rates until it has stopped purchasing securities and accelerating the tapering pace will afford it the flexibility to bring the liftoff date forward if it so chooses. Chart 2Hikes May Not Wait For Full Employment Hikes May Not Wait For Full Employment Hikes May Not Wait For Full Employment The economic prerequisites for hiking rates are closer to being met. Our US Bond Strategy service has maintained a checklist of the three criteria the FOMC laid out as preconditions for hiking rates (Table 1). With consumer prices rising by more than the 2% target for several months, our bond colleagues checked the inflation boxes a while ago and noted that the full employment1 criterion would become the swing factor for rate hikes. Per the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections, it has been reasonable to assume that full employment would entail an unemployment rate at or below 4% (Chart 2, top panel), with the prime-age participation rate near its pre-pandemic level (Chart 2, middle panel), even if overall participation continues to lag (Chart 2, bottom panel). Powell’s Senate testimony indicated that the criterion has been relaxed, as his comments calling out too-high inflation as a threat to the labor market countered the Fed’s previously firm resolve to let the economy run hot until the economy achieved maximum employment. The bottom line is that Powell’s testimony has given the Fed some flexibility to raise rates sooner than the second half of next year if it sees fit. As Cleveland Fed president Loretta Mester, a 2022 FOMC voter, said after Powell wrapped up his appearances on Capitol Hill, “Making the taper faster is definitely buying insurance and optionality so that if inflation doesn’t move back down significantly next year we’re in a position to be able to hike if we have to. Right now, with the inflation data the way it is and with the job market as strong as it is, I do think we have to be in a position that if we need to raise rates a couple times next year, we’re able to do that.” The Fixed Income Market Reaction Chart 3What A Difference A Week Makes What A Difference A Week Makes What A Difference A Week Makes Ahead of Powell’s testimony, the overnight index swap curve took out almost an entire hike for the next twelve months, falling from 66 basis points ("bps") (two hikes and a 64% chance of a third) on Thanksgiving to 43 bps on Monday (one hike and a 72% chance of a second). The same went for the next twenty-four months, which fell from 140 bps to 117 bps, or five hikes and a 60% chance of a sixth to four hikes and a 68% chance of a fifth by Thanksgiving 2023. Rate hike odds regained some ground on Powell’s remarks, though the ultimate rebound was half-hearted – at press time, the probability of a third hike in the next twelve months stood at just 8% (Chart 3, top panel); only two hikes were priced in for the following twelve months, with an 80% chance of a third hike (Chart 3, middle panel); and the chances of getting the fed funds rate above 1.5% by November 2024 were judged to be slim (Chart 3, bottom panel). How can it be that a hawkish shift in Fed rhetoric would coincide with a decline in fed funds rate expectations? The bulk of the decline resulted from the emergence of the Omicron variant and the toll it might take on economic activity. If Omicron fears prove to be overstated, fed funds rate expectations likely will as well, but as we showed last week, market terminal rate expectations were in line with the FOMC’s guidance – they just foresaw a sooner liftoff date. Powell’s comments and the increased tapering pace suggest that the Fed’s expectations are moving closer to market expectations. The other aspect is the fact that markets were on board with the transitory inflation narrative. Sharply downward sloping inflation expectations curves indicated that fixed income markets agreed that high near-term inflation would not leave a lasting mark on longer-run inflation. Since Thanksgiving, the curves derived from TIPS (Chart 4) and CPI swap prices (Chart 5) have put a new spin on Operation Twist, with the front end shifting in while the back end has stood pat. Omicron aside, if retiring the transitory term means the Fed will be more vigilant about upward inflation pressures, it increases the probability they will turn out to be transitory, as the Fed will give them less of a chance to take root. Chart 4 Chart 5 Investment Implications In our view, adaptive expectations will keep long-end interest rates on a fairly tight leash over the next year. It seems that investors are unable to shake what they perceive to be the central lesson of the post-crisis era: rates will be permanently lower. That view rests on a conviction that inflation is kaput and the widely shared sense that the Fed can’t hike rates beyond 2% because it would be: a) too disruptive for a fundamentally fragile economy, b) too disruptive for financial markets weaned on ZIRP, and/or c) too disruptive for a prodigally indebted federal government. We don’t think those views will hold up over the next few years – encouraging inflation would seem to be the easiest way to wriggle out from c) – but we do not advise challenging them head-on in the near term. We also push back – rhetorically for now – on the view that long maturity Treasury yields are low, and the yield curve has flattened, because the Fed is on track to make a policy mistake by unnecessarily tightening into a recession. Monetary policy affects the economy with long and variable lags – our rule of thumb is somewhere from six to twelve months – and if the neutral fed funds rate is north of 2% (an admittedly out-of-fashion view), it appears as if it will take at least two years to get there. Under our rule-of-thumb lag, then, the economy will be subject to a tailwind from monetary accommodation at least until the middle or end of 2024. Given the additional consumption support from households' remaining $2.2 trillion of pandemic excess savings, we are confident that a recession is not on the horizon. We are therefore staying the course, overweighting equities and high yield while underweighting Treasuries, and remaining vigilant for threats to our base-case macro backdrop of strong growth and easy monetary policy.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      “Full employment” is a somewhat ambiguous concept that turns on estimates of the natural slack that results from structural frictions in the labor market, like geographic and skills mismatches.