Economic Growth

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s abbreviated report, we are sending you a Special Report on Bitcoin. I don’t recommend you buy it. Best regards, Peter Berezin Highlights Real government bond yields have increased in recent weeks, which could put further downward pressure on equity prices in the near term. Nevertheless, we continue to advocate overweighting equities over a 12-month horizon. Historically, rising real yields have been most toxic for stocks when yields have increased in response to hawkish central bank rhetoric. This is manifestly not the case today. The Fed’s accommodative stance should limit any near-term upward pressure on the US dollar. Investors should favor cyclical and value-oriented stocks over defensive and growth-geared plays. Higher Real Yields: A Near-Term Risk For Stocks Chart 1Government Bond Yields Have Increased Since Bottoming Last Year Government Bond Yields Have Increased Since Bottoming Last Year Government Bond Yields Have Increased Since Bottoming Last Year Bond yields have jumped in recent weeks. After bottoming at 0.52% in August, the US 10-year Treasury yield has climbed to 1.54%, up from 0.93% at the beginning of the year. Government bond yields in the other major economies have also risen (Chart 1). While inflation expectations have bounced, the most recent increase in yields has been concentrated in the real component of bond yields (Chart 2). Optimism about a vaccine-led global growth recovery, reinforced by continued fiscal stimulus – especially in the US – has prompted investors to move forward their expectations of how soon and how high policy rates will rise (Chart 3). Chart 2AThe Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (I) The Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (I) The Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (I) Chart 2BThe Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (II) The Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (II) The Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (II) How menacing is the increase in bond yields to stock market investors? Chart 4 shows that there has been a close correlation between real yields and the forward P/E ratio at which the S&P 500 trades. The 5-year/5-year forward real yield, in particular, has moved up sharply, which could put further downward pressure on stocks in the near term. Chart 3Path Of Expected Policy Rates Being Revised Upwards Path Of Expected Policy Rates Being Revised Upwards Path Of Expected Policy Rates Being Revised Upwards Chart 4Rise In Real Rates Is A Headwind For Equity Valuations Rise In Real Rates Is A Headwind For Equity Valuations Rise In Real Rates Is A Headwind For Equity Valuations Nevertheless, we continue to advocate overweighting equities over a 12-month horizon. As we pointed out two weeks ago, rising real yields have historically been most toxic for stocks when yields have increased in response to hawkish central bank rhetoric. This is manifestly not the case today. In his testimony to Congress this week, Jay Powell downplayed inflation risks, stressing that the US economy was “a long way” from the Fed’s goals. He pledged to tread “carefully and patiently” and give “a lot of advance warning” before beginning the process of normalizing monetary policy. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to stabilize in the 1.6%-to-1.7% range, still well below the level that would threaten the health of the economy. Favor Cyclical And Value-Oriented Stocks In  A Weaker Dollar Environment The Fed’s accommodative stance should limit any near-term upward pressure on the US dollar. Whereas stocks are most sensitive to absolute changes in long-term real bond yields, the dollar is more sensitive to changes in short-term real rate differentials with US trading partners (Chart 5). Since the Fed is unlikely to tighten monetary policy anytime soon, US short-term real rates could fall further as inflation rises.  Chart 5The Dollar Is Sensitive To Changes In Short-Term Real Rate Differentials The Dollar Is Sensitive To Changes In Short-Term Real Rate Differentials The Dollar Is Sensitive To Changes In Short-Term Real Rate Differentials Chart 6Cyclical Stocks Tend To Benefit The Most From Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker Dollar Cyclical Stocks Tend To Benefit The Most From Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker Dollar Cyclical Stocks Tend To Benefit The Most From Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker Dollar   Cyclical stocks, which are overrepresented outside the US, tend to benefit the most from strengthening global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 6). Value stocks also generally do well in a weak dollar-strong growth environment (Chart 7). Moreover, bank shares – which are concentrated in value indices – typically outperform when long-term bond yields are rising (Chart 8). Chart 7AA Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (I) A Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (I) A Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (I) Chart 7BA Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (II) A Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (II) A Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (II)     Chart 8Bank Shares Typically Excel When Long-Term Bond Yields Are Rising Bank Shares Typically Excel When Long-Term Bond Yields Are Rising Bank Shares Typically Excel When Long-Term Bond Yields Are Rising In contrast, as relatively long-duration assets, growth stocks often struggle when bond yields go up. The same is true for more speculative plays such as cryptocurrencies. In this week’s Special Report, we discuss the fate of Bitcoin, arguing that investors should resist buying it.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com     Global Investment Strategy View Matrix When Good News Is Bad News When Good News Is Bad News Special Trade Recommendations When Good News Is Bad News When Good News Is Bad News Current MacroQuant Model Scores When Good News Is Bad News When Good News Is Bad News

Highlights The pandemic is not yet over, but it appears that infections have peaked in the developed world and in most of the major developing economies. Economic growth will reaccelerate as social distancing abates and vaccination programs gather momentum. The current policy orthodoxy is night-and-day different from the orthodoxy that prevailed in the wake of the global financial crisis, as deficit shaming has given way to deficit positivity. Rapid expansion is more likely than a repeat of last decade’s tepid, plodding recovery and inflation will eventually supplant hysteresis as policymakers’ biggest worry. The impending passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act will vault the US ahead of its major economy counterparts in terms of pandemic spending. Washington’s massive fiscal commitment speeds up the timetable for closing the output gap in the US. Although inflation has become a hot topic among US investors, we do not see it materializing until next year at the earliest. Our base case has the Goldilocks backdrop of solid growth and ample monetary accommodation remaining in place for at least the rest of the year. Markets have fully discounted that scenario but investors should be aware that both downside and upside surprises are possible; bad virus news could drive a growth shortfall while households’ enormous excess savings could power a consumption breakout. The broad take-up of the Goldilocks scenario among equity investors will make it hard for stocks to dazzle in 2021. Nonetheless, we