Disasters/Disease

Highlights The big issue is not whether the omicron variant of SARS-Cov-2 is a ‘super-variant’. The big issue is that, eventually, a new variant will be a super-variant. This is because the billions of unvaccinated people in the developing world will prove to be fertile ground for new variants. It is no coincidence that three of the most dangerous variants have emerged from Africa (beta and omicron) and India (delta). Tactically overweight healthcare versus energy. Overweight tech, communication services, and interactive entertainment. The 30-year T-bond is a ‘must own’ investment in all long-term portfolios. Fractal analysis: The US dollar, and semiconductors. Feature Chart of the WeekCovid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wave'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Covid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wave'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Covid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wave'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Perhaps the most telling sign of the ongoing pandemic is the use of the Greek alphabet to designate new variants of the virus. The point being that the Greek alphabet doesn’t end at delta. Or, for that matter, at omicron. Both the flu and the SARS-CoV-2 viruses are ‘RNA viruses’ that suffer poor proof-reading ability during replication. This means that they mutate like crazy. And as they mutate like crazy, new variants arrive like clockwork. As the American Society of Microbiology explains:1 “The influenza virus is constantly evolving and experiencing varying levels of antigenic drift (and shift) that can make it less recognizable to our immune systems. This has made the development of a universally effective flu vaccine particularly challenging and explains the constant underlying threat that new zoonotic influenza strains might emerge and become pandemic. Likewise, the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 undergo adaptive evolution that is consistent with selection for antibody escape (Figure 1). It is therefore not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 continues to mutate. The emergence of new variants with increased transmissibility and/or pathogenesis suggest that the novel coronavirus is undergoing selective evolution at the population level” Chart I- Describing this selective evolution in Viral Variants Strike Down The Reflation Trade, we warned on June 17 that: “After the delta variant will come the epsilon variant, the zeta variant, the eta variant… and so on until we run out of Greek alphabet… (Hence) managing infections will also require non-pharmaceutical interventions, dialled up and down based on the severity of future waves of infection” And just as we predicted in June, along came Omicron (though we did get the letter wrong) plus renewed non-pharmaceutical interventions. In fact, all the SARS-CoV-2 variants have arrived like clockwork. With such a predictability, that the virus reproduction rate and the number of new global cases of infection forms a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’ (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the big issue is not whether the omicron variant is a ‘super variant’. The big issue is that, eventually, a new variant will be a ‘super-variant’.   Chart I-2Covid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wav'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Covid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wav'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Covid Infections Form A Near-Perfect 'Sine Wav'... Which Will Propagate Into 2022 Every Time The Virus Mutates, It Rolls The Dice On Becoming A ‘Super Variant’ The overall danger of a virus comes from the combination of three of its properties: Its contagiousness Its immuno-evasion (the ability to escape vaccinations and natural immunity) Its pathogenicity (the severity of the disease it causes) Every time the virus mutates, it is rolling the dice on these three properties. Figuratively speaking, if it rolls three ‘ones’, then that mutation will not thrive. But if it rolls three ‘sixes’, then that mutation will be a ‘super-variant’. What if it rolls high on contagiousness and immuno-evasion, but low on pathogenicity – wouldn’t such a dominant variant that causes only a mild disease be the perfect outcome? Yes, but only for a while. Because, as the benign variant circulated, it would just get more chances to roll the dice again to displace that benign variant with an even more contagious and immuno-evasive version which is more pathogenic. But wouldn’t a more pathogenic virus be bad for the virus itself, given that killing the host means killing itself? No, because what is considered highly pathogenic for us is not highly pathogenic for the virus. For example, while a 1 percent mortality rate would be unacceptable to most societies, it would be inconsequential for the virus. Moreover, highly pathogenic could also mean low mortality with high morbidity (severe sickness) which would be perfect for the virus but disastrous for our healthcare systems (Chart I-3). Chart I-3High Morbidity Is Disastrous For Healthcare Systems High Morbidity Is Disastrous For Healthcare Systems High Morbidity Is Disastrous For Healthcare Systems Can We Stop The Virus Rolling The Dice? To reduce the chance of a super-variant of SARS-CoV-2, we must stop the virus rolling the dice. Meaning we must stop it circulating. However, just as with the flu virus, immuno-evasion means that vaccinations need regular refreshing. The question is: what proportion of the world’s population will be (up-to-date) vaccinated? The answer is, not nearly enough. In the US, the proportion of the population that is not fully vaccinated has levelled off at an alarmingly high 42 percent. But the bigger concern is populous developing economies, where the number of unvaccinated will remain in the billions (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Number Of Unvaccinated Will Remain In The Billions The Number Of Unvaccinated Will Remain In The Billions The Number Of Unvaccinated Will Remain In The Billions Admittedly, many of the unvaccinated have been infected with a variant of the virus so have some natural immunity. But to repeat, the immuno-evasion of new variants means that the protection from natural immunity will fade. Hence, developing economies will prove to be fertile ground for new variants. It is no coincidence that three of the most dangerous variants have emerged from Africa (beta and omicron) and India (delta). What about anti-viral drugs? Unfortunately, those that target the mutated spike proteins – such as the antibody cocktails from Regeneron and Eli Lilly – will lose their efficacy. Essentially, the monoclonal antibodies in these anti-viral drugs bind to the virus surface to prevent it replicating. If this binding is compromised, then they will not work. We arrive at three investment conclusions, one tactical and two for longer-term investors: 1. The tactical conclusion is that the performance of healthcare versus energy closely tracks the sine wave of new global infections. As this sine wave is in the middle of an upcycle, healthcare should continue to outperform energy for at least the remainder of this year (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Healthcare Versus Energy Tracks The Sine Wave Of Covid Infections Healthcare Versus Energy Tracks The Sine Wave Of Covid Infections Healthcare Versus Energy Tracks The Sine Wave Of Covid Infections 2. As the sine wave of new infections continues uninterrupted into 2022, our ‘more remote’ way of working, shopping, and living our lives will become established as the ‘new normal’. This will benefit the large technology and communication services companies that are facilitating this new normal – as well as the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this coming out soon). 3 .Although the emergence of a super-variant of the virus is not a base case for 2022, it is a source of a not insignificant tail-risk. Bear in mind that the probability of a shock (from any source) in any one year is a greatly underestimated 28 percent.2 As such, the 30-year T-bond is a ‘must own’ investment in all long-term portfolios. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals: The Dollar And Semiconductors In this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the US dollar’s recent rally is approaching fragility on its 130-day fractal structure, though has not quite reached the point of maximum fragility that signalled the last three turning points in 2018, 2020 and early-2021 (Chart I-6). Stay tuned. Chart I-6The US Dollar Is Approaching A Potential Countertrend Reversal The US Dollar Is Approaching A Potential Countertrend Reversal The US Dollar Is Approaching A Potential Countertrend Reversal Elsewhere, the spectacular recent rally in semiconductor stocks versus the broader technology sector is now fragile on both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures (Chart I-7). Accordingly, a good trade would be to short global semis versus biotech, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 9.5 percent. Chart I-7Short Global Semis Versus Biotech Short Global Semis Versus Biotech Short Global Semis Versus Biotech   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 American Society for Microbiology: COVID-19 and the Flu, October 7, 2021 COVID-19 and the Flu (asm.org) 2 We define a shock as any event that moves a major-economy 30-year bond price by 20 percent or more, and we derive this probability from the temporal distribution of shocks through the past 50 years. 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 ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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  

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversations, which we held remotely for a second year in a row due to the COVID-19 pandemic.   Mr. X: It is typically the case that I look forward to our end of year conversations, as they always help clarify the investment landscape for my daughter and I. This year, the feeling of excitement has unusually given way to a sense of foreboding. As far as the pandemic is concerned, clearly this year was a better one than last year, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made around the world at protecting people from COVID-19 – although I do have some questions about the recent discovery of the Omicron variant. Risky assets have generally performed well year-to-date, and our portfolio has benefitted from that. But the longer-term investment outlook has certainly deteriorated: equity market multiples remain extremely elevated, government debt loads are still extraordinarily high, and now we have finally seen a surge in inflation – which, as you know, I have been concerned about for several years. I feel strongly that investors are unprepared for the eventual policy consequences of what has happened this year. Financial markets have been underpinned by easy money for too long, and if interest rates have to rise on a structural basis to control inflation, the financial market consequences will be severe – let alone the potential political and social consequences! I have steeled myself for a depressing conversation. Ms. X: As you may have sensed during our discussions over the past few years, I tend to have a more optimistic outlook than my father does. At a minimum, I believe that there are always investment opportunities that one can pursue, regardless of whether the macro regime is bullish or bearish for economic activity and risky asset prices. But I do have to say that the extent of the rise in consumer prices this year has unnerved me and made me marginally more inclined to agree with my father’s pessimistic long-term outlook. It is very unsettling to see headline inflation in the US at its highest level in three decades, and I very much hope that you will be able to provide some perspective about whether elevated inflation is here to stay. But before we get into our discussion of the outlook, perhaps we can briefly review your predictions from last year? BCA: Certainly. A year ago, our key conclusions were the following: In 2021, stocks will outperform bonds thanks to the global economic recovery, the lack of immediate inflationary pressures and the prospects of a resolution to the pandemic. Imbalances in the global economy are growing, and the explosion in debt loads witnessed this year will carry significant future costs. Rising inflation is the most likely long-term consequence because of rising populism and the meaningful chance of financial repression. This change in inflation dynamics will generate poor long-term returns for a 60/40 portfolio, especially because asset valuations are so expensive. Compared to the past two years, geopolitical uncertainty will recede in 2021, but will remain elevated by historical standards. China and the US are interlocked in a structural rivalry, which means that flashpoints, such as Taiwanese independence, will remain a source of tensions. Europe will enjoy geopolitical tailwinds next year. For now, no central bank or government wants to remove economic support too quickly. Monetary policy will remain very stimulative as long as inflation is low, which means no tightening until late 2022, at the earliest. Fiscal deficits will narrow, but more slowly than private savings will decline. The US will grow faster than potential thanks to this policy backdrop. Moreover, household finances are robust and industrial firms are taking advantage of low interest rates as well as surprisingly resilient goods demand to increase their capex plans. Outside of the US, China’s stimulus and an inventory restocking will fuel a continued upswing in the global industrial cycle that will push 2021 GDP growth well above trend. However, at the beginning of the year, we will likely feel the remnants of the lockdowns currently engulfing Western economies. Bond yields can rise next year, but not by much. Ebbing deflationary pressures and the global industrial cycle upswing will lift T-Note and T-Bond yields. However, the extremely low probability of monetary tightening in 2021 and 2022 will create a ceiling for yields. We favor peripheral European bonds at the expense of German Bunds and US Treasuries. Corporate spreads should stay contained thanks to a very easy policy backdrop and the positive impact on cash flows and defaults of the ongoing recovery. We also like municipal bonds but worry about pre-payment risks for MBS. Global stocks should enjoy a robust advance in 2021, even if the market’s gains will be smaller and more volatile than from March 2020 to today. Easy monetary conditions will buttress valuations while recovering economic activity will support earning expectations. Within equities, we favor cyclical versus defensive names and value stocks relative to growth stocks. As a corollary, we prefer small cap to large cap and foreign DM-equities to US equities. We are neutral on EM equities due to their large tech sector weighting. The dollar bear market is set to continue, and high-beta European currencies will benefit most. The yen remains an attractive portfolio hedge. Oil and gold have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand. Gold will strengthen as global central banks will maintain extremely accommodative conditions and global fiscal authorities will remain generous. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 1.0% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.1% a year between 1990 and 2020. Most of our investment recommendations panned out quite well this year (Table 1). Global stocks significantly outperformed long-maturity government bonds, advanced economies grew meaningfully above trend, monetary policy remained extremely easy, long-maturity bond yields rose moderately, and our call to favor cyclical sectors was a profitable one. Our bullish oil call worked out especially well, with Brent prices having risen roughly 60% from the beginning of the calendar year until the discovery of the Omicron variant. It remains 43% above its late-2020 level. Table 12021 Asset Market Returns OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? A few calls did not perform in line with our expectations, however. We favored value versus growth stocks this year, and this call did work out in the first half of 2021. However, growth rallied in the back half of the year, in response to a renewed decline in long-maturity bond yields that was catalyzed by the emergence of the Delta variant. We would note that financials did outperform broadly-defined technology stocks this year (the two main representative sectors of the value and growth styles, respectively), underscoring that other factors impacted the overall value versus growth call. DM ex-US stocks underperformed this year, contrary to our expectations. When considering the euro area as a proxy for DM ex-US and when examining combined sector effects (both sector weight and performance) in local currency terms, almost all of the underperformance this year occurred due to the euro area’s comparatively low weight in the information technology and communication services sectors, underscoring that there has been a value vs. growth dimension to European equity underperformance. But when measured in common currency terms, the underperformance of DM ex-US stocks has mostly occurred due to the rise in the US dollar. The dollar was flat to down for the first half of the year, in line with our prediction, but rallied in the back half – especially over the past month, as new COVID cases surged in several European countries. Within the commodity space, our oil call worked out extremely well but gold fared poorly. This underscores that gold is far more sensitive to real interest rate dynamics than it is to the US dollar trend, which likely has bearish long-term implications for the yellow metal. We can address that later when we discuss the commodity outlook. Finally, we argued last year that we were experiencing a secular inflection point in inflation, but we did not anticipate the magnitude of the rise in consumer prices this year. As we will discuss in a moment, that reflects major pandemic-induced supply-side effects affecting consumer prices, which we believe will wane next year on average. That does not, however, mean that demand-side factors are irrelevant, and we do believe that core inflation will come in higher than the Fed currently expects in 2022. Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Ms. X: You mentioned the pandemic in your comments about supply-side inflation, and I feel that it would be a good idea to get your thoughts about COVID-19 up front. As my father noted, there has been enormous progress made this year towards ending the pandemic, but it is not yet over – as evidenced both by Europe’s recent 5th wave, as well as this highly concerning Omicron variant. I understand that you are not medical professionals, but what is your base case view of what is likely to happen next year? BCA: When we discussed last year’s outlook, it was certainly our hope that we would have declared a decisive victory in the war against COVID-19 by this point. That has not occurred, due to three major factors. Chart 1Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating The first was the emergence of the Delta variant of COVID-19 in the middle of the year. Delta’s transmission and serious illness rate is higher than the original SARS-COV-2 virus and its Alpha variant, which rendered the goal of true herd immunity unachievable. The Delta variant of SARS-COV-2 has accounted for all new confirmed cases of COVID-19 around the world (until very recently), meaning that the bar for ending the pandemic has risen this year. Vaccine hesitancy and a slow approval process for vaccinating children is the second factor that has prolonged the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. While vaccine penetration has generally been high in most countries, a combination of hesitancy and the inability to vaccinate children under the age of 12 has left 1/4th to 1/3rd of the population of advanced economies unprotected against COVID-19. That might have been enough to prevent rising transmission of the original SARS-COV-2 virus, but it has proven to be too low to durably stop the ongoing spread of the Delta variant once disease control measures are relaxed or eliminated (Chart 1). In fact, as you noted, Chart 1 highlights that a 5th wave of the pandemic is in the process of occurring, especially within Europe. The vaccination of children has already begun in the United States and a few other countries, and many countries will likely follow suit in the weeks and months ahead. However, vaccination rates are likely to be lower among children given the considerably lower risk of severe illness, and it is clear that vaccine hesitancy among adults is sticky. The extent of vaccine hesitancy is most visible in the United States, where it has taken on a political dimension. Chart 2 highlights that US state vaccination rates are strongly predicted by the 2020 US Presidential election results, with states that voted for Donald Trump having on average a 12% lower vaccination rate than those that voted for Joe Biden. Chart 2 The third factor that has prolonged the pandemic, which seems to be linked to the emergence of the Omicron variant, is the fact that poorer parts of the world have not been able to make as much progress in vaccinating their populations, at least in part due to vaccine nationalism. We do not pass judgement on the governments of richer economies for prioritizing their own citizens, and indeed it would be hypocritical for us to do so as most of us at BCA have personally benefitted from that. But the consequence of those decisions is that some parts of the world, especially in Africa, have been left as de-facto breeding grounds for new variants. While the Omicron variant only came to light in the days leading up to the publication of this report, it does appear based on the available data that the variant emerged in Africa. Given all of this, we would be considerably more cautious in our outlook for the global economy next year if the progression of the pandemic were only dependent on the vaccination rate, especially now given the emergence of Omicron. However, two other factors will strongly influence the evolution of the pandemic and its impact on economic activity over the coming 12 months. First, in the US, states with a comparatively low vaccination rates likely have higher acquired immunity levels from previous infections, given that these states have recorded higher confirmed cases on a per capita basis. Chart 