think conditions support mid-to-high single-digit returns, which will allow equities to outperform bonds. The combination of accelerating growth and quiescent central banks is catnip for equities but not so much for bonds, especially investment-grade sovereigns. Fixed-income investors should maintain below-benchmark duration as yield curves steepen. Steepening yield curves have given Financials a shot in the arm while weighing on the high-flying Tech sector. Reopening in the wake of COVID’s retreat should also redound to recent laggards’ benefit and we continue to expect value stocks will outperform their growth counterparts over the rest of the year. The US dollar will resume its downtrend as the virus is beaten back, albeit at a gentler pace than in 2020. Humanity Retakes The Lead Humankind cannot yet declare victory over COVID-19 but it does appear to have gained the upper hand as new case counts have plummeted from their January peak (Chart I-1). Restrictions helped turn the tide in Europe, albeit at the cost of cutting off oxygen to the economy (Chart I-2), but even in Sweden and the US, which eschewed EU-style restrictions, the virus has lost momentum. Increased vigilance apparently trumped fears that the coronavirus would flourish in the northern hemisphere winter. The potential for vaccine-resistant variants is a concern, but the pandemic news is clearly trending in the right direction. Chart I-1The Fever Has Broken The Fever Has Broken The Fever Has Broken Chart I-2Throwing The Merchants Out With The Bathwater Throwing The Merchants Out With The Bathwater Throwing The Merchants Out With The Bathwater As infections fall, so too does the strain on public health care systems. Plunging hospitalizations (Chart I-3) indicate that health care systems have recovered capacity. Hospitalizations are an important metric for tracking COVID’s impact on the economy because they lead restrictions on activity; when they are high and rising, officials are prone to limit person-to-person interaction, and when they are low and falling, officials roll back emergency limits. For services-heavy developed economies, easier restrictions are the key to a return to something more closely resembling normal activity until vaccinations confer herd immunity (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Restrictions Can Be Lifted As Health Care Systems Regain Capacity Restrictions Can Be Lifted As Health Care Systems Regain Capacity Restrictions Can Be Lifted As Health Care Systems Regain Capacity In the meantime, those who continue to be displaced by the pandemic and the distancing measures taken to combat it will fall back on fiscal support. Fourth-quarter deceleration in the United States highlighted the important role that fiscal transfers have played in keeping vulnerable households, businesses and communities afloat. The bulk of the transfers authorized under the CARES Act were distributed in two bursts. The first arrived in April and May via economic impact payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child that were paid in full to about two-thirds of American households1 (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-4Lockdowns Are A Drag Lockdowns Are A Drag Lockdowns Are A Drag Chart I-5Transfers Slowed To A Trickle In The Fall March 2021 March 2021 Chart I-6Fewer Transfers, Fewer Sales, ... Fewer Transfers, Fewer Sales, ... Fewer Transfers, Fewer Sales, ... The second burst came in the form of a weekly $600 federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefit supplement in April, May, June and July (Chart I-5, middle panel). Additional aid was provided by the pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) program, which expanded UI benefits to independent contractors, self-employed individuals and other workers who would not otherwise qualify to receive them. The PUA program was the smallest of the three major transfer plans and the only one that ran until the end of the year, and as the arrival of the direct payment checks and final UI benefit supplements receded further into the past, the US economy began to show some signs of wear. Retail sales fell sequentially in all three months of the fourth quarter (Chart I-6) as total employment hit a wall (Chart I-7) and the economic surprise index swooned (Chart I-8).   Chart I-7... Fewer Jobs ... ... Fewer Jobs ... ... Fewer Jobs ... Chart I-8... And Fewer Positive Surprises ... And Fewer Positive Surprises ... And Fewer Positive Surprises Households’ ability to satisfy their obligations to creditors and landlords slipped as the year wore on as well. Fiscal transfers and forbearance programs have limited credit distress far more effectively than one would have expected when the COVID meteor hit the earth (Table I-1), but leading 30-day delinquency rates reveal a modest erosion since late summer (Chart I-9). The share of apartment renters paying at least some of their rent fell by more than one-and-a-half percentage points from year-ago levels in October, November, December and January, a first since the CARES Act transfers began to flow in time to help with the May rent (Chart I-10). It seems clear that lower-income households who relied most heavily on aid felt its absence as the year wore on. Table I-160- And 90-Day Consumer Delinquencies Are Down Year-Over-Year, ... March 2021 March 2021 Chart I-9... But Leading 30-Day Delinquencies Are On The Rise ... March 2021 March 2021 Chart I-10... And Apartment Rent Collections Have Been Slipping March 2021 March 2021     We take the snapback in January retail sales as evidence that high marginal-propensity-to-consume households needed the second round of transfers provided for in December’s compromise spending bill. Both the economic impact payments ($600 per qualifying adult and $600 per child) and the supplemental UI benefits ($300 per week) were smaller, but the most vulnerable households put them to immediate use. We expect that February rent collections and consumer loan delinquencies will also show improvement, albeit not as dramatically as the retail sales series. With another, larger round of stimulus coming down the pike, it appears that the US economy will avoid a repeat of its fourth quarter fraying around the edges but slumps remain a possibility in economies that allow transfer schemes to lapse before COVID-19 can be tamed. And Now For Something Completely Different The global economy has confronted two significant crises in the space of a dozen years. The events that precipitated them could hardly have been more different: the global financial crisis (GFC) was an endogenous event with enough avarice, hubris, folly and villainy to support a cottage industry of books, movies and TV shows revisiting it, while the pandemic, for all of the official complacency and bumbling it laid bare, was simply an exogenous occurrence of great misfortune. The monetary policy response to both events has been substantially identical; the Fed swiftly took the fed funds rate back to zero, bought copious quantities of Treasury and agency securities, and launched a mix of old and new emergency measures. Other major central banks, which were largely unable to make any moves toward normalization between crises, simply maintained zero or negative interest rate policy and ramped up the pace and/or scope of their own asset purchase programs. The fiscal response has been dramatically different, however, in line with a 180-degree turn in budget orthodoxy. Chastened, perhaps, by Europe’s double-dip recession, or the protractedly tepid US expansion, economic mandarins have experienced a road-to-Damascus conversion. Whereas the OECD and the IMF began wagging their fingers at prodigal legislators while the global economy was still submerged under the GFC rubble, today they counsel that there is no rush to pull back on spending. As the OECD’s chief economist said in a January interview, “The first lesson [from the aftermath of the GFC] is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP.2” The IMF has declared that “the near-term priority is to avoid premature withdrawal of fiscal support. Support should persist, at least into 2021, to sustain the recovery and to limit long-term scarring.3” Chart I-11What Goes Up Must ... Go Up Again What Goes Up Must ... Go Up Again What Goes Up Must ... Go Up Again The about-face in terms of fiscal deficits could have a profound effect on the character of the post-pandemic expansions. The plodding and protracted post-GFC recovery/expansion might be viewed as an object lesson in monetary policy’s limits. There is no gainsaying that central banks acted boldly to counter the GFC, cutting policy rates to zero and beyond, purchasing vast quantities of sovereign bonds, government agency securities and even debt and equity issued by private entities. The purchases caused central bank balance sheets to swell (Chart I-11), but the money creation impact was stunted by an offsetting wave of defaults and a general reluctance on the part of lenders and would-be borrowers to add to the stock of debt. Chart I-12GFC Stimulus Was Fleeting March 2021 March 2021 GFC fiscal spending was modest and largely limited to automatic stabilizers once emergency measures ran their course. Even the most celebrated efforts, like the United States’ 2009 Recovery Act, were intentionally modest in scope and limited in duration. Following the prevailing wisdom, national governments quickly moved to withdraw assistance and reduce their budget deficits once the worst of the crisis had passed (Chart I-12). Tepid investment, sluggish employment gains and fiscal drag all weighed on growth, defying the typical bigger-the-decline, bigger-the-bounce business cycle pattern. The picture is quite different today as central banks have gained a powerful and willing partner in their efforts to combat the damage wrought by a sudden shock. Pandemic fiscal stimulus initiatives have dwarfed GFC efforts across the major economies (Chart I-13). Once Congress passes the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Act, the US will have doubled down on its 2020 initiatives, committing to aid equivalent to an extraordinary 25% of its annual output. The ultimate effect on inflation, interest rates and exchange rates remains to be seen, but it is clear that the post-pandemic expansion will not unfold at the plodding pace of the post-GFC expansion. Chart I-13The COVID Fiscal Response Has Dwarfed The GFC's March 2021 March 2021 Goldilocks And The Two Tails Narrowing our focus to the US, which comprises nearly 60% of the market cap of the benchmark MSCI All-Country World Index, our base case is the Goldilocks scenario that markets appear to be discounting. That scenario would entail the just-right outcome of solid growth and continued monetary accommodation (Figure I-1). Since the Fed will only dial back accommodation if the economy appears to be at risk of overheating, it will take a growth disappointment, most likely from a negative virus surprise, for the US economy to tumble into the left-hand tail of the distribution. Figure I-1Goldilocks And The Two Tails March 2021 March 2021 Chart I-14Making Up For Lost Time Making Up For Lost Time Making Up For Lost Time We cannot rule out the possibility of virus-resistant mutations or new rounds of outbreaks from a weary populace that lets its guard down, but a failure to vaccinate at a pace consistent with achieving herd immunity by the end of September looks to be the most likely route to disappointment. To that end, we are monitoring vaccination progress against the pace required to get 50-80% of the population inoculated by the end of the third quarter (Chart I-14). The US got off to a slow start, but we are confident that it will catch up by early spring under an administration that has made crushing the virus its top priority and a Congress that is providing the resources to enable local health authorities to get the job done. The case for an upside near-term surprise stems from the notion that America’s solons have provided considerably more aid to households than was strictly necessary. As Chart I-7 showed, total employment fell by 25 million at the trough in April and close to 9 million fewer people are employed now than at the pre-pandemic peak. They can surely use a lifeline, along with the many Americans who are involuntarily working part time and those who are barely holding on even if they are fully employed. But they number far less than the 100 million households4 (two-thirds of all taxpayers) that received the full $1,800-per-adult economic impact payments ($1,200 last spring and $600 in January), and will be in line for another $1,400, as soon as March, under the terms of the new bill. Households who did not need the largesse have presumably saved the distributions, helping contribute to the $1.5 trillion of excess savings accumulated during the pandemic. Thanks to the transfers provided for by the CARES Act, our US Investment Strategy service estimates that aggregate household income from March through December was $450 billion greater than it would have been in the absence of COVID-19 (Table I-2). With the second round of direct payments amounting to about $150 billion and the third round likely to be more than double the second, household incomes will be boosted by another $500 billion and the excess savings horde will be on its way to $2 trillion and beyond. Even in a $21 trillion economy, that much dry powder has the potential to move the needle. Table I-2Households' Excess Pandemic Savings March 2021 March 2021 In the absence of even a somewhat related antecedent, no one can say for sure how much of the excess savings will be spent. Ricardian equivalence, which posits that households will be reluctant to spend fiscal windfalls if they anticipate that they will have to pay for them with higher future taxes, and Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, which posits that consumption decisions are based on lifetime earnings, both suggest that the multiplier effect of the direct payments to households may not be all it's cracked up to be. Empirical evidence does not definitively support either model, but increased income has only accounted for a third of households’ mountain of savings in any event. The remaining two-thirds, amounting to over a trillion dollars, came from reduced consumption. Even if Ricardo’s and Friedman’s hypotheses are mostly on the mark, if much of the $1 trillion of 2020’s reduced consumption was merely deferred rather than destroyed (Box I-1), pent-up consumer demand could be significant. The range of potential outcomes is wide: on the one hand, money has tended to burn a hole in US households’ pockets; on the other, Ricardo and Friedman aren’t exactly Larry Kudlow or Peter Navarro. It is hard to assert with any conviction how much of the savings cache will be spent, or how quickly, but we highlight its presence to point out that near-term US growth could surprise to the upside. BOX I-1 Demand Deferral Or Demand Destruction? February’s Bank Credit Analyst presented a table with simple estimates of the US pandemic spending gap. It showed that spending on goods is tracking above the level that would have been expected if the