3The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs Second, and much more important, is the fact that anti-viral drug treatments with the ability to significantly reduce hospitalization and death have been discovered and are already under production. Molnupiravir, developed/produced by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization by 30%, and Merck is projecting that 10 million courses of treatment will be available by the end of December 2021, with at least 20 million courses to be produced next year. 1.7 million courses of treatments are set to be delivered to the US upon FDA approval, which compares with approximately 2 million COVID-related hospitalizations in the US over the past year. Chart 3 highlights that US ICU bed occupancy has already lessened, and the imminent deployment of effective drugs should lower ICU utilization even further over the winter months. Paxlovid, Pfizer’s oral anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, has been shown to be even more effective at reducing hospitalization, and news reports suggest the US government will order enough Paxlovid to treat 10 million Americans. Pfizer expects to produce roughly 50 million courses of treatment in 2022, and recently agreed to allow 95 developing countries to produce Paxlovid locally, suggesting that the impact of COVID-19 on the global medical system will be greatly reduced next year. This seems likely to be true even given the emergence of Omicron, as Paxlovid works by stopping the virus from replicating, by blocking an enzyme that does not appear to have mutated since the onset of the pandemic. Paxlovid does not target the spike protein, unlike monoclonal antibody treatments. Ms. X: The development of anti-viral treatments was seen as a very positive announcement because it had the strong potential to reduce or eliminate the impact of vaccine hesitancy on the medical system. But this new variant appears to be vaccine-resistant; doesn’t that mean that we might need far more of these drugs than we originally thought? BCA: Indeed. The fact that Omicron appears to be even more contagious than Delta and at least partially vaccine-resistant is legitimately concerning, because it could mean that many more courses of treatment of Molnupiravir and Paxlovid will be needed than will be available in the coming weeks and months to prevent a sharp rise in hospitalizations and deaths. At the same time, public comments by South African doctor Angelique Coetzee, who chairs the South African Medical Association and treated several patients suspected of having been infected with the Omicron variant, suggest that it may produce milder symptoms – which would be associated with a lower hospitalization rate.1 If Omicron outcompetes the Delta variant of the virus, but produces less severe disease, that could ironically prove to be a positive development. The fact that Omicron could render monoclonal antibody treatments useless could further reduce vaccine hesitancy in advanced economies and encourage the vaccination of children. That would further reduce the total incidence of severe illnesses even if Omicron is partially vaccine-resistant, and thus would be positive from the perspective of reducing the burden on the health care system. Still, South Africa’s population is considerably younger than those of advanced economies, and we will not know for some time whether a reduction in severe illness, if that proves to be true, applies also to those who are older. If Omicron threatens a significant hospitalization or fatality rate among the elderly who have been fully vaccinated, Omicron-specific booster shots for that age cohort will likely be required – which could take 3-4 months to become available. If that proves to be the path forward, the widespread reintroduction of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) – the policymaker codeword for travel bans, school closures, and lockdowns – is certainly a possible outcome in the first quarter. Omicron will have at least some impact on global travel over the coming month, as countries around the world decide to err on the side of caution and impose travel restrictions while more information is gathered about this new variant. To conclude on this question, as you noted, we are not medical experts. And frankly even if we were, we would not be able to project exactly how the pandemic will unfold next year. Thus, there is more uncertainty concerning our 2022 outlook than would normally be the case. Prior to the emergence of Omicron, our base case view was that the pandemic would meaningfully recede in importance next year, which would lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. For the reasons that we have laid out, we have not yet seen enough information to change that view for 2022 as a whole, although the opposite will likely be true for the next few weeks at a minimum. We may have to have you both back for another discussion in the first half of next year to revisit our outlook, but for now it is not our expectation that we are back to square one on the pandemic front. Chart 4A 30-Year High In US Inflation A 30-Year High In US Inflation A 30-Year High In US Inflation Mr. X: Thank you for your insights. Although this is clearly a concerning development, I suppose that there is no use panicking yet, as we do not have the information that we need to make an informed judgement. Perhaps we can turn to the question of inflation, given that seems likely to be an important economic and policy factor next year regardless of whether Omicron extends the duration of the pandemic. As both my daughter and I highlighted, this year’s rise in consumer prices was extreme, at least by the standard of the past three decades. As you know, I have my own views about why this has occurred, and I suspect that you do not fully agree with me. But for the sake of our discussion, please outline your views about what has occurred this year, and what that implies for policy and financial markets. BCA: As you noted, in both the US and euro area economies, headline consumer price inflation rose this year to their highest levels since the early-1990s (Chart 4). The rise in core inflation has been less extreme in the euro area, but it is also back to early-1990s levels in the US (panel 2). It is understandable that investors are worried about inflation remaining very elevated, and we agree that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast next year. However, our base case view is that investors are currently overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and that actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. As such, we do not expect that inflation next year will lead to a major shift in the monetary policy outlook, and we would continue to recommend that global investors stay overweight stocks versus bonds in 2022. Mr. X: I am surprised that you have a sanguine inflation outlook given how sharply consumer prices have risen this year. It sounds like you are blindly accepting the “transitory” narrative that central banks themselves are now questioning! This year’s surge in consumer prices has several causes, and a review of these factors is necessary to predict how future prices are likely to evolve. Fundamentally, any change in price can be traced to changes in supply and demand, and both of those effects worked in the direction of higher consumer prices this year. Chart 5 outlines the clear evidence of demand-side effects. The US fiscal response to the pandemic was more forceful than in the euro area, and US core consumer prices have correspondingly risen much more than in Europe. The chart highlights that US durable goods prices have been responsible for more of the surge in prices this year than has been the case for services, reflecting strong goods demand from US consumers. Chart 6 highlights that US real goods spending is 9.8% above its pre-pandemic trend, whereas it is 4.5% below for services. Extremely strong goods demand partially reflects the impact of fiscal and monetary stimulus, but also a shift in spending from services to goods owing to the nature of the pandemic and the type of activity that it has restricted. We expect that another shift in spending mix will occur next year in the opposite direction, barring a major extension of the pandemic from Omicron. Chart 5A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects Chart 6US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend You referenced the “transitory” debate in your question, and the answer to whether above-target inflation is likely to be transitory is both yes and no. Many of the supply-side effects that are driving prices are transitory, in the sense that they will not last beyond the pandemic. That view should not be controversial. But, some of the demand-side effects lifting prices are not. Chart 7A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices In the US, supply effects are seen by observing services prices. Services prices in the US have risen despite a collapse in demand, pointing to supply-side effects as the dominant driver of higher prices. A significant decline in labor force participation has caused a shortage of workers, which is driving up wages for the first quartile of wage earners (the lowest paid) who often work in service-providing industries (Chart 7). Faced with higher labor costs alongside low operating margins and the expectation that demand will continue to recover, service providers have raised prices to stay afloat. The specific causes of the ongoing labor market shortage in the US are multifaceted, but most relate directly to the pandemic: There has been a surge in the number of retirees, mainly driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans (who are more vulnerable to COVID-19) shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”. Workers in some sectors of the economy that experienced a surge in demand during the pandemic (technology, health care, food products, transportation, and manufacturing) have experienced burnout and have quit their jobs. Some service-sector workers have complained of difficult working conditions during the pandemic (the need to wear masks, the policing of masks and vaccination passports, overwork due to short-staffed conditions, negative interactions with customers, etc.) and have instead chosen not to work until these conditions improve. Some parents have been unable or unwilling to reenter the labor force due to increased childcare requirements resulting from daycare/school/classroom closures. Chart 8Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Chart 8 highlights that legal immigration to the US collapsed during the pandemic following a restriction in worker visas last year, which has also likely exacerbated worker shortages in some industries. Illegal immigration has surged over the past year, but illegal workers do not necessarily immediately enter the labor market and are often employed in a narrow set of industries. Mr. X: But if these supply-side effects that you are pointing to are mostly on the services side, does that not imply that goods inflation will remain very elevated next year due to excessive demand? BCA: No. As we mentioned, some of this goods spending is being funded by income that would normally go towards services spending. We doubt that a services spending deficit will be sustained if the pandemic recedes next year, meaning that some spending will naturally be diverted away from goods. Chart 9Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs In addition, other supply-side factors are also impacting consumer prices for both goods and services, and on both sides of the Atlantic: Global shipping costs have surged, particularly for cargo containers traveling from China / East Asia to the west coast of the US. US demand for goods has certainly boosted shipping prices, but Chart 9 highlights that supply-side effects have also been present. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Semiconductor shortages have limited automotive production, thereby significantly boosting US vehicle prices. These shortages have occurred, in part, due to a global surge in semiconductor demand stemming from work-from-home policies, but also demand/supply coordination failures last year (auto producers initially cut chip orders on the expectation of collapsing car sales) and COVID-driven plant shutdowns in some Asian countries such as Malaysia. Energy prices have risen this year, partially due to supply-side / policy decisions. In the case of oil & gasoline prices, OPEC’s production decisions clearly reflect a desire to maintain oil prices at roughly $80/bbl, 30% above the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic. US shale producers have focused on repairing their balance sheets over the past year, and have not been able to take advantage of higher prices to boost output. Chart 10 highlights that US tight oil production remains roughly 10% below its pre-pandemic peak. In Europe, the impact of higher energy prices has occurred mainly though a spike in the price of natural gas, mostly due to weather, carbon pricing, Russian supply issues, and a surge in China’s natural gas demand. Chinese natural gas demand has surged in response to very strong manufacturing activity / export demand, but also previous decisions by Beijing to shift towards cleaner energy sources and the limitation of coal imports from certain countries (which has contributed to a collapse in Chinese coal inventories). So while it is clear that there is a strong underlying demand component that has boosted goods prices, supply-side factors have magnified the acceleration in consumer prices this year. Most of these supply-side factors (except for oil) have been directly linked to the pandemic, and thus are likely to wane in 2022 if the pandemic recedes (as we currently expect). In the case of oil, our view is that spot prices in 2022 are likely to average the price that prevailed prior to the Omicron-driven collapse in prices, meaning that the energy component that has been boosting headline price indexes this year will likely disappear next year even if recent travel bans are not long lasting and oil prices fully recover. Ms. X: Even if the pandemic does recede in importance and household spending shifts from goods to services next year, you acknowledged that goods spending is also being boosted by policy. This implies that goods spending will remain above trend next year, and that it will continue to boost consumer prices. Doesn’t that argue for elevated inflation? BCA: We agree that several factors point to above-trend goods spending next year, and this is the basis – in addition to lingering supply-side effects – for our view that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast for 2022 (2.2% headline and 2.3% core). However, Chart 11 shows a historically unprecedented “goods spending gap” relative to the overall output gap. It is unlikely that this has occurred only due to stimulative policy. Services spending collapsed during the pandemic, as Chart 6 highlights. So while goods spending will likely remain above its trend, supported by policy as well as a large stock of excess savings, it is likely to decline next year. Chart 10US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level Chart 11US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone   Lower goods demand in advanced economies will not only ease rising goods prices. It will also help ease Europe’s energy crisis, as it implies less competition for natural gas from China’s power companies which are struggling to supply the manufacturing sector. Chart 12Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Ms. X: One thing that has concerned me is how significantly inflation expectations have risen. Won’t persistent price increases become self-fulfilling if consumers and businesses come to expect inflation? BCA: This is a risk, and the dynamic that you are referring to is explicitly incorporated into modern-day interpretations of the Phillips Curve. However, if this were likely to occur, we should be able to observe a dangerous rise in both short- and long-dated inflation expectations on the part of investors, businesses, and households. Chart 12 highlights that long-term inflation expectations are not out of control. Short-term expectations for inflation have indeed exploded higher, but longer-term expectations remain under control. Inflationary pressure during the pandemic has normalized longer-term household expectations for inflation, which fell following the 2014/2015 collapse in oil prices. And long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have not even risen back to pre-2014 levels, underscoring that investors do not believe that current inflationary pressures are likely to persist. A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations next year would negatively alter our monetary policy and economic outlook, but it is clear that economic agents believe that current price pressure is directly linked to the pandemic. We agree, for the most part, and thus expect concerns about inflation to step down next year. Mr. X: Let’s turn to the question of extremely elevated government debt. We discussed this issue last year, and you noted that the explosion in public debt loads would carry significant future costs. Governments have been kicking the can down the road for a long time now, and I am interested in your perspective about the timing of the endgame. When do you think the day of reckoning will arrive? BCA: It is true that government debt-to-GDP ratios have risen substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been truer in the US and UK than in the euro area, which has seen a comparatively smaller rise in government net debt as a % of GDP since the early 2000s (Chart 13). In the US, the government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War. Chart 13 Chart 13 also highlights that the IMF is forecasting a reduction in government net debt as a share of GDP in the euro area over the coming 5 years, a modest rise in the UK, and larger rise in the US. Over a 30-year time horizon, the US government debt-to-GDP ratio is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years (Chart 14). Part of the CBO’s forecast of a catastrophic rise in government debt-to-GDP is due to projections of a persistent primary deficit that will grow over time. But it is also the case that the net interest component of the CBO’s projected deficit begins to rise significantly as a share of the total deficit at the start of the next decade. This rise in net interest payments occurs significantly because the CBO assumes that interest rates will eventually exceed the prevailing rate of economic growth due to crowding out effects (Chart 15). Chart 14The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... Chart 15...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions ...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions ...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions   We doubt that this will occur, at least not in the linear fashion the CBO is projecting. It is true that central banks only control the short-end of the yield curve (absent yield curve control policies), meaning that investors could force yields on long-maturity government bond yields to rise above the prevailing level of nominal growth. But in a world of scarce absolute returns, it is unlikely that investors will price long-maturity US government bonds with an elevated term premium until the US government’s debt service burden becomes extreme. Given that a significant portion of the US government’s debt is issued with a short maturity, that debt service burden is at least partially a function of the Fed’s decisions, not those of bond investors. Chart 16US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit An increase in real short-term interest rates over the coming several years might, ironically, be the best thing for US government debt sustainability over the long term, even though it would cause the US government’s debt service burden to rise. Ultimately, debt sustainability requires a balanced primary budget, and the structural US primary balance is heavily impacted by elevated medical costs and the fact that US government revenue as a share of GDP is considerably lower than in other countries (Chart 16). Given the political costs involved, primary balance reform in the US is unlikely to occur without some form of budgetary pressure from rising interest costs, and the longer the US government’s debt service burden remains low the longer that this reform is delayed. You asked about the timing of the endgame, and a potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a share of GDP exceeds the prior high reached in the early-1990s, which could occur as soon as 5 years from now were the Fed to raise interest rates towards the pace of nominal GDP growth.2Without such an increase, the US government’s debt burden will likely remain serviceable for decades, even without primary balance reform. Mr. X: I am happy that you referenced the Fed in your answer, because I wanted to address the question of central bank independence. Will elevated government debt prevent the Fed from raising rates if needed to control inflation? With the Fed projecting a very low Federal funds rate in the future, it seems like today’s central bankers may be incapable of acting as Volker did, should they need to do so. BCA: It is true that the Fed is projecting a very low average long-term Fed funds rate, but this projection is not due to political pressure or concerns about the US government’s future debt service burden. It reflects the Fed’s belief that the neutral rate of interest has fallen, based on the economic experience of the past decade, as well as the belief that an asymmetry exists in the economic costs of errors associated with estimating the neutral rate. On the latter point, the Fed believes that the cost of overestimating the neutral rate is likely to be higher than the cost of underestimating it, given the inability to cut interest rates meaningfully below zero. During our discussion last year, we noted that rising populism will make it very difficult for fiscal authorities to take preemptive action to address the US’s primary deficit, and it is possible that public opposition to normalized interest rates could cause the Fed to maintain easier monetary policy than is otherwise warranted – especially if the public perceives a link between Fed tightening and painful fiscal reform. However, our base case view remains that the Fed would resist these pressures, and would act in a way that the central bank felt was the best course of action to pursue its mandate. We would underscore that the risk of an overshoot in inflation from too-easy monetary policy does not require the Fed’s independence to become compromised. The Fed could be wrong in its assessment of the neutral rate of interest, and also wrong in its assessment of the costs of that error. Leaving the latter issue aside for now, there are good arguments in favor of the view that the neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed currently believes. We can discuss those arguments in detail when we turn to the bond market outlook, but this does imply that inflation may be even more above the Fed’s target over the medium term than we believe will be the case next year. Ms. X: I have one last question related to inflation before we move on to your economic outlook. In terms of the usage of technology, the pandemic caused major behavioral changes to occur very quickly. Is it possible that we are on the cusp of a productivity boom, similar to what occurred during the 1990s, that will act to restrain inflation over the coming few years? BCA: It is possible that the pandemic has catalyzed some changes that will end up boosting productivity, given that many consumers, workers, and businesses were forced to embrace innovation quickly over the past 18 months. Governments have also made historic investments in both hard and soft infrastructure, including high-speed internet and renewable energy. But, for now, there is little evidence to support the idea that a major, technologically-driven productivity boom is occurring. Chart 17 Chart 17 highlights that measured productivity has fallen outside of the US since the pandemic began, and the US surge is likely explained by three factors: labor market composition effects, the fact that US productivity normally rises during recessions, and the fact that US fiscal response was more forceful than elsewhere (boosting spending and output relative to the number of workers). The cyclical characteristics of US measured productivity were particularly evident in Q3, when output per hour of all employees fell by roughly 5% on an annualized basis. It is also the case that the pandemic has likely lowered potential output in some areas of the economy, particularly sectors related to office worker presence in central business districts. Even if employer plans for workers to return to the office prevail and office presence increases significantly in 2022, it is very likely that some work-from-home activity will permanently stick and that this will structurally increase the US unemployment rate.3 For now, our sense is that this increase will be modest, but the key point is that the rapid adoption of new technology and ways of working during the pandemic have not occurred without cost, and it is far from clear that this will be productivity-enhancing on a net basis. The ongoing, typical pace of technological development may help ease inflationary pressures over the longer-term, but investors should not yet conclude that the pandemic has accelerated this process. The Economic Outlook Chart 18On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year Ms. X: Thank you. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced, but I take your point that the productivity issue needs to be examined on a net basis. Let’s turn now to the outlook for growth next year. Starting first with developed markets, what do you expect in terms of the pace of economic growth, and how does that expectation differ from consensus market expectations? BCA: While we are less concerned about short-term inflation than most investors, we generally agree with consensus expectations for growth next year. Chart 18 shows that both official and private forecasts for real GDP growth in the US and euro area are well above trend, and that the US and euro area output gaps are likely to turn positive next year. In Q4 2021 and Q1 2022, it is possible that the Omicron variant will negatively impact economic growth. But assuming that the pandemic does recede in importance for the year as a whole, the basis for expecting above-trend growth in advanced economies next year is straightforward: we expect that monetary policy will remain extremely accommodative in the US and euro area, and will likely remain so even if the Fed begins to raise interest rates. In addition, the collapse in spending that occurred last year, arrayed against stable-to-higher income, has caused households to accumulate a massive amount of savings that will support consumption. Chart 19Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Chart 19 highlights that this has occurred in both the US and the euro area. In the euro area, income was relatively stable, and spending has yet to fully recover – supporting the view that a catch-up in European consumption will boost euro area growth to above-trend levels. In the US, personal income rose during the pandemic, because the US government issued stimulus checks to Americans who did not lose their job. Some of these excess savings have been spent or used to pay down debt, but a sizeable portion remains to support spending. Chart 20 highlights that US household net worth has exploded higher over the past 7 quarters, by a magnitude that far exceeds any other instance since the Second World War. It is true that fiscal policy will subtract from growth in both the US and euro area next year, although it remains an open question how much drag will occur in the US. Chart 21 presents the Hutchins Center Fiscal Impact Measure from the Brookings Institution, which suggests that US fiscal drag will be significant in 2022. This measure does not include the recent infrastructure bill, or the Build Back Better plan. However, Chart 22 presents the IMF’s projections for the US and euro area cyclically-adjusted budget balance, which suggest meaningfully less drag next year for the US. Chart 20US Household Net Worth Has Surged US Household Net Worth Has Surged US Household Net Worth Has Surged Chart 21 Chart 22 In the case of the euro area, Chart 22 highlights that the IMF is forecasting considerable fiscal drag next year, which seemingly contradicts optimistic expectations for euro area growth. There are two reasons to believe that euro area growth will be meaningfully above-trend in 2022, despite fiscal retrenchment. First, the IMF’s projected reduction in the euro area’s cyclically-adjusted primary deficit reflects the expiry of employment support programs such as the Kurzarbeit scheme in Germany, a social insurance program that incentivizes employers to reduce employee hours rather than laying off workers. The expiry of these types of programs is politically tied to a continued recovery in domestic consumption and further gains in service-sector employment, meaning that some of the fiscal drag projected in Chart 22 is necessarily linked to a growth impulse from the private sector. Certainly, these programs will be renewed or extended if the Omicron variant significantly weakens near-term economic growth in the euro area. Second, while the positive contribution to euro area growth from goods exports will likely wane over the coming year as spending in advanced economies shifts from goods to services, European services exports will eventually improve. Chart 23 highlights that the recovery in foreign tourist visits to the euro area is in its very early innings, and a normalization of tourist travel will eventually act as a significant contributor to income and employment growth in the region. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, Europe was the third most impacted region globally from the decline in travel, after the Caribbean and Asia Pacific.4 It is clear that tourist travel will not pick up as long as Omicron-related travel bans are in effect, but Europe’s peak tourist season typically runs from June to August, which is beyond the range of time supposedly needed by vaccine manufacturers to produce Omicron-specific booster shots (should they be required). Chart 23European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind Mr. X: I would like to challenge you on your growth view. First, the economy was already slowing, and now there is a risk that the Omicron variant might slow at least some economic activity even further in the near term. You have stated that there will be some degree of fiscal drag next year, and that savings might be deployed to support spending – but might not. Should I not be concerned that growth might fall back to trend or even below it? BCA: The pandemic was economically unprecedented, and investors should thus be careful about what growth rates are used to characterize the pace of ongoing economic activity. For example, Chart 24 highlights that euro area real GDP growth is slowing on a year-over-year basis, but it accelerated fractionally on a sequential basis in Q3 and grew substantially above-trend. It should not be surprising that advanced economies are no longer reporting double-digit growth rates given the ongoing recovery from extremely depressed rates of economic activity last year. The question is whether growth will slow dramatically further, and whether at or below trend growth is likely on average next year. Prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant, investors had little reason to be concerned about significantly below trend growth in 2022. Forward-looking economic indicators were not pointing to this outcome; Chart 25 shows our global Nowcast indicator, a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production, alongside our global leading economic indicator. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global leading economic indicator (LEI) are indeed declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. It is therefore correct to say that the global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart 25 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not to a major cyclical downturn. Chart 24Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Chart 25Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth   The US economy did experience a very significant sequential slowdown in Q3, with activity having increased at only a trend rate. Chart 26 makes it clear that this occurred due to the impact of the semiconductor shortage on automotive production and the impact that the Delta wave of COVID-19 had on services spending. Real-time estimates for US growth in the fourth quarter are (for now) quite strong, and growth estimates for next year already likely incorporate the expectation of supply-side limitations. In fact, those expectations could surprise to the upside next year if these limitations ease more quickly than many investors currently expect, and if the Omicron variant turns out to be economically insignificant. If, however, the new variant does end up causing the return of lockdowns and other large-scale “NPIs” – especially in emerging market countries – the risk of further bottlenecks or an extension of existing supply-side problems will certainly rise. Chart 26 Chart 27 Ms. X: Could you provide us some scenarios that combine your growth and inflation views, as well as the odds that you would assign to them? BCA: Certainly. Chart 27 presents our odds of three scenarios for global growth and inflation next year. We assign a 60% chance to above-trend growth and above-target inflation, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, a 10% chance of a recession. We describe the second scenario as “stagflation-lite” because true stagflation, as experienced in the late-1970s, involved a very elevated unemployment rate. Using the US Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator for advanced economies (Chart 28), investors should note that true stagflation is not likely unless the unemployment rate rises. Despite the ongoing impact of component and labor shortages, there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. For now, the impact of outright component shortages appears to be limited to the auto sector. Chart 28It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises Even if goods-producing employment slows anew over the coming few months due to supply constraints, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes. This underscores the importance of services spending in advanced economies as a core driver of global economic activity over the coming year, given the ongoing weakness in several segments on China’s economy. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been closely watching China’s economy this year, and we have been getting increasingly concerned by the extent of the slowdown in activity there. Do you anticipate a pickup in Chinese growth in 2022? BCA: Yes, but a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. There are three reasons for this. First, economic output in China will continue to be restrained over the coming months by the country’s ongoing energy crisis, which caused a sharp slowdown in electricity production in August (Chart 29). Production rebounded somewhat in September and October, but remained fairly weak. China’s energy crisis has occurred due to a combination of very strong electricity demand from the country’s manufacturing sector, as well as a significant reduction in coal emphasis, including coal imports from key producers that otherwise would have helped close the supply-demand gap (Chart 30). China’s coal stocks remain extremely low, underscoring that Chinese policymakers would not be capable of pushing through traditionally energy-intensive stimulus even if they were inclined to do so. Chart 29China's Energy Crisis Will Linger China's Energy Crisis Will Linger China's Energy Crisis Will Linger Second, strong external demand is supporting Chinese manufacturing employment (Chart 31), so Chinese policymakers feel less of a sense of urgency to boost economic growth despite a significant slowdown in China’s credit impulse and the ongoing slowdown in real-estate activity. Social stability will always remain the paramount objective of Chinese policymakers, and we fully expect a policy response if economic growth slows to the point that it impacts employment. Chart 30China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply Chart 31Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment But because of the extreme rise in private-sector debt that has accumulated in China over the past decade, Chinese policymakers now perceive a tradeoff between economic growth and additional leveraging. This implies that the timing and magnitude of reflationary efforts from China’s policymakers are likely to be carefully calibrated to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth, in line with what occurred in 2018 and 2019. In fact, while many investors regard China’s policy response during that time as having been too timid, within China many commentators have lauded it as an example of finely balanced decision-making. Third, China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will likely remain in effect at least until the Beijing Olympics in February, and potentially until the 20th National Party Congress in October. The potential risk from the Omicron variant will only reinforce the resolve of Chinese policymakers on this issue, which implies that Chinese consumption and services activity could follow a stop-and-go pattern over the coming 6 months. Chinese policymakers are likely aware that a zero-tolerance policy towards COVID is ultimately unsustainable, but we expect policymakers to react aggressively towards outbreaks next year in advance of these two major events. Ms. X: It sounds like Chinese policymakers do not want to stimulate at all. Why is a reacceleration in activity even likely? BCA: We expect further easing from Chinese policymakers next year because the strong demand for Chinese goods that is currently supporting employment is likely to slowly wane over the coming several months. Chinese export volume has been very closely tied to US real goods consumption over the past year (Chart 32), which, as we noted earlier, is 9.8% above the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. A likely decline in US goods spending from current levels, even if it remains above trend, suggests that Chinese manufacturing employment will not be as strong on average next year as is currently the case. Chart 33 highlights the extent of the weakness in China’s credit impulse and its real estate sector, underscoring that China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by manufacturing. Chart 32China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked Chart 33China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand     In addition, for political reasons, policymakers in China are very likely to want stable-to-improving economic conditions in the lead up to the National Party Congress in October. Given the lags between the implementation of stimulus and its effect on the economy, this points to further easing and/or outright stimulus in Q1 or Q2, and a reacceleration in economic activity in the latter half of the year. Chart 34Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Ms. X: Let’s turn now to monetary policy. You mentioned that monetary policy will remain very easy next year, but investors have moved to price between one and two interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve in 2022. Do you agree with the market’s assessment? BCA: Our base case view is that investors are now overly hawkish and that an initial rate hike will most likely occur only in September or December 2022 – despite a seemingly hawkish pivot from the Fed. It is important to note that investors have moved up their expectations for rate hikes next year entirely in response to elevated inflation. Chart 34 highlights that the sharp increase in the US 2-year Treasury yield over the past few months has occurred alongside a decline in the real 2-year yield, underscoring that investors believe that inflation will force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects. We expect the pressure on prices to wane next year rather than intensify, meaning that rate-hike bets have likely been driven by the wrong factor. A dangerous rise in long-dated inflation expectations would change our view and validate market pricing. But, as we noted above, this has not yet occurred despite very elevated inflation this year and expectations of elevated inflation next year. This underscores that economic agents view the current pace of inflation as strongly linked to the pandemic, and thus see it as a temporary phenomenon. Table 2The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Table 2 presents the three factors that will determine when the Fed decides to lift rates, based on the Fed’s official forward guidance. The two inflation-related criteria are currently checked, but the remaining labor market criterion is not checked. The Fed has officially pledged not to lift rates until “maximum employment” is reached, although that pledge may change in December. Still, we expect that progress towards “maximum employment” will influence the timing of the first rate hike unless there are no signs of easing inflation over the next several months. Our sense is that an unemployment rate close to 3.8% and a working-age participation rate close to its pre-pandemic level will be required to check the third box shown in Table 2. Chart 35The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise Importantly, it is not clear that these factors will be in place before September next year. Chart 35 highlights that while the working-age participation rate has moved back closer to its pre-pandemic level, it still has further to go. If the rate increases at the pace that occurred in the first half of this year, it would not return to its pre-pandemic level until August/September at the earliest, which would certainly narrow the window for two rate hikes next year. The bar for the Fed’s unemployment rate criterion is also high enough that betting on two rate hikes next year appears excessive. Table 3 presents the average monthly jobs growth needed to reach an unemployment rate of 3.8% at different points over the next year. This highlights that a meaningful and sustained acceleration in jobs growth is required for the Fed to raise interest rates in July. Table 3Calculating The Time To Maximum Employment OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Mr. X: But these projections are based on the overall participation rate, and we have seen a surge in retirements during the pandemic. Doesn’t that mean that the unemployment rate will fall faster than the Fed currently expects, and that investors are right to move up their rate hike expectations? BCA: We have seen a huge increase in the number of retirees, and you are correct that a more rapid reduction in the unemployment rate could occur if pandemic retirements turn out to be “sticky”. However, we would point to two facts that suggest at least a portion of the surge in retirements will reverse. Chart 36Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend First, the surge in retirement during the pandemic is more than what would be implied by underlying demographic trends. Chart 36 shows that while the share of the US population that is retired has been steadily rising, it is now significantly above its 2010-2019 trend. Second, a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force,5 a phenomenon that we would expect to reverse as the pandemic abates. If the Omicron variant turns out to be threatening to the health of the older population even if they have been vaccinated, then we would not expect retiree reentry into the labor force until variant-specific booster shots are available. Chart 37Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Uncertainty over the status of retired workers is why we believe the Fed will focus on the working-age participation rate in judging whether the labor market has returned to a state of maximum employment. If the unemployment rate falls more quickly than expected because of a retiree-effect on the overall participation rate, the Fed will then turn to the working-age participation rate to judge the extent of labor market slack. It is only if non-supply driven wage growth is excessive and/or long-dated inflation expectations move sharply higher that the Fed will move in line with current market pricing. Mr. X: What about the ECB? Do you expect any monetary policy tightening in the euro area in 2022? BCA: Chart 37 highlights that investors had previously been expecting the ECB to raise interest rates once next year, lagging the Fed by roughly one rate hike. These expectations have been dialed back recently in response to the COVID situation in Europe as well as the news about Omicron. Chart 38Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based We agree that the ECB will raise rates after the Fed does, but we do not think that a euro area rate hike will occur next year – even once the pandemic situation improves. As is the case for the Fed, investors had been expecting that the ECB will be forced to respond to very elevated inflation. But Chart 38 highlights that euro area core inflation is barely above 2%, and panel 2 makes it clear that the rise in core euro area prices is not broad-based. This underscores that much of the rise in euro area prices is driven by commodities and problems with the global supply chain, neither of which will be fixed by higher euro area interest rates. As such, we agreed with ECB President Christine Lagarde’s pushback against market expectations for a rate hike next year, barring a much faster labor market recovery in advanced economies than we currently expect. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: Thank you. Our monetary policy discussion serves as an excellent segue to the bond market outlook, and a question that I have been eager to pose to you. I find it astounding that long-maturity government bond yields remained so low this year given the longer-term inflationary risk, and given recent bets that central banks would be forced to move earlier than they had previously anticipated. Even if those bets unwind as a result of Omicron, I would like an explanation of what kept bond yields so low this year. In particular, I would like you to share your thoughts about what could cause bond yields to eventually react to the potential for higher inflation? Chart 39Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative BCA: The behavior of long-maturity government bonds this year reflects the view of both the Fed and market participants that the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy (Chart 39). According to the Federal Reserve’s Statement on Longer Run Goals And Monetary Policy Strategy, the FOMC “judges that the level of the federal funds rate consistent with maximum employment and price stability over the longer run has declined relative to its historical average.” Bond investors agree with the Fed’s view, bolstered by previously low academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest such as those presented by the Laubach-Williams model. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but it is far from clear that it remains 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. Academic estimates of R-star are misleading,6 and it is clear that US household balance sheets are now in a much better state than they were in the lead-up to the GFC. Debt to disposable income for US households has fallen back to 2001 levels (Chart 40), the ratio of total liabilities to net worth has fallen meaningfully for most income categories (panel 2), and the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s (Chart 41), underscoring the capacity of US consumers to withstand higher interest rates. It is true that the US corporate sector leveraged itself over the course of the last economic cycle, but at least some of this increase in debt has served to fund capital structure changes, rather than the accumulation of a large stock of “deadweight” excess capacity. Chart 40US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be Chart 41The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low     Investors should certainly be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for “R-star” are rising, but it is not probable that this will occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. This means that the bond market outlook over the coming year is dependent on the market’s assessment of the timing and pace of Fed rate hikes. Ms. X: You noted earlier that you disagree with the bond market’s outlook for US rate hikes next year. What are the fixed-income portfolio implications of that view? BCA: It is possible that the Fed may begin raising interest rates as early as next summer, but this is only likely to occur if jobs growth meaningfully accelerates, the surge in net retirements during the pandemic is durably sticky (beyond any potential impact from the Omicron variant), or long-dated inflation expectations become unanchored. It is not likely to occur simply because actual inflation, driven significantly by supply-side factors, is elevated. Chart 42A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year For short-maturity bonds, the investment implications of this view are more focused on the real versus inflation components of yields, rather than the existence of major mispricing of 2-year Treasury yields. US government bond yields have risen both at the short- and long-end due to rising inflation expectations, and real yields have fallen. We expect a more significant rise in real than nominal yields over the coming year. As such, investors should sell 2-year inflation protection, which is currently pricing too tepid of a deceleration in the pace of advance of consumer prices. For 10-year US Treasurys, we expect that yields will rise to between 2-2.25% over the coming year, as the Fed moves towards eventual rate hikes. Chart 42 presents FOMC-implied fair value estimates for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year Treasury yield, and underscores that bond yields are set to moderately rise next year. We are uncomfortable with the Fed’s projection of a permanently lower neutral rate of interest, but we see no evidence yet that surging inflation is changing the market’s assessment of the long-run average Fed funds rate. So for now, we recommend that fixed-income investors maintain a short-duration stance, but we do not expect a very severe rise in yields at the long-end of the curve next year. Ms. X: And what positioning would you recommend within a global fixed-income portfolio? BCA: The likely sequencing of central bank rate hikes over the coming 12-18 months suggests that global fixed-income investors should maintain an underweight stance towards US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand, and an overweight stance towards Japan, Europe, and Australia. Among our overweight recommendations, our view that the ECB will lag the Fed makes a clear case to be overweight euro area versus US bonds (both core and periphery), and Chart 43 highlights that rising US bond yields have been strongly correlated with the outperformance of euro area government bonds in US$ hedged terms over the past five years. For Japan, long-maturity JGB yields are likely to remain flat over the next year as they have been since 2016, underscoring that our allocation to JGBs is a strict function of our global duration call (with a short duration stance favoring Japan). In Australia, expectations for monetary policy have turned aggressively hawkish over the past month, with markets now discounting multiple rate hikes next year. While there is a growing case for the RBA to tighten, there are still enough lingering uncertainties about the trajectory for growth and inflation for the RBA to credibly remain on the sidelines next year. As such, we recommend that investors fade the aggressive 2022 rate hike profile discounted in Australian interest rate markets by staying overweight Australian government bonds in global bond portfolios. Among our underweight recommendations, the fact that the BOE is likely to be the next major developed economy central bank to raise interest rates supports a reduced allocation to UK government bonds. Relative to global government bonds, long-dated gilts have recovered somewhat from their earlier selloff in anticipation of a rate hike in early November, but we expect renewed underperformance in 2022. Unlike in the US, long-dated UK inflation expectations are meaningfully above their average of the past 15 years (Chart 44), which is motivating the BOE’s hawkishness. In Canada, the labor market has fully recovered the jobs lost during the pandemic, and the BOC has grown very concerned about the housing market and the potential for low interest rates to further inflate an already excessive amount of household sector debt. We expect a first rate hike from the BOC in the first half of 2022. Chart 43Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Chart 44UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained Finally, a rate hike cycle has already begun in New Zealand, which also has an important link to the housing market. The New Zealand government has altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs, suggesting that the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank attempts to cool off housing demand. Chart 45Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Ms. X: Given the reality of low government bond yields globally, corporate credit has become an increasingly important part of our fixed-income portfolio. My father and I have noticed that corporate bond spreads are very low; should we be making any changes to our allocation to corporate credit? The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy provides strong support for corporate bond spreads. However, US investment-grade corporate bonds offer essentially no value, and we advise investors to seek out higher returns in speculative-grade corporates. The 12-month breakeven spread for US investment-grade bonds is currently at its 2nd historical percentile (Chart 45), and we currently expect excess returns for IG corporates versus duration-matched Treasuries to be capped at 85 bps. For US high-yield bonds, we recommend an overweight stance within a fixed-income portfolio. We estimate that spreads are currently pricing an expected default rate of 3.1%, assuming a 100 bps risk premium and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt. Based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we model that the 12-month default rate will stay between 2.3% and 2.8% next year, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first ten months of this year, well below the estimate generated by our model. The accommodative monetary backdrop provided by the Fed will start to shift at some point in 2022. For now, an elevated 2/10 Treasury slope 85-90 bps suggests that monetary conditions are still accommodative, and our prior work suggests that corporate bond returns are typically strong when the slope is above 50 bps. But when the slope breaks below 50 bps, which could happen as soon as the first half of 2022, we will likely turn more defensive on corporate bonds. A flatter curve suggests a more neutral monetary backdrop, and with valuations already tight it will make sense to take some money off the table. The shifting US monetary policy backdrop leads us to favor European high-yield over US equivalents, as the ECB will be more dovish than the Fed next year. From a fundamental perspective, default rates are projected to be a bit lower in Europe in 2022 (around 2%) compared to the US, in an environment of solid nominal corporate revenue growth and still-moderate borrowing rates. Although valuations are hardly cheap on either side of the Atlantic, we do see better relative value in Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. 12-month breakeven spreads for European Ba-rated high-yield are in the 38th percentile of its historical distribution, while US Ba-rated junk sits in the 24th percentile. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: Thank you for your bond market comments. My view that bond yields have potentially much further to rise over the coming few years suggests that we will earn very little in the way of returns from our fixed-income portfolio, but the equity market outlook is no better. In fact, the medium-to-long term equity outlook is probably the worst that I have seen in a long time. Next year’s outlook is arguably bad as well; equity valuation is extreme, and you are forecasting a rise in long-maturity bond yields next year. In addition, you acknowledge that the longer-term term risks of inflation have risen, and believe that the Fed and investors are underestimating the neutral rate of interest. All of that seems wildly bearish to me! Chart 46US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... BCA: Let’s address the longer-term outlook for stocks in a moment, and for now focus on what is likely to occur next year. Since the US equity market now accounts for 60% of global stock market capitalization, we will outline our US equity views first before turning to the rest of the world. The starting point for any cyclical view of the stock market should be one’s earnings outlook, and based on our economic view we agree with analyst expectations that US revenue growth will remain elevated next year relative to what has prevailed on average over the past decade (Chart 46). Above-trend growth and consumer price inflation point to revenue growth in the high single-digits, and this would normally serve as a conservative estimate for earnings growth given that profit margins have been trending higher since the beginning of the 2009 economic recovery. However, US profit margins have already risen to a new high both for the tech sector (broadly-defined) and ex-tech (Chart 47), and there are credible arguments in favor of an outright contraction in margins over the coming year.7 As such, we expect earnings growth to come in at or below revenue growth, which is currently expected to be about 7% next year. You referenced extreme overvaluation of the equity market, and Chart 48 highlights that the S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio is indeed now as high as it was during the stock market bubble of the late-1990s. But panel 2 of Chart 48 highlights that our proxy for the US equity risk premium (ERP) is in line with its historical average, in stark contrast to the lows that were reached in the late-1990s. Chart 47...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall ...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall ...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall Chart 48US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal Chart 49Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low These seemingly contradictory perspectives are resolved by the observation that real bond yields are extremely low today. It is reasonable to expect a structural decline in real bond yields over time given a structural decline in the potential growth rate of the economy, but Chart 49 highlights that real long-maturity yields are already substantially lower than estimates of trend growth. If we believed that real US government bond yields were set to rise by 200 basis points over the coming year, we would be categorically bearish towards stocks as it would imply a substantially lower P/E ratio. That, however, is very unlikely to occur while the Fed and investors subscribe to the secular stagnation narrative. While R-star is probably higher than the Fed and investors think, we do not think that these expectations will change before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. As such, while equity multiples may fall over the coming year in response to somewhat higher bond yields, we expect the decline to be relatively modest. Putting this all together, given our base case view that the pandemic will recede in importance next year, we expect mid-to-high single-digit returns from US equities in 2022 – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Mr. X: You showed the equity risk premium over the past 40 years, which was a period of rising financialization. Given the complacency that I see in markets, especially about the longer-term outlook, I strongly question the view that investors are demanding a normal premium as compensation for potential future volatility. Do your conclusions hold up if you use a much longer time horizon? BCA: They do. Chart 50 shows a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset. This indicates that the ERP today is in line with its long-term median. We do not use the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio in this calculation; Chart 50 is simply calculated as the 12-month trailing reported earnings yield minus the real long-maturity bond yield. The chart shows that the ERP was quite low in the late-1990s, and above average for several years following the Global Financial Crisis. The conclusion is that while the US P/E ratio is extremely high today, it is so for a very different reason than what occurred in the late-1990s. At that time, the equity risk premium was extremely low, whereas today equity multiples are high because of very low interest rates. You asked about the longer-term outlook for stocks, and Chart 51 presents a range of possible 10-year total returns for US equities, based on a 100-200bps rise in real long-maturity bond yields and revenue growth on the order of 4-5% per year. These scenarios also assume flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP. Chart 50The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History Chart 51 These returns projections, on the order of 2-5% per year, would beat the returns offered by bonds and thus argue that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets. But they would also fall short of the absolute return goals of many investors, and thus we agree that the longer-term outlook for stocks is poor – unless the ERP falls dramatically as real interest rates rise. That would be calling for a return to the ebullient conditions of the late-1990s, and we struggle to envision how this could occur given the myriad economic and geopolitical risks today that did not exist at that time. Ms. X: I want to address the two important global equity calls that did not pan out quite how you expected when we spoke last year: regional equity allocation and value versus growth. What is your view about these positions in 2022? BCA: Financials did modestly outperform broadly-defined technology stocks in 2021, so elements of the value versus growth trade did pan out. But using the MSCI value and growth indexes as benchmarks, value did underperform, and the relative performance of global value versus growth this year has been strongly linked to the 30-year Treasury yield. This has not always been the case in the past, but this year very long-maturity bond yields have done a very good job at explaining the relative performance of value (Chart 52). In addition, Chart 53 highlights the strong correlation between the relative performance of the US equity market and the relative performance of growth since the onset of the pandemic, which is explained by the US’s comparatively large weighting in broadly-defined technology stocks. Chart 52Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Chart 53Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends     Given our view that long-maturity bond yields are set to rise next year, we find it difficult to bet against value in 2022. At a minimum, a window exists for value’s outperformance, and we do recommend that investors overweight value versus growth next year. Considerable debate exists within BCA about the longer-term outlook for the trend in style, but for next year the majority of BCA strategists expect value to outperform at least for a time. Ms. X: And what about the performance of US stocks versus the rest of the world? BCA: The close link between growth / value and US / global ex-US stocks over the past two years suggests that the US will underperform at some point in 2022 relative to its global peers, although we acknowledge that this case is harder to make. The US did underperform global ex-US in the first quarter of 2021, and again from April to June, but the underperformance eventually gave way to substantial US outperformance. By contrast, the outperformance of global value vs. growth was more sustained in the first half of the year, and the reversal of that performance has been more closely aligned with the trend in bond yields. Our best answer as a firm is that investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. Roughly 70% of global ex-US equity market cap is accounted for by DM economies, with the remaining 30% in emerging markets. Given our China economic view, it is difficult to make the case for EM stocks in the first half of 2022. We see more significant easing in China, potentially in Q2, is the most likely upgrade catalyst for EM. Within DM ex-US, the euro area is the most significant region by weight, and there are two arguments in favor of euro area outperformance at some point next year. First, Chart 54 highlights that euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, suggesting that the US may not fundamentally outperform other DM economies in 2022. Second, Chart 55 highlights that euro area stocks are the cheapest that they have been relative to the US since early-2009 and 2012. In both of these cases, the euro area subsequently outperformed US stocks. Chart 54Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Chart 55Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels     As an additional point about richly valued US equities, it has been argued that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity. But Chart 56 illustrates that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to other developed markets, underscoring that US stocks are expensive above and beyond what fundamental performance appears to justify. That perspective is echoed in Chart 57, which highlights that the US 12-month forward P/E ratio is 50% above that for global ex-US stocks. Chart 56The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Chart 57US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It Given the news about Omicron, and the recent spike in COVID cases and natural gas prices in the euro area, it may be too early to position in favor of DM ex-US stocks versus the US. But a shift from US to global ex-US stocks should be on investors’ watch list for 2022. Chart 58Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Mr. X: What about sector positioning, and small caps? BCA: Cyclical sectors have significantly outperformed defensives this year, and we expect further outperformance in 2022. Defensive sectors tend to underperform when bond yields are rising, and we expect that certain cyclical industries will continue to outperform next year. In particular, banks tend to outperform the broad market when interest rates are rising, pent-up demand will boost the consumer services and automobile industries within consumer discretionary, and industrials will continue to benefit from the surge in capital expenditures, as evidenced by the sharp increase in US core capital goods orders (Chart 58). Resource stocks, on the other hand, may not meaningfully outperform in 2022, at least not consistently. We will discuss our commodity views in a moment, but we expect flat oil prices next year, and our views on China imply that metals and mining stocks may at least passively underperform in the first half of the year. While we generally favor cyclical sectors next year, Chart 59 highlights that the trend in the performance of cyclicals versus defensives (shown in equally-weighted terms) has moved well past its pre-pandemic level, and is now challenging its early-2018 high. Cyclicals have further room to move higher when compared with the levels that prevailed in 2010-2011, but that period reflected resource price levels that we do not expect over the coming year. As such, the performance of cyclicals is getting somewhat late, and we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. In terms of capitalization, Chart 60 highlights that investors should favor small cap stocks versus large caps over the coming year. The chart highlights that the relative performance of global small caps had rebounded to its pre-trade war levels earlier this year, before falling anew in response to the economic consequences of the Delta wave of COVID-19 and the decline in government bond yields. Abstracting from longer-term trends, small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and this has been especially true over the past decade (middle panel). Chart 59Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Chart 60Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022 Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022 Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022   Our view that government bond yields are set to rise next year, in combination with very attractive relative valuation (bottom panel), makes an overweight small cap stance one of our highest conviction positions with an equity allocation. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You mentioned earlier that you expect oil prices to be essentially unchanged next year from the levels that prevailed prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant. I would appreciate it if you could provide the basis for that view, and also your perspective on natural gas prices given how significantly that market is affecting the European economy. Chart 61We Expect Oil To Trade At -81/Bbl Next Year, On Average We Expect Oil To Trade At $80-81/Bbl Next Year, On Average We Expect Oil To Trade At $80-81/Bbl Next Year, On Average BCA: Let’s deal first with crude oil prices. First, it should be noted that we will not have good information on Omicron’s impact on oil demand for a few more weeks, which makes it difficult to assess demand for next year as a whole. Prior to this news, our ensemble supply and demand estimates for crude oil projected an increase in supply from core OPEC 2.0 producers in 2022, on target to return to pre-pandemic levels around the middle of the year. Production from non-core OPEC producers will likely be flat to modestly down, consistent with the downward trend that has been in place over the past decade. On the demand side, our base case view suggests flat-to-modestly higher consumption growth in the DM world, and a pickup in non-OECD demand around the middle or back half of the year. Chart 61 highlights that the net result of these forecasts implies that brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. Geopolitical tension with Iran will most likely persist next year, which contributes to upside risk to our forecast. Clearly, Omicron contributes to downside risk. The fact that spot oil prices are likely to be flat next year does not mean that investors cannot profit from energy-related positions. Chart 61 also highlighted that the oil market is currently backwardated, with a downward sloping forward curve that is below our projected spot price for most of 2022. This means that investors can still profit from the roll yield, and we are comfortable recommending the pursuit of a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts (such as the COMT ETF). On the natural gas front, we expect that spot prices will remain elevated through the winter, especially in Europe. The US Climate Prediction Center maintains 90% odds that La Niña will continue through the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, implying a colder-than-normal winter and thus higher-than-normal natural gas demand. Russia’s restriction of supply for geopolitical advantage can continue well in 2022. Chart 62 highlights that European natural gas storage is well below that of previous years, which has contributed to the almost 400% rise in prices this year. European natural gas prices are rising in part due to competition from China because of its power shortage, and are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unlikely to begin operations early enough to provide relief in H1 2022, although it is possible. Ms. X: One question that I have about the commodity outlook pertains to China. We discussed earlier how China’s economy has slowed this year, and yet metals prices remain in an uptrend. That seems like an aberration, and we would appreciate your thoughts on what is driving the disconnect. BCA: The behavior of industrials metals prices has indeed been confusing for many investors given the slowdown in Chinese economic activity, as evidenced by Chart 63. The annual growth rate of the Bloomberg Industrial Metals Spot Index remains surprisingly elevated given slowing economic activity in China and a meaningful decline in China’s credit impulse. Chart 62 Chart 63Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy   What is missing from this picture is the fact that base metals inventories are very low, due in part to reduced refining activity in China. Charts 64 and 65 present two perspectives on copper inventories: the difference between global production and consumption of refined copper, and the level of warehouse and stock inventories tied to commodity exchanges. Both charts show that inventories have been drawn down heavily this year. Chart 64Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year… Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year... Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year... Chart 65…And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low ...And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low ...And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low     Our expectation that China is likely to slow further over the coming few months arrayed against low metals inventories suggests that the Q1 outlook for metals prices is murky. But as we noted earlier, we expect a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022, implying that base metals prices are likely to be higher in 2022 on average. Over a multi-year horizon, we are quite bullish towards base metals – copper in particular – given the critical role that these metals will play in the push to decarbonize the global economy.8 Base metals capex will have to increase at the mining and refining levels to meet renewables and EV demand, and policymakers will need to work towards diversifying metals' production and refining to reduce the concentration risks that currently exist. We strongly suspect that higher prices will have a role in incentivizing higher base metals production, meaning that longer-term investors should follow a “buy copper on dips” strategy. Mr. X: You noted at the outset that gold fell in nominal terms this year, which was surprising to me. My expectation is that gold would have performed better than it did during a year with the strongest inflation in three decades. You referenced the dollar and real interest rates as drivers of the price of gold; please elaborate on that if you can, and what you expect to see from gold in 2022. BCA: It is not particularly surprising to us that the price of gold has fallen this year in the face of surging inflation. We agree that precious metals are a good hedge against inflation over the very long term, but over the cyclical investment horizon the volatility of gold vastly exceeds that of consumer prices. On this point, a comparison to the stock market is apt. It is often the case that changes in P/E ratios are the dominant drivers of equity returns over 6-12 month periods, and in the case of gold it is almost always the case that the real price of gold determines cyclical returns – not changes in the price level. Chart 66Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Chart 66 highlights that real gold prices have been explained over the past 15 years by changes in the US dollar and especially real 10-year Treasury yields. The chart shows that gold prices are modestly lower today than this historical relationship would imply, possibly reflecting investor unease about the potential for monetary policy tightening next year (above and beyond what is currently reflected by real 10-year yields). Our view that real 10-year yields are likely to rise next year is thus ostensibly bearish for gold, but Chart 66 suggests that some of this effect may already be reflected in prices. As such, we expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down, with the caveat that we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). Chart 67Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Over the longer term, Chart 67 highlights that real gold prices are extremely elevated relative to their history. This largely reflects the fact that real interest rates are well below trend rates of economic growth. As such, we are bearish towards gold prices over the secular horizon, given our expectation that real interest rates are likely to move higher over the longer-term. Ms. X: What is your outlook for the US dollar next year? BCA: We recommend that investors stick with short US dollar positions for 2022. However, we acknowledge that the dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, which may persist as long as investors expect near-term economic weakness in the euro area. The Omicron variant impact on global travel, surging COVID cases, and European natural gas prices will likely cause negative near-term economic surprises, but we do not expect these conditions to last over the coming 12 months. Chart 68EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials Versus major currencies, the broad trend in the dollar tends to be dominated by the USD-EUR exchange rate, and the recent collapse in the euro has contributed to the broad-based rise in the dollar. Chart 68 highlights that the euro area / US real 10-year government bond yield differential has done a good job of predicting the EUR-USD exchange rate since the Global Financial Crisis, and the chart highlights that the euro has fallen 5% below what this relationship would imply. Using Chart 68 as a guide, current pricing of the euro suggests that investors expect a 40 bps decline in the real 10-year yield differential. We expect US long-maturity real yields to rise on the order of 60-70 bps over the coming year, but the recent behavior of the euro is only fair if euro area real yields are mostly unchanged next year. We would bet against such an outcome, as the economic conditions that will eventually cause the Fed to raise interest rates also imply better economic outcomes for the euro area. Chinese economic growth is likely to be better in the second half of next year, which will boost global growth, and euro area consumers also have ample savings at their disposable to support consumer spending. The fact that euro area stocks have more earnings upside relative to pre-pandemic levels also argues against the dollar from the perspective of equity portfolio flows. Chart 69US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought Three additional factors support a bearish dollar view beyond a near-term period of temporary dollar strength. The first is that the Fed is likely to lag the Bank of England and Bank of Canada in terms of moving towards normalizing monetary policy, a bearish outlook for USD-GBP and USD-CAD. The second factor is that the US dollar is normally a counter-cyclical currency, and recent dollar strength is implying a degree of equity market weakness that we do not expect next year. Third, Chart 69 highlights that the US dollar is on the verge of entering extremely overbought territory, underscoring that euro bearishness is likely overdone. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been debating adding cryptocurrencies to our portfolio. As you might guess, she sees promise in cryptos, whereas I see them as a bubble waiting to burst. What are your thoughts? BCA: We have had a similar debate at BCA. There is little doubt that the blockchain technologies underpinning cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The only question is whether cryptocurrencies themselves are worth investing in. Bitcoin has doubled in price seven times since the start of 2016. If it were to double just one more time to $120,000, it would be worth $2.1 trillion, equal to the entire stock of US dollars in circulation. The easy profits in this sector have already been made. Then there is the issue of competition. Many new cryptocurrencies have emerged on the scene since Bitcoin was invented more than a decade ago. Ethereum is the best known, but others such as Solana, Cardano, XRP, and Polkadot are arguably technologically superior. If one invests in this space, at a minimum, one should buy a basket of cryptos, similar to what one would do if one were betting on a new technology but did not know which specific company would ultimately prevail. Mr. X: What about regulation? Is it not just a matter of time before the hammer comes down on the whole sector? BCA: China has banned cryptos, but they continue to thrive, so the sector has proven itself quite resilient to government scrutiny. In fact, regulation could help cryptocurrencies gain the air of respectability, while attracting more institutional investment in the sector. The bigger issue is again, competition, but this time from central banks. Most major central banks are working to develop their own digital currencies. Also keep in mind that governments derive a lot of revenue from “seigniorage” – the ability to create money out of thin air. They would not want to lose that revenue. Mr. X: I am all in favor of depriving governments of the ability to print as much money as they want. But if I wanted to hedge this risk, I would buy gold. BCA: We are inclined to agree, with the caveat that gold itself is already expensive insurance against monetary debasement. Geopolitics Ms. X: I am not sure that I find your arguments about cryptocurrencies to be compelling, but I sense that this is a topic upon which we will have to agree to disagree – at least for now. Perhaps we can close out our discussion with your geopolitical outlook, and what risks my father and I should be most attuned to. Chart 70 BCA: As an overall summary of our view, we contend that the international system will remain unstable in 2022. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor, and is the first of three geopolitical themes that will persist next year and beyond. Multipolarity – or great power struggle – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China (Chart 70). China’s GDP has risen to the top in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years. China’s potential growth is slowing and financial instability will be a recurring theme in 2022 and beyond. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Since China is ultimately capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, the United States is belatedly reacting by penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. Russia and other nationalist powers are also drivers of multipolarity. Chart 71Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme The second geopolitical theme is “hypo-globalization,” in which globalization fails to live up to its potential. The trade intensity of global growth peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10. The stimulus-fueled recovery in the wake of COVID-19 is seeing a trade rebound, which is positive for corporate earnings. But the upside will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 71), which makes nations fearful of each other and hungry for self-sufficiency. The 2010s witnessed a retreat from globalization as developed economies saw private debt bubbles unwind, while emerging economies saw trade manufacturing unwind. Anti-globalization movements entered mainstream politics, in both democratic and authoritarian countries, from the East to the West. Today governments are not behaving as if they will engender a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. For example, the trade war between the US and China has morphed into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a leadership change in the United States. The further consolidation of central government power in China will exacerbate distrust. Chart 72The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets A third theme is populism, or anti-establishment political sentiment, which we discussed at length last year and is likely to escalate in 2022. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. Most of the developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, allowing voters to vent some frustration. But many of the emerging economies are either facing elections or have non-responsive political systems. Either way they may fail to address household grievances. This will be a source of social instability and economic uncertainty in the coming years. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and stands at 15% on average for the major emerging markets, up from around 13% in 2016. The same countries have stimulated their economies, feeding inflationary pressures (Chart 72). Just as the “Arab Spring” unrest destabilized the Middle East and North Africa in the years after the Great Recession, so will new movements destabilize this region or other regions in the wake of COVID-19. Regime failures lead to wars and waves of immigration, which in turn create larger policy changes that can impact markets. Ms. X: What are the investment implications of your geopolitical views? BCA: These three themes – great power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism leads to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and inflation expectations, which is also possible. For example, China’s historic confluence of internal and external political risks has already led to growth disappointments and financial instability. A conflict over the Taiwan Strait, which cannot be ruled out, could begin with deflation and end in inflation, as wars often do. Chart 73 In this respect two geopolitical risks are worthy of repeating: Russia and Iran. Energy producers gain leverage as global energy supplies grow tight. That is why global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 73). This will most likely be the case in 2022. Both of these states are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. If these conflicts explode, they can lead to energy price shortages or shocks, which would clearly raise the odds of the stagflation-lite scenario that we described earlier. Conclusions Mr. X: Thank you very much for another interesting and thorough discussion of the outlook. Our discussion has not swayed me from my deep-seated concern that inflation over the medium-term will be much higher than investors think, and that there are likely to be enormous consequences from this for financial markets. You also acknowledged the long-term risk from a future rise in real interest rates – I suppose I simply see this risk materializing sooner than you do. Ms. X: Even if inflation is only moderately higher over the coming decade, say around 3% on average, that would still seem to have important implications for real portfolio returns. The main purpose of our meeting has been to discuss what will occur in 2022, but last year you provided us with long-term return projections across several asset classes compared with realized historical returns. An update to that would be very much appreciated. BCA: Table 4 presents an update of our long-term return projections based on a 3% inflation scenario, incorporating an allocation to alternative assets. As you highlighted, the projected real portfolio return is just 1% per year over the coming decade, compared with a 6.3% annualized historical real return. The table highlights an important dilemma for investors, which is that government bonds will offer very poor real returns over the coming decade if inflation is higher on average than it has been. Government bonds have traditionally been the core safe-haven assets in investor portfolios, underscoring that global investors may have to accept more volatility to achieve their desired return goals. In our view, this should come in the form of a reduced strategic allocation to US stocks within an equity portfolio, and an increased allocation to alternative assets such as real estate and alternative investments. Table 4Long-Term Return Scenarios In A World With 3% Inflation OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Ms. X: Thank you. In conclusion, could you summarize your main economic and investment views for 2022? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Our main points are as follows: The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to recede in importance next year. The effect of the recently discovered Omicron variant remains unknown, but we expect any negative economic impact that occurs to be limited to the first half of the year. The existence of effective anti-viral treatments, that are not affected by the virus’s mutation, should help limit the impact of Omicron on the medical system. A receding pandemic will lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. Investors are overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and we expect actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. Economic growth in advanced economies will be above-trend for the year on average, and we expect the US and euro area output gaps to close in 2022. Any economic activity disrupted by Omicron in the first half of 2022 will likely shift into the second half of the year. Above-trend growth will be supported by easy monetary policy, a shift in spending from goods to services, and a sizeable amount of excess savings that will support overall consumer spending. A reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by external demand, and a shift in advanced economy consumer spending from goods to services may be the catalyst for more aggressive easing from policymakers. Stocks will outperform bonds in 2022, but equity market returns will be in single-digit territory – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Equity market volatility may rise in the lead-up to US monetary policy tightening at the end of the year, but we expect only a moderate rise in long-maturity bond yields – which will not threaten economic activity or cause a major decline in equity multiples. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance, and position for lower inflation expectations and higher real rates (especially at the short end of the curve). We recommend selling short-maturity inflation protection. Within a government bond portfolio, overweight Europe (core and periphery), Japan, and Australia. Underweight the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. Within a credit portfolio, favor speculative-grade over investment-grade corporate bonds, and European Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. Equity investors should favor small cap over large cap stocks in 2022. Small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and relative valuation levels are attractive. We generally favor cyclical sectors next year, but stretched relative performance versus defensives means that we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. A window exists for value’s outperformance versus growth in 2022 in response to higher long-maturity government bond yields, and we do recommend the former over the latter. Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. An underweight stance towards EM stocks in 1H 2022 is appropriate until clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Within DM ex-US, we expect euro area outperformance at some point next year: euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, and relative valuation argues for a euro area bounce. Aside from the potential for Omicron-related near-term economic weakness, a shift in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate is a risk that investors should monitor. Our judgement is that this will probably not occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. The oil market is currently backwardated, meaning that investors should pursue a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts. European natural gas prices are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The outlook for base metals in the first half of 2022 is murky. Metals inventories are low, but China is likely to slow further over the coming few months. Our expectation of a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022 means that, on average, base metals prices will be higher in 2022. We expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down next year, although we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). The US dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, depending on the extent of the economic impact from the Omicron variant. Beyond that, the dollar’s countercyclical nature, above-trend global growth, and overbought conditions suggest that investors should bet on a lower dollar. The international system will remain unstable in 2022. Multipolarity, “hypo-globalization”, and populism will remain important geopolitical themes next year (and beyond). The Editors December 1, 2021   Footnotes 1   “South African doctor who raised alarm about omicron variant says symptoms are ‘unusual but mild,” The Telegraph, November 27, 2021. 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates," dated April 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy," dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  June 2021, “Global Economic Impact Trends 2021”, World Travel & Tourism Council 5  What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 6  Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "COP26 Meets During Policy-Induced Crisis," dated October 28, 2021, available at ces.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The euro has entered a period of acute stress. Some of the EUR/USD’s plunge reflects the dollar’s broad-based strength. The dollar is supported by the market’s pricing of the Fed and China’s economic weakness. The euro also suffers from idiosyncratic forces. Investors appreciate better now that the Eurozone’s inflation is much narrower than that of the US. They are adjusting their ECB pricing accordingly. Europe’s growth prospects are also hurt by a renewed wave of lockdowns and China’s property woes. The revival of the European natural gas surge is the coup de grâce that is hurting the Euro. Nonetheless, euro sentiment is extremely depressed, which suggests that the euro already discounts many of these negatives. Consequently, we are adhering to our long EUR/USD trade implemented four weeks ago, but we will not re-open it if the stop-loss is triggered. Feature Four weeks ago, we tentatively recommended buying the euro, acknowledging that this view was fraught with near-term risks. However, the recent collapse in the euro forces us to revisit this stance. 2022 will be a better year for EUR/USD; nevertheless, the next three months could result in pronounced weakness in the currency, and the odds have increased that this pair might retest the pandemic lows. We are sticking with our long EUR/USD bet for now, as we have a floor under the position, the result of our stop at 1.1175. If this stop is reached, we will wait before reinstating a long euro position. What’s Going Well With The USD? The first element of the euro’s weakness is the generalized strength in the USD. The dollar is rallying against all the components of the DXY, which is pushing the USD’s Advanced/Decline line up (Chart 1). Moreover, as BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy team recently highlighted, the dollar is breaking out above its three-year moving average, which constitutes an important technical signal.  The dollar strength is multi-faceted and reflects both domestic and international factors. On the domestic front, markets are responding to growing inflationary forces and signs of economic vigor to price in a more aggressive Fed outlook than two months ago (Chart 2), especially following the implementation of the Fed’s tapering program this month. Chart 1The Dollar Is Strong The Dollar Is Strong The Dollar Is Strong Chart 2More Hikes Prices In More Hikes Prices In More Hikes Prices In The inflation picture is of prime concern to investors. As Chart 3highlights, US core CPI is at a 30-year high and median inflation measures are also strengthening. Most concerning, inflationary pressures are broadening beyond energy and goods, with shelter prices accelerating anew (Chart 3, bottom panel). The labor market is also gearing up to move toward full employment conditions. The quits rate is near a record high, which corroborates the impression among households that jobs are easy to secure (Chart 4). Moreover, wages among low-skill employees are strengthening, which indicates that the labor market is tight (Chart 4, bottom panel). Granted, this is happening in a context in which the labor force participation rate is low, especially for women, and could rise anew, which would alleviate the labor market’s tightness. However, this process will likely entail higher wages first. Chart 3Broadening US Inflation Broadening US Inflation Broadening US Inflation Chart 4Getting To Maximum Employment? Getting To Maximum Employment? Getting To Maximum Employment? Economic data is also firming up, despite rises in COVID cases in many states. For example, nominal retail sales were robust in October, even if inflation contributed to their strength. Moreover, both the New York Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey and the Philly Fed’s Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey highlighted an acceleration in activity (Chart 5). As a result, the Atlanta Fed’s Q4 GDPNow Forecast has rebounded to 8.2%, which would represent a marked improvement from the 2.2% quarterly annualized rate recorded in Q3. Whether or not this is an error, market participants may continue to use this economic backdrop to price in additional hikes by the Fed and feed the dollar rally. The international backdrop also helps the USD. The main positive comes from China. BCA’s emerging market strategists highlight that the weakness in the Chinese credit impulse is often a harbinger of dollar strength (Chart 6). The US economy is less exposed to manufacturing and trade than the economies of Europe, Australia, and EM, which means that it is less impacted by Chinese growth slowdowns than other parts of the world. This explains why the dollar loves a slowing Chinese economy. Chart 5A Pick Up In US Growth A Pick Up In US Growth A Pick Up In US Growth Chart 6The Dollar Loves A Weaker China The Dollar Loves A Weaker China The Dollar Loves A Weaker China China’s economic problems have once again become more relevant to market participants, as recent prints have been weak. Following the fall of Chinese GDP growth to 4.9% in the third quarter, new releases have shown that house prices are contracting and property investment is decelerating. These data sets are feeding the dollar rally. The dollar’s strength will beget further dollar appreciation. We have often highlighted that the dollar is the premier momentum currency within the G-10, along with the yen (Chart 7). Today, the most reliable momentum indicator for the greenback, the crossover of the 20-day MA above the 200-day one, continues to send a very supportive signal, which the economic backdrop reinforces (Chart 8). Moreover, historically, the dollar’s trading in the first few weeks of January often echoes the trend of the previous year. Hence, we may witness a continued blow off until February 2022. Chart 7 Chart 8Positive Momentum Signal For The Dollar Positive Momentum Signal For The Dollar Positive Momentum Signal For The Dollar Bottom Line: The dollar is breaking out on a broad basis. Not only is the US economy inviting investors to reprice the Fed’s expected policy path, but the economic weakness in China is also contributing to the rally. Technically, the dollar’s pro-momentum attribute accentuates the risk that this breakout morphs into a melt-up until February 2022, especially if US equities continue to outperform the rest of world and attract flows into the USD. The Euro’s Specific Problems Chart 9Europe Doesn't Have The US Inflation Problem Europe Doesn't Have The US Inflation Problem Europe Doesn't Have The US Inflation Problem The spectacular collapse in EUR/USD goes beyond the strength in the dollar, because crucial catalysts are also pushing the euro lower. First, investors are increasingly differentiating between the Eurozone and the US inflation picture. We have often made the case that European inflation is much more limited than that of the US. For example, the dynamics in the trimmed-mean inflation and the CPI adjusted for VAT highlights that lack of broad inflation in Europe (Chart 9). Moreover, recent ECB’s communications have made it eminently clear that it is in no rush to raise rates. As a result, investors have been curtailing the number of ECB hikes priced in for 2022 compared to early November. Second, European economic activity is unable to catch a break. The recent uptick of COVID-19 cases in Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria is prompting local governments to impose renewed lockdowns of various scales, as worries emerge that hospital capacity will suffer as it did last winter (Chart 10). We doubt these lockdowns will last as long or will be as severe from a pan-European perspective, but, for now, they are weighing on investor sentiment and contributing to the euro-bearish widening in US-German 2-year yield differentials (Chart 11). Chart 10A New Wave A New Wave A New Wave Chart 11Rate Differentials Hurt The Euro Rate Differentials Hurt The Euro Rate Differentials Hurt The Euro   Third, the Chinese economy continues to act as a drag on Europe. China’s real estate activity is slowing, as credit spreads and share prices of property developers remain distressed (Chart 12). It is of concern that the Chinese and EM credit market stresses are broadening beyond this sector, which indicates a tightening in financial conditions for a large swath of the Eurozone’s important trading partners. Moreover, Europe’s machinery exports are particularly exposed to the Chinese construction sector. Under these circumstances, the wave of weakness in Chinese construction activity could herald additional problems for EUR/USD, since they amount to a weakening in Euro Area growth relative to the US (Chart 13). Chart 12Downside To Chinese Construction Activity Downside To Chinese Construction Activity Downside To Chinese Construction Activity Chart 13Slowing Chinese Construction Is A Threat to EUR/USD Slowing Chinese Construction Is A Threat to EUR/USD Slowing Chinese Construction Is A Threat to EUR/USD Fourth, equity outflows out of the Eurozone into the US are likely to continue as long as China suffers. BCA’s Emerging Market strategists anticipate the deterioration in China’s stock-to-bond ratio (SBR) to last, because this economy is weakening. Over the past five years, a deteriorating Chinese SBR has coexisted with a deepening underperformance of European equities relative to those of the US (Chart 14). Over this timeframe, equity flows have played a significant role in the EUR/USD exchange rate determination; thus, the weaker Chinese SBR also correlates well with a softer euro (Chart 14, bottom panel). Finally, the renewed energy crisis is particularly painful for the euro. German regulators indicated that they will temporarily suspend the approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which prompted European natural gas prices to surge anew. As Chart 15 shows, this proved to be the coup de grâce for the euro. The response of the euro to higher natural gas prices is rational. Surging natural gas prices are a growth shock for the region, yet they are unlikely to prompt a tightening in policy by the ECB, because they only push headline inflation, not the core measure. In fact, they could widen the dichotomy between underlying and headline inflation, because rising energy costs sap other spending categories. In other words, rising energy prices point to a stagflationary outcome this winter in Europe, which is poison for the euro. Chart 14More European Equity Outflows? More European Equity Outflows? More European Equity Outflows? Chart 15The Nat-Gas Coup De Grace The Nat-Gas Coup De Grace The Nat-Gas Coup De Grace Bottom Line: The weakness of the euro reflects more than the strength in the USD. The narrower nature of European inflation prevents a hawkish repricing of the ECB to take place, while renewed lockdowns are hurting growth sentiment. Moreover, the travails of China’s property sector are harming European economic activity, while also inviting equity outflows. Finally, the recent revival of the natural gas price surge is once again raising the specter of stagflation this winter in Europe, which is a dreadful scenario for the euro. What To Do? Our long EUR/USD bet initiated four weeks ago has a stop loss at 1.1175. Due to the bullish dollar forces and bearish euro factors described in this report, we will not re-open the trade if the stop-loss is triggered. Its activation would indicate that the bear-trend in the euro is gathering steam. When coupled with the momentum nature of the dollar and the euro’s anti-dollar behavior imparted by EUR/USD’s great market liquidity, this combination could easily push EUR/USD to 1.08 or lower by January 2022. We are not closing the trade either. While the list of euro-negative forces is long, sentiment toward EUR/USD is now quite lopsided, which suggests that a significant proportion of the euro bearish factors are already discounted. One-month, three-month, and six-month risk reversals in EUR/USD have fallen close to their Q2 2020 levels. Moreover, investors now hold large short positions in EUR/USD, especially compared to their large long bets on the DXY (Chart 16); meanwhile, the Euro Capitulation Index is now depressed relative to that of the dollar (Chart 16, bottom panel). Finally, the most important signal comes from our Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM), which is an augmented interest-rate parity model that accounts for global risk aversion and the currency’s trend. The ITTM is now trading at 1 sigma, a level that has historically been followed by a positive return six months later 75% of the time since 2002 (Chart 17). Chart 16Negative Euro Sentiment Negative Euro Sentiment Negative Euro Sentiment Chart 17Much Pessimism Is In The Price Much Pessimism Is In The Price Much Pessimism Is In The Price Chart 18Peak US Inflation? Peak US Inflation? Peak US Inflation? Finally, the US is likely experiencing peak inflationary pressures right now. If inflation rolls over in the near future, investors will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and they will not price in more rate hikes. The decline in DRAM prices and the recent ebb in shipping costs, with the Baltic Dry down 57% from its peak and the WCI Composite Container Freight Benchmark 12% below its September apex, suggest that the most severe supply bottlenecks are passing while energy indexes are also softening (Chart 18). In this context, the best strategy remains to keep the trade open and to follow the discipline imposed by the stop loss.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? Cyclical Recommendations What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? Structural Recommendations What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? What’s Going Wrong With The Euro? Closed Trades Image   Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Dear Client, We had an error in our oil balances/forecasts report from 18 November 2021 resulting from a double counting of select US onshore production figures.  This has been corrected below. Highlights Higher oil production will restrain price increases in the short term, and give the impression the burst in inflation is transitory. Re-opening of airline travel and releasing of pent-up demand will absorb much of the higher output by year-end 2022. We are doubtful a US SPR release is forthcoming, as its impact would be trivial. Likewise, we do not expect the US to limit or ban exports of crude oil again, as it would unbalance markets. We are maintaining our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 at $80 and $81/bbl. We again include a caveat, noting upside price risk is increasing going forward, due to inadequate capex (Chart of the Week). Stronger inflation prints going into 1Q22 will test the conviction underpinning central bankers' view that the current bout of price increases is transitory. If inflation appears to be more persistent going into 2H22, the Fed and other systemically important central banks likely will signal earlier-than-expected policy-rate hikes. This would be negative for commodities, as it would raise debt-service costs and investment hurdle rates, and reduce consumption. Higher oil prices and tighter monetary policy will temper demand. If capex is not forthcoming, however, prices will have to rise sharply to destroy demand. Feature It hardly deserves mention that the US has been hectoring the leadership of OPEC 2.0 to increase oil production, in order to reduce the cost of gasoline and home-heating fuels going into the winter … And, there's a mid-term election next year. The Biden administration also has been threatening – if that is the proper term – to release barrels from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and reportedly asked China to consider a similar release.1 The leadership of OPEC 2.0, on the other hand, is flagging the risk to stronger oil prices from higher production next year. Much to the chagrin of the Biden administration, the coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia will not be increasing output by more than the 400k b/d it agreed to earlier this year. OPEC 2.0 will keep this up until June or July 2022, when most of its output sidelined by the COVID-19 pandemic will have been returned to the market. We expect the core Gulf-state producers – mostly KSA – will want to maintain ~ 3mm b/d of spare capacity thereafter. Chart of the WeekStable Oil-Price Trajectory Stable Oil-Price Trajectory Stable Oil-Price Trajectory Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift OPEC 2.0 Production Continues To Lift Higher Oil Output Expected Overall OPEC 2.0 production is expected to total 52.3mm b/d next year and 53.1mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 2). Most of the increase in the coalition's production will be accounted for by its core producers – KSA, Russia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait (Table 1). The "Other Guys" – i.e., those producers in OPEC 2.0 that can only maintain existing output levels or are managing continual declines in output – will account for a decreasing share of the coalition's production (Chart 3).2 Chart 3 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 High Oil Prices, Low Capex, Inflation … Oh, My. High Oil Prices, Low Capex, Inflation … Oh, My. Including drilled-but-uncompleted wells (DUCs), we expect an additional 600k b/d from US shale-oil producers next year, which would take their output up to 8.39mm b/d, and another 350k b/d increase in their output in 2023. Output in the Lower 48 (L48) states of the US overall is expected to increase to 9.65mm b/d next year and 9.93mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 4). The increase in L48 output will continue to be led by higher shale-oil production, notably from the prolific Permian Basin play (Chart 5). US Gulf of Mexico and Alaska production tops up our total average output forecasts in the States to 11.89mm b/d next year and 12.20mm b/d in 2023. Chart 4US L48 Production Continues To Grow US L48 Production Continues To Grow US L48 Production Continues To Grow Chart 5 Demand Continues To Expand On the demand side, we continue to expect 2021 consumption growth of ~ 5.0mm b/d this year. Our growth expectation for 2022 and 2023 remains close to ~ 4.6mm b/d and 1.3mm b/d, respectively. We also expect demand to cross back over 100mm b/d in the current quarter, as can be seen in Table 1. As has been our wont during the recovery from the pandemic, we expect DM demand to level off next year after a stout recovery, and for EM demand to pick up the baton and lead global oil-consumption growth in the next two years (Chart 6). We remain bullish re the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology globally, which will allow EM economies to step up growth. Re-opening of DM and EM economies will continue, pushing refined-product demand above 2019 levels next year, including jet-fuel toward the end of 2H22. Chart 6EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead EM Oil Demand Growth Will Take The Lead Oil Market Remains Balanced Our supply-demand balances are largely unchanged from last month. This keeps global crude-oil markets in a physical deficit for most of next year. We expect OPEC 2.0's core producers will maintain their production-management strategy – i.e., keeping the level of supply below the level of demand. Producers in the price-taking cohort outside the coalition – chiefly the US, Canada and Brazil – will lift production subject to capital-market constraints on producing oil profitably (Chart 7). This supply-demand dynamic keeps inventories drawing through this year, then leveling off in 2022 and rebounding slowly in 2023 (Chart 8). Chart 7Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Global Crude Markets Mostly Balanced Chart 8Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Crude Inventories Continue To Draw   Global crude-oil inventories could come under pressure during the 2021-22 winter, if natural-gas markets remain supply-constrained. This week, the Russian state-owned supplier and operator of Nord Stream 2 (NS2) pipeline delivering Russian gas to Germany was told it must comply with German law before its gas will be allowed to flow. It is unlikely this will be done this year.3 This could keep demand for oil higher at the margin, as we noted earlier.4 Oil's Known Unknowns: Capex, Inflation The big unknowns – and risks – to our view are when and how much capex is going to be deployed in the oil and gas exploration-and-production space, and what we can expect from the Fed and other systematically important central banks if inflation looks to be persistent. OPEC 2.0 leaders and officials from the price-taking cohort agree that the dearth of capex for the industry threatens to destabilize oil and gas markets in the near future. Among the 90 international oil and gas producers tracked quarterly by the US EIA capex has collapsed (Chart 9). The industry appears to have made shareholder and investor interests their priority, so as to be competitive in the pursuit of capital that all firms engage in. This also is true for state-owned entities, which also compete for capital and access to technology. Chart 9 These firms and producers will continue to work to produce oil and gas profitably. Still, they likely will continue to find an unreceptive audience to invest in these energy sources; Governments and policymakers are actively discouraging investment in fossil fuels. This risks setting in motion a process in which supply erodes much faster than demand – similar to what is happening in coal markets presently – and prices for fossil fuels rocket higher. This is not a strategy, particularly as it disregards the fact there is insufficient renewables capacity and storage to cover the energy from hydrocarbons that is being lost because of the lack of a transition policy at any level. Recent strong inflation prints are a small-scale example of how this process could play out over the next decade or longer. When China eliminated Australian coal imports earlier this year in favor of Indonesian supplies, and forced its coal mines to shut as part of its dual-circulation policy to become more self-reliant, the resulting shortages set off chain reactions in global natural gas markets. European gas prices shot higher, which, along with higher Asian and American natgas prices, sent food prices soaring on the back of higher fertilizer prices.5 Shipping bottlenecks and container shortages worldwide exacerbated these problems. CBs' Inflation View Challenged Going into 2022, central bankers' view that the current bout of price increases is transitory is going to be put to the test. If inflation appears to be more persistent going into 2H22 – after hoped-for one-offs in coal, gas, oil and food markets are worked out – the Fed and other systemically important central banks likely would start signaling earlier-than-expected policy-rate hikes. This would be negative for commodities generally, as it would raise debt-service costs and investment hurdle rates, and reduce consumption. Higher oil prices and tighter monetary policy will temper demand. These inflationary pressures can be addressed, but this will require a serious re-thinking of the strategy the world needs to pursue if it is to pull off a successful energy transition. Such a strategy will have to give greater consideration to the role of fossil fuels in this transition. If capex is not forthcoming, however, oil prices will have to rise to destroy demand. This will feed into inflation, and ultimately could result in stagflation, as economic growth grinds lower. Investment Implications The level of uncertainty surrounding oil and gas prices remains elevated, given the background condition of 90% odds we see a La Niña in the Northern Hemisphere's winter (Nov21 – Mar22), and ~ 50% chance it persists into the Spring (March-May22). This could leave markets with colder-than-normal temperatures past the end of winter, as it did last year. Given this uncertainty, we remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, to keep our exposure to higher prices and a return to higher backwardation.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Natural-gas price volatility in Europe and the EU exploded higher once again, following reports the German government would not certify Nord Stream 2 (NS2) unless and until it complies with German law (Chart 10). The European Commission also is setting conditions for its approval. Lastly, outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel said further sanctions against Russia were possible if the pipeline was used against Ukrainian interests.6 The EU's TTF natural gas benchmark is up 24% this week alone, on the back of this news, while the UK's benchmark Balancing Point index is up 7%. These higher costs will feed into food costs, given the importance of natural gas to fertilizer markets, accounting for ~ 70% of fertilizer costs.7 Given the higher likelihood of another La Niña in the Northern Hemisphere (90% odds from the US Climate Prediction Center), we expect continued volatility in gas prices. Base Metals: Bullish Steel demand in China has been contracting after the government began tightening the supply of credit to the property sector following the Evergrande debt crisis. Construction makes up approximately one-fourth of total Chinese steel demand. At the same time, supply has been falling as, in addition to government regulation to curb carbon emissions, steel mills have voluntarily cut output due to decreasing margins on the back of soft demand. The fact that Chinese steel prices have been falling since their highs in May this year indicates that demand is dropping faster than supply (Chart 11). Reduced Chinese steel demand is feeding through to demand for iron ore – the main steel input in China – while disruptions in the top two iron ore exporters, Australia and Brazil are easing, increasing the possibility of an oversupplied market. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold ended last Thursday above $1,860/oz for the first time since mid-June after the October CPI data release showed that the US had its biggest inflation surge in nearly 30 years. As long as the Federal Reserve does not turn more hawkish, consecutive months of high CPI prints will mean low real rates well into 2022, which will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. The high US twin deficits – which as of Q3 2021 was 17.44% of GDP – support the long-term dollar bearish view our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy hold. A weak dollar over the next 12-18 months will increase the inflation-hedge appeal of the yellow metal relative to the greenback. Chart 10 Chart 11 GENERIC 1ST MONTH STEEL REBAR FUTURES PRICE LEVEL GOING DOWN GENERIC 1ST MONTH STEEL REBAR FUTURES PRICE LEVEL GOING DOWN   Footnotes 1     We note in passing the Biden administration has been mostly successful in getting massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed into the US economy, which has increased household savings and potential spending power dramatically, as our colleagues in BCA's US Investment Strategy noted in their 1 November 2021 report Half-Empty Or Half-Full?: "Massive fiscal transfers and an unprecedented increase in household wealth will support consumption and keep the economy from stagnating." We cannot view higher gasoline prices in the wake of this stimulus and growth as an economic emergency of the sort the SPR is designed to address. Nor can we view the pick-up in mobility – particularly in air travel expected shortly with the re-opening of routes closed due to the pandemic – as a supply-side emergency. 2     It's worthwhile mentioning here that OPEC 2.0 has been returning less than the 400k b/d every month it agreed due to shortfalls in production outside the core group broken out in Table 1. Reduced capex and maintenance is responsible for this. Higher oil prices might allow this group within the coalition to attract additional capex, but, given the uncertain long-term support for such exploration-production-maintenance investment, this will remain a long-term challenge to these producers. Lastly, we continue to expect Iran to return to markets as a bona fide exporter; we expect its production to return to 3.70-3.85mm b/d by 2H22. 3    Please see Nord Stream 2: Germany halts approval of Russian gas link published on November 16, 2021. 4    Please see last month's oil balances and price-forecast report Short-Term Oil-Price Risk Moves To The Downside, published 21 October 2021. 5    Please see our October 14, 2021 report entitled Inflation Surges, Slows, Then Grinds Higher, and last week's report entitled Risk Of Persistent Food-Price Inflation for additional discussion. 6    Please see fn 3 above. 7     Please see fn 5 above.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations

Highlights Economy – It is more likely that the third quarter slowdown reflected demand deferral than demand destruction: We are not concerned that the lousy third quarter GDP release heralds stagflation. Massive fiscal transfers and an unprecedented increase in household wealth will support consumption and keep the economy from stagnating. Markets – Another quarter, another sizable earnings beat: Despite shortages, bottlenecks and logistics challenges, S&P 500 profit margins held up much better than expected in the third quarter, allowing earnings to maintain their pandemic streak of exceeding the analyst consensus by an unusually wide margin. Strategy – Stay on the right side of the cycles: The business cycle, the credit cycle and the monetary policy cycle all support overweighting equities and underweighting Treasuries and cash. There will be a time to turn defensive, but it’s not here yet. Feature Stagflation, combining stagnant activity and high inflation, is a clever phrase but a deeply unpleasant economic outcome. It is central bankers’ and elected officials’ bête noire because there is no politically palatable way to counter it. Raising rates to throttle inflation risks driving unemployment higher while stimulating the economy to bolster employment risks letting inflation burn out of control. Paul Volcker was hung in effigy for taking the former route, plunging the economy into a painful double-dip recession to shatter the inflationary mindset, while Jimmy Carter saw his re-election prospects evaporate once voters were asked how they’d fared over his stagflation-ridden term. The November edition of the Bank Credit Analyst examines the drivers of the ‘70s/early ‘80s stagflation. After a through then-and-now comparison, it concludes that a stagflationary outcome is unlikely albeit not impossible. We agree, for the simple reason that you can’t have stagflation without stagnating and we expect that the economy will grow well above its trend level all the way through 2022. We expect that sustained nominal GDP growth of 6% or more, in contrast to the 4% rate that has prevailed since 2000, will support risk asset outperformance over the next twelve months. A Discouraging Quarter The rise of the Delta variant cast a pall over the economy in the third quarter, as the first estimate of GDP made clear. A summer that began with great optimism about getting back to normal quickly fizzled in the face of surging infections (Chart 1), stalled vaccinations (Chart 2), spotty supplies and logistical bottlenecks. GDP growth forecasts cratered (Chart 3, top panel) and economists went on to dial back their expectations for next quarter (Chart 3, middle panel) and 2022 (Chart 3, bottom panel). In the end, growth proved to be even worse than expected, falling all the way to 2% with real final domestic demand (GDP after backing out inventory stocking and net exports) growing just 1%. Chart 1So Much For The Summer Of Fun So Much For The Summer Of Fun So Much For The Summer Of Fun Chart 2Grinding To A Halt Grinding To A Halt Grinding To A Halt Chart 3Downward Revisions Downward Revisions Downward Revisions A bear could interpret the decline as evidence that extraordinary policy measures have failed, giving way after just two quarters of Potemkin village growth. We are decidedly bullish, however, and view the third quarter as a stumble that will merely stretch out a consumption-fueled blowout that has already begun. A swoon in motor vehicle purchases lopped off 240 basis points of GDP by itself, while declining residential investment cost 40 basis points. The third quarter’s decline in auto sales was unprecedented during an expansion, however (Chart 4), and we view it as a supply-driven hiccup that will disappear once production revives. (Ford’s double-digit rise after reporting earnings last week suggests the equity market sees it that way, too.) Chart 4An Unprecedented Expansion Event An Unprecedented Expansion Event An Unprecedented Expansion Event As for residential investment, we stand by our view that the housing market has been inadequately supplied for several years.1 Structural issues like tight local zoning rules may be as much of a constraint on supply as cyclical factors, but they are not new and we do not expect that they will thwart builders’ response once the requisite human and material inputs can again be accessed. Like auto sales, residential investment does not typically decline amidst expansions (Chart 5). We attribute the slowdown in services consumption, particularly in food services and accommodations (Chart 6, top panel) and recreation services (Chart 6, bottom panel), to last quarter’s spike in COVID infections. Now that the Delta variant seems to have run its course and 5-to-11-year-olds are poised to become vaccination-eligible, we expect the recovery in discretionary services consumption to return to something between its first half and third quarter pace. Chart 5Residential Investment Looks More Likely To Contribute To Growth Than Detract From It Residential Investment Looks More Likely To Contribute To Growth Than Detract From It Residential Investment Looks More Likely To Contribute To Growth Than Detract From It Chart 6Not So Bad For An Outbreak Not So Bad For An Outbreak Not So Bad For An Outbreak The Creeping Menace The Delta variant upended a quarter’s output, but inflation could prove to be a more durable threat. Nominal GDP growth in the third quarter (7.8%) slowed considerably from the first half (12.1%), but the decline in real growth to 2% from 6.5% was much worse. If inflation doesn’t come down more rapidly than it did last quarter – as measured by the GDP deflator, it was 6.1% in 2Q and 5.7% in 3Q – it threatens to swallow up much of the quickened nominal growth pace. If upward price pressures are not as transitory as they first appeared, the expansion may fail to live up to its hype. The good news from our perspective is that long-run inflation expectations remain muted. Neither consumer surveys nor market-based measures suggest that a potentially self-fulfilling inflationary mindset has taken hold. The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence survey reveals that households’ inflation expectations curve is sharply inverted, with inflation over the next five to ten years, 2.8%, expected to be two percentage points lower than next year’s 4.8% rate (Chart 7). The market-based inflation expectations curve is not so steeply negative – investors aren’t as gloomy about the near-term outlook – but it is decidedly inverted and reinforces the transitory narrative (Table 1). Chart 7Households Think Inflation's Transitory ... Households Think Inflation's Transitory ... Households Think Inflation's Transitory ... We (and the Fed) focus so much attention on the inflation expectations curve because high inflation will not become self-sustaining until economic actors – workers, businesses, consumers and lenders – begin to expect it will persist into the future and change their behavior accordingly. When inflation is expected to be persistently high, workers insist on higher wages to maintain purchasing power, businesses demand higher prices to preserve their margins, consumers accelerate their big-ticket purchases to get the most bang for their buck and lenders require higher nominal pro forma returns. The resulting feedback loops help inflation become entrenched in the same way that expectations of falling prices have enabled the deflationary mindset that continues to grip Japan. As long as households and investors expect inflation to decelerate over time, the inflation genie will not have gotten out of the bottle. Table 1... And So Do Financial Markets Half-Empty Or Half-Full? Half-Empty Or Half-Full? Households Have A Great Deal Of Dry Powder We have closely monitored US households’ pandemic savings ever since the CARES Act payments began to flow. We viewed the growing pile of excess savings – aggregate household savings above the level that would have accumulated if pre-pandemic income and consumption trends had continued – as a proxy for households’ ability to make up for foregone consumption once COVID-19 loosened its grip on economic activity. Our running tally, now $2.2 trillion, has stabilized since the final round of economic impact payments was distributed this spring: spending caught up to its pre-pandemic trajectory in August and income slipped below its pre-COVID trend last month upon the expiration of federal supplemental unemployment insurance benefits. Households flexed their formidable spending capacity in the first half of the year, when consumption grew at a whopping 11.7% annualized real rate even while excess savings continued to grow. The experience of the first half testifies to the force of pent-up demand, the magnitude of fiscal support extended to households and the staggering wealth gains that have resulted from the appreciation of home prices and financial assets. As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues highlighted in their latest report, since the end of 2019, household net worth as a share of GDP has grown at its highest rate on record (Chart 8). Citing empirical studies finding that households spend 5 to 8 cents of every incremental dollar of housing wealth and 2 to 4 cents of every incremental dollar of stock market gains, they estimate that the wealth effect will support about $600 to $900 billion of consumption. Chart 8A Wealth Surge For The Books A Wealth Surge For The Books A Wealth Surge For The Books We have lauded excess savings as the primary support for elevated consumption, but those numbers suggest that household net worth gains deserve nearly equal billing. Our ballpark assumption has been that households will spend around one half of their excess savings, or $1.1 trillion, equivalent to nearly 5% of GDP. $600 to $900 billion of wealth effect consumption would tack on another 2.5 to 4%, bringing the total incremental spending capacity to 7 to 9% of GDP. Though these estimates are imprecise and should not be viewed as predictions, they testify to the force of the consumption tailwinds available to support the US economy. Another Robust Quarter For S&P 500 Earnings Amazon’s sizable third quarter earnings miss and stark fourth quarter guidance banished the budding sense of celebration surrounding the current reporting season, but it has nonetheless been exceptional by pre-COVID standards. Through the first three weeks, with 279 companies having reported results, third quarter earnings are projected to be 7.4% ahead of the final consensus estimate (Chart 9). Though it will fall short of the two- and three-standard-deviation level the index has reached the previous five quarters, this quarter is on track to top the maximum 6% beat recorded from 2012 through 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9 ​​​​​​ Chart 10 ​​​​​​ Possibly the most surprising factor within the bottom-line EPS data has been the magnitude and breadth of margin surprises. Through last Friday, revenues had surprised to the upside by 2% while earnings had beaten by 11%. The 9-percentage-point spread reveals how much margins have surpassed expectations in the face of upward wage and other input cost pressures. Breadth has also been impressive, with every sector but Materials achieving wider-than-expected margins (Table 2). Table 2Margins Positively Surprised Nearly Across The Board Half-Empty Or Half-Full? Half-Empty Or Half-Full? We do not know why margins fared better in the real world than they did in analyst models – it was presumably a combination of increased operating leverage and an ability to continue to reduce or eliminate some costs – but we expect margins will contract in subsequent quarters, as per our US Equity Strategy team’s recent detailed analysis. In this regard, perhaps the reduced magnitude of this quarter’s earnings beat heralds a return to the pre-pandemic pattern in which companies were not able to achieve unanticipated efficiency gains quarter after quarter. For the last two quarters, we have been highlighting that expectations were very low because the consensus was calling for highly unusual quarter-over-quarter declines in earnings. If those laughably easy comparisons go away, the path may become a little rockier for equities. For the next twelve months, however, we expect gale-force consumption tailwinds will allow equities to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the July 12, 2021 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "The US Housing Market: Déjà Vu All Over Again?