pandemic had not occurred but that spending on services is down sharply, with an enormous gap in categories like food service, recreation and transportation. The fate of US households’ massive excess savings might come down to what happens to the forgone consumption. Consumption that is not deferred to some later period will simply disappear. Given that the consumption shortfall is entirely confined to services, the key question becomes: Is forgone services consumption more likely to turn into demand destroyed than forgone goods consumption? We suspect the answer is yes. Considering it from the perspective of the categories that suffered the biggest shortfalls, one cannot catch up by eating multiple restaurant dinners in a day, going back in time to attend last season’s sports and entertainment events, or taking more than one flight and staying in more than one hotel room. Services demand may also incorporate more of a discretionary component: one might want to go to a ballgame or a concert, or get out of town over a long weekend, but one eventually has to replace a sputtering car or refrigerator. Some forgone services demand likely turned into accelerated goods demand as white-collar workers redirected workday spending to building out office capabilities at home. Even more may have been diverted to home theater and exercise equipment, or to making one’s outdoor space into a more inviting place to while away the pandemic. The bottom line is that some goods demand appears to have been pulled forward by the pandemic while some services demand has likely been destroyed. There is surely pent-up consumer demand, and it will begin to be released once the pandemic has been subdued, but only some of the accumulated savings will be directed to satisfying it. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations For investors focused on the coming 6-12 months, the key takeaways from our analysis are as follows: Provided that official measures and personal vigilance continue to curtail COVID-19 until vaccinations can stifle it, the growth outlook should steadily improve. In the United States, where the federal government is determined to err on the side of providing too much fiscal support, growth could pick up a lot of steam. If enough pandemic-weary people fail to maintain their vigilance and observe social distancing measures, vaccine distribution efforts become snagged or vaccine-resistant strains emerge, growth could fall short of the consensus expectation embedded in financial market prices. Based on its plans to double down on its initial infusion of fiscal support, the US is the major economy most likely to exceed expectations, perhaps even to the point of overheating. After drilling into the increased income/foregone consumption components of the mountain of savings American households have amassed during the pandemic, however, we reiterate our conclusion that all of the savings will not be spent. The US economy will accelerate smartly this year but overheating is a low-probability event. Chart I-15The Coming Regional And Style Rotation The Coming Regional And Style Rotation The Coming Regional And Style Rotation Given these conclusions, we recommend the following investment stance over the next 6-12 months: Overweight equities, which will generate excess returns over sovereign bonds and cash in the absence of a negative COVID surprise, and underweight fixed income. Maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed income portfolios. Underweight US stocks and overweight global ex-US stocks, which will benefit from the reopening of the global economy, and value over growth stocks, which will benefit from reopening and a steeper yield curve. The former broke out in January and held their lead last month (Chart I-15, top panel) while value is testing resistance at its 200-day moving average (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Underweight the US dollar versus the euro in particular and other more cyclical currencies in general. We do not expect the greenback to fall as sharply as it did last year from May through December but we do expect it will resume declining over the rest of the year. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com February 25, 2021 Next Report: March 31, 2021 II. Requiem For Volcker And The Gipper For this month’s Special Report, we are sending you a collaboration between our US Investment Strategy and US Political Strategy teams. US Political Strategy is our newest strategy service and it extends the proprietary framework of our Geopolitical Strategy service to provide analysis of political developments that is relevant for US-focused investors. Please contact your relationship manager if you would like more information or to begin trialing the service. Ronald Reagan cast a long shadow over the elected officials who followed him … :The influence of the economic policies associated with Ronald Reagan held such persistent sway that even the Clinton and Obama administrations had to follow their broad outlines. … just as Paul Volcker did over central bankers at home and abroad … : The Volcker Fed’s uncompromising resistance to the 1970s’ runaway inflation established the Fed’s credibility and enshrined a new global central banking orthodoxy. … but it appears their enduring influence may have finally run its course … : The pandemic overrode everything else in real time, but investors may ultimately view 2020 as the year in which Democrats broke away from post-Reagan orthodoxy and the Fed decided Volcker’s vigilance was no longer relevant. … to investors’ potential chagrin: If inflation, big government and organized labor come back from the dead, globalization loses ground, regulation expands, anti-trust enforcement regains some bite and tax rates rise and become more progressive, then the four-decade investment golden age that Reagan and Volcker helped launch may be on its last legs. The pandemic dominated everything in real time in 2020, as investors scrambled to keep up with its disruptions and the countermeasures policymakers deployed to shelter the economy from them. With some distance, however, investors may come to view it as a year of two critical policy inflection points: the end of the Reagan fiscal era and the end of the Volcker monetary era. The shifts could mark a watershed because Reagan’s and Volcker’s enduring influence helped power an investment golden age that has lasted for nearly 40 years. What comes next may not be so supportive for financial markets. Political history often unfolds in cycles even if their starting and ending dates are never as clear cut in real life as they are in dissertations. Broadly, the FDR administration kicked off the New Deal era, a 48-year period of increased government involvement in daily life via the introduction and steady expansion of the social safety net, broadened regulatory powers and sweeping worker protections. It was followed by the 40-year Reagan era, with a continuous soundtrack of limited government rhetoric made manifest in policies that sought to curtail the spread of social welfare programs, deregulate commercial activity, devolve power to state and local government units and the private sector and push back against unions. The Obama and Trump administrations challenged different aspects of Reaganism, but the 2020 election cycle finally toppled it. Ordinarily, that might only matter to historians and political scientists, but the Reagan era coincided with a fantastic run in financial markets. So, too, did the inflation vigilance that lasted long after Paul Volcker’s 1979-1987 tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve, which drove an extended period of disinflation, falling interest rates and rising central bank credibility. Our focus here is on fiscal policy, and we touch on monetary policy only to note that last summer’s revision of the Fed’s statement of long-run monetary policy goals shut the door on the Volcker era. The end of both eras could mark an inflection point in the trajectory of asset returns. The Happy Warrior The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”5 Chart II-1After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit After The Recession, Reagan Was A Hit Ronald Reagan held his conservative views with the zeal of the convert that he was.6 Those views were probably to the right of much of the electorate, but his personal appeal was strong enough to make them palatable to a sizable majority (Chart II-1). Substitute “left” for “right” and the sentiment just as easily sums up FDR’s ability to get the New Deal off the ground. Personal magnetism played a big role in each era’s rise, with both men radiating relatability and optimism that imbued their sagging fellow citizens with a sense of comfort and security that made them willing to try something very different. 1980 was hardly 1932 on the distress scale, but America was in a funk after the upheaval of the sixties, the humiliating end to Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and a term and a half of uninspiring and ineffectual presidential leadership. Enter the Great Communicator, whose initial weekly radio address evoked the FDR of the Fireside Chats – jovial, resolute and confident, with palpable can-do energy – buffed to a shine by a professional actor and broadcaster whose vocal inflections hit every mark.7 The Gipper,8 with his avuncular bearing, physical robustness and ever-present twinkle in his eye, was just what the country needed to feel better about itself. Reaganomics 101 Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.9 President Reagan’s economic plan had three simple goals: cut taxes, tame government spending and reduce regulation. From the start of his entry into politics in the mid-sixties, Reagan cast himself as a defender of hard-working Americans’ right to keep more of the fruits of their labor from a grasping federal government seeking funding for wasteful, poorly designed programs. He harbored an intense animus for LBJ’s Great Society, which extended the reach of the federal government in ways that he characterized as a drag on initiative, accomplishment and freedom, no matter how well intentioned it may have been. That message hung a historic loss on Barry Goldwater in 1964 when inflation was somnolent but it proved to be far more persuasive after the runaway inflation of the seventies exposed the perils of excessive government (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up Inflation Rises When The Labor Market Heats Up As the Reagan Foundation website describes the impact of his presidency’s economic policies, “Millions … were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.” “In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.” The Enduring Reach Of Reaganomics I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. – Grover Norquist Though President-Elect Clinton bridled at limited government’s inherent restrictions, bursting out during a transition briefing, “You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f***ing bond traders?” his administration largely observed them. This was especially true after the drubbing Democrats endured in the 1994 midterms, when the Republicans captured their first House majority in four decades behind the Contract with America, a skillfully packaged legislative agenda explicitly founded on Reagan principles. Humbled in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and hemmed in by roving bands of bond vigilantes, Clinton was forced to tack to the center. James Carville, a leading architect of Clinton’s 1992 victory, captured the moment, saying, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or … a .400 … hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Reagan’s legacy informed the Bush administration’s sweeping tax cuts (and its push to privatize social security), and forced the Obama administration to tread carefully with the stimulus package it devised to combat the Great Recession. Although the administration’s economic advisors considered the $787 billion (5%-of-peak-GDP) bill insufficient, political staffers carried the day and the price tag was kept below $800 billion to appease the three Republican senators whose votes were required to pass it. Even with the economy in its worst state since the Depression, the Obama administration had to acquiesce to Reaganite budget pieties if it wanted any stimulus bill at all. Its leash got shorter after it agreed with House Republicans to “sequester” excess spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011. On the Republican side of the aisle, Grover Norquist, who claims to have founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request, enforced legislative fealty to the no-new-tax mantra. ATR, which opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle, corrals legislators with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, “commit[ting] them to oppose any effort to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses.” ATR’s influence has waned since its 2012 peak, when 95% of Republicans in Congress had signed the pledge, and Norquist no longer strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans inclined to waver on taxes. His declining influence is testament to Reaganism’s success on the one hand (the tax burden has already been reduced) and the fading appeal of its signature fiscal restraint on the other. Did Government Really Shrink? When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. – The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance For all of its denunciations of government spending, the Reagan administration ran up the largest expansionary budget deficits (as a share of GDP) of any postwar administration until the global financial crisis (Chart II-3). Although it aggressively slashed non-defense discretionary spending, it couldn’t cut enough to offset the Pentagon’s voracious appetite. The Reagan deficits were not all bad: increased defense spending hastened the end of the Cold War, so they were in a sense an investment that paid off in the form of the ‘90s peace dividend and the budget surpluses it engendered. Chart II-3Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Cutting The Federal Deficit Is Harder Than It Seems Nonetheless, the Reagan experience reveals the uncomfortable truth that there is little scope for any administration or Congressional session to cut federal spending. Mandatory entitlement spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid constitutes the bulk of federal expenditures (Chart II-4) and they are very popular with the electorate, as the Trump campaign shrewdly recognized in the 2016 Republican primaries (Table II-1). Discretionary spending, especially ex-defense, is a drop in the bucket, thanks largely to a Reagan administration that already cut it to the bone (Chart II-5). Chart II-4The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... The Relentless Rise In Mandatory Spending ... Chart II-5Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts Overwhlems Any Plausible Discretionary Cuts   Table II-1How Trump Broke Republican Orthodoxy On Entitlement Spending March 2021 March 2021 The Reagan tax cuts therefore accomplished the easy part