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, but data highlighting the economic consequences of the Delta wave grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, driven by lower car sales and a slowdown in services spending. The imminent vaccination of school-aged children, and signs that services activity and spending are increasing, will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Investors have the right bond view, but the wrong reason. Investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas it will likely do so because of a quicker return to maximum employment. Bond yields are likely to move higher over the coming year, but this will be driven by real yields, not inflation expectations. Once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and a gap between these two measures no longer makes sense. Stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. A benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis; stay overweight for now, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Feature Chart I-1The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta Over the past month, the focus of investors has shifted from day-to-day developments to the consequences of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Chart I-1 highlights that, while an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction rates in advanced economies has recently inched higher, it remains below one and hospitalizations continue to trend lower in most major economies. UK hospitalizations have increased over the course of the month, but remain at a level that is a quarter of their January peak – despite an elevated pace of confirmed cases. In the US, both these cases and hospitalizations continue to fall, trends that are likely to be reinforced by the vaccination of children over the coming weeks. A 50-60% vaccination rate for school-aged children would increase the US vaccination rate by 4-5 percentage points. Vaccinating all children at this rate would increase the total vaccination rate by 7-8 percentage points. In combination with a meaningful level of natural immunity, the vaccination of children is likely to bring the US very close to, if not above, the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity (or “NAHRI”).1 The Delta Hangover While the circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, the economic consequences grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, as highlighted by yesterday’s advance release. Chart I-2 highlights that durable goods spending subtracted almost three percentage points from Q3 growth, and that most other components of GDP contributed less to growth in Q3 than in Q2. Chart I-2 The significant slowdown in Q3 growth is disappointing, but several factors point toward the conclusion that it is not likely to be sustained: Chart I-3Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 The Delta wave very likely impacted services spending, which we have highlighted is likely to drive overall consumption over the coming year. Given the ongoing impact of semiconductor shortages on the availability of new cars, it is not surprising that a slowdown in services spending resulted in a significant slowdown in overall growth. After having declined significantly in Q3, Chart I-3 highlights that the US, UK, French, and Japanese October flash services PMI rose anew, underscoring that recent services weakness have been closely linked to the Delta variant of COVID-19 (whose impact is now waning). Chart I-3 also highlights that the US services PMI is currently at a level that has been historically consistent with solid real PCE growth. Finally, while it is true that manufacturing PMIs are being supported by supplier deliveries components, the October output component of the US Markit manufacturing index remained in expansionary territory, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and the UK (despite month-over-month declines in these components). Chart I-4 highlights that Q3’s real GDP reading was highly anomalous relative to the pace of jobs growth in the quarter, based on the relationship between the two since the global financial crisis. In quarters in which real GDP growth was 1% or less than implied by the trendline shown in Chart I-4, real GDP accelerated in the subsequent quarter 80% of the time. In conjunction with a pickup in services activity in October, this suggests that growth will be meaningfully stronger in Q4. Chart I-4 Chart I-5Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Chart I-5 shows our global Nowcast indicator, alongside our global LEI. Our Nowcast indicator is a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global LEI are declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. The global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart I-5 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not a major cyclical downturn. The expectation of a slowdown in growth in Q3 has significantly raised concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation in the minds of many investors. We address this topic in depth in this month’s Special Report, and conclude that, while investors cannot rule out the possibility of stagflation, there are important differences that point toward a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We note in our report that the risk of stagflation can be monitored in real time by tracking the Misery Index, which is the sum of headline PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. Currently, the Misery Index is elevated relative to the average of the past 30 years, but it is meaningfully lower than it was during the latter half of the 1970s. This also underscores that true stagflation is only likely to occur if the unemployment rate rises, which means that the economic and financial market outlook over the coming year is strongly tied to the pace of jobs growth (even more so than usual). Table I-1 presents an industry breakdown of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, sorted by industries with the largest gap. The table highlights that leisure and hospitality, government, and education and health services jobs continue to account for two-thirds of the five million jobs gap, with the latter two largely reflecting the same effect: 60% of the government jobs gap is accounted for by state and local government education-related employment. Chart I- Chart I-6Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate US education employment has been impacted by school and classroom closures, which we noted above are likely to end once school-aged children are vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-6 highlights that leisure and hospitality employment is clearly predicted by the US hotel occupancy rate, which wobbled over the past few months as a result of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Correspondingly, monthly growth in leisure and hospitality employment slowed in August and September. Taken together, the imminent vaccination of school-aged children and signs that services activity and spending are increasing will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. The Bond Market Outlook Chart I-7The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... A continued normalization of the labor market over the coming 6-12 months argues in favor of Fed rate hikes next year, which is a view that we have maintained for several months. Recently, investors have come to agree with us, by moving forward their expectations for the Fed funds rate (Chart I-7). However, Chart I-8 highlights that investors have the right view for the wrong reason. The chart highlights that US government bond yields have risen entirely due to inflation expectations and that real yields have fallen. This means that investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas we believe that they will do so because of a return to maximum employment. The implication for investors is that bond yields are still likely to rise over the coming year, but that higher yields are likely to occur alongside falling inflation expectations. This trend underscores that common hedges against inflation, such as precious metals and the relative performance of TIPS, are likely to underperform over the coming year. We have noted in previous reports that the fair value for long-maturity government bond yields implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections is not likely threatening for equity multiples, and certainly not for economic activity. A September 2022 rate hike, coupled with a pace of three hikes per year and a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, implies that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to 2.15% over the coming year, which would be only modestly higher than the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-8...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason Chart I-9Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year   However, once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and, while a gap between these two measures made sense in the years following the global financial crisis, this no longer appears to be the case. Chart I-10 highlights that real household mortgage liabilities began to contract sharply in 2006, and did not turn positive on a year-over-year basis until the end of 2016. It is likely that R-star was falling or weak during this period, but the correlation between the two series clearly shifted in the latter phase of the last economic cycle. Chart I-11 emphasizes this point by highlighting that the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s, underscoring the capacity that US consumers have to withstand higher interest rates. Chart I-10R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time Chart I-11Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates     We doubt that investor expectations for the terminal rate will rise significantly before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy, but it may happen. In addition, the Fed may begin raising interest rates next year as soon as late in the summer or early in the fall, which would locate the liftoff date within our 6-12 month investment time horizon. As such, our base case view is that a rise in interest rates over the coming year will not be threatening to the equity market, but this view may change at some point next year. Equities: Expect Modest Returns In 2022 A benign increase in long-maturity bond yields in 2022 suggests that equity multiples will neither contribute to, nor subtract from, equity returns. As such, return expectations for equities should be centered around expected earnings growth. Chart I- Table I-2 presents consensus estimates for nominal GDP growth, S&P 500 revenue growth, and earnings growth for 2022. The table highlights that expectations for revenue growth estimates appear to be reasonable, given that bottom-up analysts continue to expect an expansion in profit margins next year. Chart I-12 highlights that margins have already risen back above their pre-pandemic high, and that this is true for both tech and ex-tech sectors. Chart I-12US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels We doubt that further increases in profit margins will be sustained next year. It is possible that margins will actually decline – a view that was recently espoused by our US Equity Strategy service.2 Risks to profit margins underscore that stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. Within the equity market, we remain of the view that even a benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Chart I-13 highlights that the rolling one-year correlation between relative global growth versus value stock prices and the US 10-year Treasury yield has become increasingly negative over time, which bodes well for value. We also continue to recommend that investors favor small over large caps and cyclicals over defensives, although cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis as they are closing in on their 2018 highs (Chart I-14). We think it is too early to position against cyclicals, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Chart I-13Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-14Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives   Investment Conclusions Next month’s report will feature BCA’s 2022 outlook, as well as a transcript of our recently held annual discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X (who joined his family office a couple of years ago). Our annual outlook will provide a detailed walkthrough of our views for the upcoming year, as well as answers to sobering questions raised by Mr. X and Ms. X about the longer-term outlook. For now, we recommend that investors stick with a pro-cyclical view, favoring the following assets: Global stocks over bonds A short-duration position within a government bond portfolio Speculative-grade corporate bonds within a credit portfolio Global ex-US stocks vs US, focused on DM ex-US Global value versus growth stocks Cyclicals versus defensives, and small versus large caps Major currencies versus the US dollar Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2021 Next Report: November 30, 2021 II. Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.3 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,4 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,5 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.6 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,7 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 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 shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises appear to have peaked, but there is not yet any meaningful sign of waning forward earnings. 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 would continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yield. The US 10-Year Treasury yield remains above its 200-day moving average after failing to break meaningfully below it. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is likely. However, most of the recent move higher in government bond yields has occurred due to rising inflation expectations, whereas the increase in yields over the coming year will likely occur in real terms. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they are still 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, may weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. 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 social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. 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 Section 1 of the September 2021 Bank Credit Analyst for a detailed discussion of the US immunity level. 2  Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 7  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? (Part 2)’. I do hope you can join. Highlights If a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel the pain. We reiterate that the pain point at which the Fed would be forced to volte-face is only around 30 bps away on the 30-year T-bond, equal to a yield of around 2.4-2.5 percent. That would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds, or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend. Fractal analysis: The Korean won is oversold. Feature Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned about the trebling of the crude oil price since March 2020? Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders, by driving up the bond yield and tipping an already fragile market and economy over the brink. Today, could oil become the accessory to another murder? (Chart I-1) Chart I-1AOil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Oil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Oil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Chart I-1B...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder? ...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder? ...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder?   Oil Is The Accessory To Many Murders Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and it might seem more straightforward that the recession of 1974 was the direct result of the oil shock that preceded it. Yet even in this case, we can argue that oil was the accessory, rather than the true culprit of that murder. It is correct that the specific timing, magnitude, and nature of OPEC supply cutbacks were closely related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. Yet as neat and popular as this explanation is, it ignores a bigger economic story: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, the OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil well before October 1973. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. Seen in this light, the true culprit of the recession was the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and the oil price surge through 1973-74 was just the accessory to the murder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar A quarter of a century later in 1999, the oil price again trebled within a short time span – and by the turn of the millennium, the ensuing inflationary fears had pushed up the 10-year T-bond yield from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent (Chart I-3). With stocks already looking expensive versus bonds, it was this increase in the bond yield – rather than a decline in the equity earnings yield – that inflated the equity bubble to its bursting point in early 2000 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive ...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive ...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive To repeat, for the broader equity market, the last stage of the bubble was not so much that stocks became more expensive in absolute terms (the earnings yield was just moving sideways). Rather, stock valuations worsened markedly relative to sharply higher bond yields. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 1999 was once again the accessory to the murder. Eight years later in 2007-08, the oil price once again trebled with Brent crude reaching an all-time high of $146 per barrel in July 2008. Again, the inflationary fears forced the 10-year T-bond yield to increase, from 3.25 percent to 4.25 percent during the early summer of 2008 (Chart I-5) – even though the Federal Reserve was slashing the Fed funds rate in the face of an escalating financial crisis (Chart I-6). Chart I-5In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-6...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis ...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis ...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis Suffice to say, driving up bond yields in the summer of 2008 – in the face of the Fed’s aggressive rate cuts and a global financial system teetering on the brink – was not the smartest thing that the bond market could do. On the other hand, neither could it override its Pavlovian fears of the oil price trebling. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 2007-08 was once again the accessory to the murder. Inflationary Fears May Once Again Lead To Murder Fast forward to today, and the danger of the recent trebling of the oil price comes not from the oil price per se. Instead, just as in 2000 and 2008, the danger comes from its potential to drive up bond yields, which can tip more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. One such fragility is the extreme sensitivity of highly-valued growth stocks to the 30-year T-bond yield, as explained in The Fed’s ‘Pain Point’ Is Only 30 Basis Points Away. On this note, one encouragement is that while shorter duration yields have risen sharply through October, the much more important 30-year T-bond yield has just gone sideways. A much bigger systemic fragility lies in the $300 trillion global real estate market, as explained in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). Specifically, the global real estate market has undergone an unprecedented ten-year boom in which prices have doubled in every corner of the world. Over the same period, rents have risen by just 30 percent, which has depressed the global rental yield to an all-time low of 2.5 percent. Structurally depressed rental yields are justified by structurally depressed 30-year bond yields. Therefore, any sustained rise in 30-year bond yields risks undermining the foundations of the $300 trillion global real estate market (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Nowhere is this truer than in China, where prime real estate yields in the major cities are at a paltry 1 percent. In this context, the recent woes of real estate developer Evergrande are just the ‘canary in the coalmine’ warning of an extremely fragile Chinese real estate sector. This will put downward pressure on China’s long-duration bond yields. As my colleague, BCA China strategist, Jing Sima, points out, “Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend…yields are likely to move structurally to a lower bound.” But it is not just in China. Real estate is at record high valuations everywhere and contingent on no major rise in long-duration bond yields. In the US, there is a tight relationship between the (inverted) 30-year bond yield and mortgage applications for home purchase (Chart I-8), and a tight relationship between mortgage applications for home purchase and building permits (Chart I-9). Thereby, higher bond yields threaten not only real estate prices. They also threaten the act of building itself, an important swing factor in economic activity. Chart I-8The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... Chart I-9...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits ...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits ...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits To repeat, focus on the 30-year T-bond yield – as this is the most significant driver for both growth stock valuations, and for real estate valuations and activity. To repeat also, the 30-year T-bond yield has been generally well-behaved over the past few months. But if a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel pain. And at some point, this pain would force the Fed to volte-face. We reiterate that this pain point is only around 30 bps away, equal to a yield on 30-year T-bond of around 2.4-2.5 percent – a level that would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. The Korean Won Is Oversold Finally, in this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the Korean won is oversold – specifically versus the Chinese yuan on the 130-day fractal structure of that cross (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Korean Won Is Oversold The Korean Won Is Oversold The Korean Won Is Oversold Given that previous instances of such fragility have reliably indicated trend changes, this week’s recommended trade is long KRW/CNY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 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 ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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