of the “starve the beast” strategy but his administration failed to make commensurate cuts in outlays (Chart II-6). If overall spending wasn’t cut amidst oppressive inflation, while the Great Communicator was in the Oval Office to make the case for it to a considerably more fiscally conservative electorate, there is no chance that it will be cut this decade. As our Geopolitical Strategy service has flagged for several years, the median US voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Reagan-era fiscal conservatism has gone the way of iconic eighties features like synthesizers, leg warmers and big hair, even if it had one last gasp in the form of the post-crisis “Tea Party” and Obama’s compromise on budget controls. Chart II-6Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Grover Norquist Is Going To Need A Bigger Bathtub Do Republicans Still Want The Reagan Mantle? Chart II-7“Limited Government” Falling Out Of Fashion March 2021 March 2021 Reaganism is dead, killed by a decided shift in broad American public opinion, and within the Republican and Democratic parties themselves. Americans are just as divided today as they were in Reagan’s era about the size of the government but the trend since the late 1990s is plainly in favor of bigger government (Chart II-7). Recent developments, including the 2020 election, reinforce our conviction that trend will not reverse any time soon. The Republicans are the natural heirs of Reagan’s legacy. Much of President Trump’s appeal to conservatives lay in his successful self-branding as the new Reagan. Though he lacked the Gipper’s charisma and affability, his unapologetic assertion of American exceptionalism rekindled some of the glow of Morning-in-America confidence. Following the outsider trail blazed by Reagan, he lambasted the Washington establishment and promised to slash bureaucracy, deregulate the economy and shake things up. Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment was the largest tax reform since Reagan’s in 1986. He oversaw defense spending increases to take on China, which he all but named the new “evil empire.”10 Like Reagan, he was willing to weather criticism for face-to-face meetings with rival nations’ dictators. Even his trade protectionism had more in common with the Reagan administration than is widely recognized.11 Chart II-8Reagan’s Amnesty On Immigration March 2021 March 2021 But major differences in the two presidents’ policy portfolios underline the erosion of the Reagan legacy’s hold. President Trump outflanked his Republican competitors for the 2016 nomination by running against cutting government spending – he was the only candidate who opposed entitlement reform. His signature proposal was to stem immigration by means of a Mexican border wall. While Reagan had sought to crack down on illegal immigration, he pursued a compromise approach and granted amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants living in America to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, sparing businesses from having to scramble to replace them (Chart II-8). While Reagan curtailed non-defense spending, Trump signed budget-busting bills with relish, even before the COVID pandemic necessitated emergency deficit spending. Trump tried to use the power of government to intervene in the economy and alienated the business community, which revered Reagan, with his scattershot trade war. Trump’s greater hawkishness on immigration and trade and his permissiveness on fiscal spending differentiated him from Reagan orthodoxy and signaled a more populist Republican Party. Chart II-9Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy March 2021 March 2021 More fundamentally, Trump represents a new strain of Republican that is at odds with the party’s traditional support for big business and disdain for big government. If he leads that strain to take on the party establishment by challenging moderate Republicans in primary elections and insisting on running as the party’s next presidential candidate, the GOP will be swimming upstream in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It is too soon to make predictions about either of these elections other than to say that Trump is capable of splitting the party in a way not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s or Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s (Chart II-9).12 If he does so, the Democrats will remain firmly in charge and lingering Reaganist policies will be actively dismantled. Even if the party manages to preserve its fragile Trumpist/traditionalist coalition, it is hard to imagine it will recover its appetite for shrinking entitlements, siding against labor or following a laissez-faire approach to corporate conduct and combinations. Republicans will pay lip service to fiscal restraint but Trump’s demonstration that austerity does not win votes will lead them to downplay spending cuts and entitlement reform as policy priorities – at least until inflation again becomes a popular grievance (Chart II-10). Republicans will also fail to gain traction with voters if they campaign merely on restoring the Trump tax cuts after Biden’s likely partial repeal of them. Support for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act hardly reached 40% for the general public and 30% for independents and it is well known that the tax reform did little to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats took the House (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Republicans Have Many Priorities Above Budget Deficits March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-11Trump Tax Cuts Were Never Very Popular March 2021 March 2021 On immigration the Republican Party will follow Trump and refuse amnesty. Immigration levels are elevated and Biden’s lax approach to the border, combined with a looming growth disparity with Latin America, will generate new waves of incomers and provoke a Republican backlash. On trade and foreign policy, Republicans will follow a synthesis of Reagan and Trump in pursuing a cold war with China. The Chinese economy is set to surpass the American economy by the year 2028 and is already bigger in purchasing power parity terms (Chart II-12). The Chinese administration is becoming more oppressive at home, more closed to liberal and western ideas, more focused on import substitution, and more technologically ambitious. The Chinese threat will escalate in the coming decade and the Republican Party will present itself as the anti-communist party by proposing a major military-industrial build-up. Yet it is far from assured that the Democrats will be soft on China, which is to say that they will not be able to cut defense spending substantially. Chart II-12China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP China Is the New "Evil Empire" For GOP Will Biden Take Up The Cause? One might ask if the Biden administration might seek to adopt some elements of the Reagan program. President Biden is among the last of the pro-market Democrats who emerged in the wake of the Reagan revolution. Those “third-way” Democrats thrived in the 1990s by accommodating themselves to Reagan’s free-market message while maintaining there was a place for a larger federal role in certain aspects of the economy and society. The 2020 election demonstrated that the Democrats’ political base is larger than the Republicans’ and third-way policies could be a way to make further inroads with affluent suburbanites who helped deliver Georgia and Virginia. Alas, the answer appears to be no. The Democrats’ base increasingly abhors Reagan-era economic and social policies, and the country’s future demographic changes reinforce the party’s current, progressive trajectory. That means fiery younger Democrats don’t have to compromise their principles with third-way policies when they can just wait for Texas to turn blue. Chart II-13Democrats Look To New Deal, Eschew ‘Third Way’ March 2021 March 2021 Biden has only been in office for one month but a rule of thumb is that his party will pull him further to the left the longer Republicans remain divided and ineffective. His cabinet appointments have been center-left, not far-left, though his executive orders have catered to the far-left, particularly on immigration. In order to pass his two major legislative proposals through an evenly split Senate he must appeal to Democratic moderates, as every vote in the party will be needed to get the FY2021 and FY2022 budget reconciliation bills across the line, with Vice President Kamala Harris acting as the Senate tie breaker. Nevertheless his agenda still highlights that the twenty-first century Democrats are taking a page out of the FDR playbook and unabashedly promoting big government solutions (Chart II-13). Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is not only directed at emergency pandemic relief but also aims to shore up state and local finances, education, subsidized housing, and child care. His health care proposals include a government-provided insurance option (originally struck from the Affordable Care Act to secure its passage in 2010) and a role for Medicare in negotiating drug prices. And his infrastructure plan is likely to provide cover for a more ambitious set of green energy projects that will initiate the Democratic Party’s next big policy pursuit after health care: environmentalism. The takeaway is not that Biden’s administration is necessarily radical – he eschews government-administered health care and is only proposing a partial reversal of Trump’s tax cuts – but rather that his party has taken a decisive turn away from the “third-way” pragmatism that defined his generation of Democrats in favor of a return to the “Old-Left” and pro-labor policies of the New Deal era (Chart II-14). The party has veered to the left in reaction to the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and Trumpism. Vice President Harris, Biden’s presumptive heir, had the second-most progressive voting record during her time in the Senate and would undoubtedly install a more progressive cabinet. Table II-2 shows her voting record alongside other senators who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary election. All of them except perhaps Senator Amy Klobuchar stood to his left on the policy spectrum. Chart II-14Democrats Eschew Budget Constraints March 2021 March 2021 Fundamentally the American electorate is becoming more open to a larger role for the government in the economy and society. While voters almost always prioritize the economy and jobs, policy preferences have changed. The morass of excessive inflation, deficits, taxation, regulation, strikes and business inefficiencies that gave rise to the Reagan movement is not remembered as ancient history – it is not even remembered. The problems of slow growth, inadequate health and education, racial injustice, creaky public services, and stagnant wages are by far the more prevalent concerns – and they require more, not less, spending and government involvement (Chart II-15). Insofar as voters worry about foreign threats they focus on the China challenge, where Biden will be forced to adopt some of Trump’s approach. Table II-2Harris Stood To The Left Of Democratic Senators March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-15Public Concern For Economy Means Greater Government Help March 2021 March 2021 When inflation picks up in the coming years, voters will not reflexively ask for government to be pared back so that the economy becomes more efficient, as they did once they had a taste of Reagan’s medicine in the early 1980s. Rather, they will ask the government to step in to provide higher wages, indexation schemes, price caps, and assistance for labor, as is increasingly the case. The ruling party will be offering these options and the opposition Republicans will render themselves obsolete if they focus single-mindedly on austerity measures. Americans will have to experience a recession caused by inflation – i.e. stagflation – before they call for anything resembling Reagan again. The Post-Reagan Market Landscape Many investors and conservative economists were shocked13 that the Bernanke Fed’s mix of zero interest rates and massive securities purchases did not foster runaway inflation and destroy the dollar. They failed to anticipate that widespread private-sector deleveraging would put a lid on money creation (and that other major central banks would follow in the Fed’s ZIRP and QE footsteps). But a longer view of four decades of disinflation suggests another conclusion: Taking away the monetary punch bowl when the labor party gets going and pursuing limited-government fiscal policy can keep inflation pressures from gaining traction. Globalization, technology-enabled elimination of many lower-skilled white-collar functions and the hollowing out of the organized labor movement all helped as well, though they helped foment a revolt among a meaningful segment of the Republican rank-and-file against Reagan-style policies. The Volcker Fed set the tone for pre-emptive monetary tightening and subsequent FOMCs have reliably intervened to cool off the economy when the labor market begins heating up. The Phillips Curve may be out of favor with investors, but wage inflation only gathers steam when the unemployment rate falls below its natural level (Chart II-16), and the Fed did not allow negative unemployment gaps to persist for very long in the Volcker era. Without wage inflation putting more money in the hands of a broad cross-section of households with a fairly high marginal propensity to consume, it’s hard to get inflation in consumer prices. Chart II-16Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall Taking The Punch Bowl Away From The Union Hall The Fed took the cyclical wind from the labor market’s sails but the Reagan administration introduced a stiff secular headwind when it crushed PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union, in 1981, marking an inflection point in the relationship between management and labor. That watershed event opened the door for employers to deploy much rougher tactics against unions than they had since before the New Deal.14 Reagan’s championing of free markets helped establish globalization as an economic policy that the third-way Clinton administration eagerly embraced with NAFTA and a campaign to admit China to the WTO. The latter coincided with a sharp decline in labor’s share of income (Chart II-17). Chart II-17Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor Outsourcing Has Not Been Good For US Labor The core Reagan tenets – limited government, favoring management over labor, globalization, sleepy anti-trust enforcement, reduced regulation and less progressive tax systems with lower rates – are all at risk of Biden administration rollbacks. While the easy monetary/tight fiscal combination promoted a rise in asset prices rather than consumer prices ever since the end of the global financial crisis, today’s easy monetary/easy fiscal could promote consumer price inflation and asset price deflation. We do not think inflation will be an issue in 2021 but we expect it will in the later years of Biden’s term. Ultimately, we expect massive fiscal accommodation will stoke inflation pressures and those pressures, abetted by a Fed which has pledged not to pre-emptively remove accommodation when the labor market tightens, will eventually bring about the end of the bull market in risk assets and the expansion. Investment Implications Business revered the Reagan administration and investors rightfully associate it with the four-decade bull market that began early in its first term. Biden is no wild-eyed liberal, but rolling back core Reagan-era tenets has the potential to roll back juicy Reagan-era returns. Only equities have the lengthy data series to allow a full comparison of Reagan-era returns with postwar New Deal-era returns (Table II-3), but the path of Treasury bond yields in the three-decade bear market that preceded the current four-decade bull market suggests that bonds generated little, if any, real returns in the pre-Reagan postwar period (Chart II-18). Stagnant precious metal returns point to tame Reagan-era inflation and downward pressure on input costs. Table II-3Annualized Real Market Returns Before And After Reagan March 2021 March 2021 Chart II-18Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Bond Investors Loved Volcker And The Gipper Owning the market is not likely to be as rewarding going forward as it was in the Reagan era. Active management may again have its day in the sun as the end of the Reagan tailwinds open up disparities between sectors, sub-industries and individual companies. Even short-sellers may experience a renaissance. We recommend that multi-asset investors underweight bonds, especially Treasuries. We expect the clamor for bigger government will contribute to a secular bear market that could rival the one that persisted from the fifties to the eighties. Within Treasury portfolios, we would maintain below-benchmark duration and favor TIPS over nominal bonds at least until the Fed signals that its campaign to re-anchor inflation expectations higher has achieved its goal. Gold and/or other precious metals merit a place in portfolios as a hedge against rising inflation and other real assets, from land to buildings to other resources, are worthy of consideration as well. BCA has been cautioning of a downward inflection in long-run financial asset returns for a few years, based on demanding valuations and a steadily shrinking scope for ongoing declines in inflation and interest rates. Mean reversion has been part of the thesis as well; trees simply don’t grow to the sky. Now that the curtain has fallen on the Volcker and Reagan eras, the inevitable downward inflection has received a catalyst. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next twelve months, but we expect that intermediate- and long-term returns will fall well short of their post-1982 pace going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators continue to demonstrate that US stocks are running hot. Our technical, valuation, and speculation indicators are very extended, and margin debt has soared since the S&P 500 bottomed last spring. With so little room for error, a near-term pullback in stock prices remains a significant risk. Our monetary indicator extended its downtrend, reflecting a diminished intensity of monetary support, but it remains above the boom/bust line. The upshot is that while the marginal stimulus provided by monetary policy is falling, the level of stimulus from easy monetary conditions remains significant. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a remarkably swift earnings recovery, but after a third consecutive quarter of double-digit earnings beats, the 2021 earnings outlook continues to gather momentum. Net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near multi-decade highs. Among global equities, the US extended its modest underperformance after a decade of leading the pack. China continues to outperform, though at a slower rate since it became the first country to escape COVID-19’s grip, while emerging markets and Australia have also outperformed. Euro area stocks continue to lag, but we expect they will eventually take their place among the cyclical winners later this year. The US 10-Year Treasury yield surged in February, following through on January’s convincing break above its 200-day moving average. Our technical indicator shows that long-dated bonds are firmly in oversold territory, though they remain extremely expensive. Our valuation index points to higher yields over the cyclical investment horizon even if the rate of ascent eventually slows. The technical and valuation profile is similar for the US dollar. The greenback is technically oversold, even after its modest rally, but it remains expensive according to our models. If our base-case Goldilocks scenario unfolds globally this year, the counter-cyclical dollar should encounter a mild headwind. As with Treasuries, we expect valuation to trump technicals and see the USD continuing to trend lower over the full year. Commodity prices are surging across the board, ex-gold. Sentiment is bullish and speculative positioning in the CFTC’s 17-commodity aggregate grouping is at its post-GFC high, although it may have peaked for the time being. The move in commodities underscores the risk-on profile across financial markets and aligns with EM, Chinese and Australian equity outperformance. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. 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-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator 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   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist   Footnotes 1 Every single adult taxpayer with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 or less (and every married filing jointly taxpayer with AGI of $150,000 or less) was eligible for the full payments, and taxpayers with AGIs below $99,000 and $198,000, respectively, were eligible for partial payments. 2 Giles, Chris. “OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending,” Financial Times, January 4, 2021. OECD warns governments to rethink constraints on public spending | Financial Times (ft.com) Accessed February 20, 2021. 3 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Fiscal Monitor: Policies for the Recovery. Washington, October. p. ix. 4 An additional 20 million households have received partial payments. 5 August 12, 1986 Press Conference News Conference | The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (reaganfoundation.org), accessed February 4, 2021. Reagan makes the quip in his prepared opening remarks. 6 Reagan was a Democrat until he entered politics in his fifties. He claimed to have voted for FDR four times. 7 April 3, 1982 Radio Address President Reagan's Radio Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery - 4/3/82 - YouTube, accessed February 4, 2021. 8 As an actor, Reagan was perhaps best known for his portrayal of Notre Dame football legend George Gipp, who is immortalized in popular culture as the subject of the “win one for the Gipper” halftime speech. 9 July 22, 1981 White House Remarks to Visiting Editors and Broadcasters reaganfoundation.org, accessed February 8, 2021. 10 Reagan famously urged his followers, in reference to the USSR, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” See his “Address to the National Association of Evangelicals,” March 8, 1983, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu. 11 Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration trade representative who directed its tariff battles, was a veteran of Reagan’s trade wars against Japan in the 1980s. 12 “Exclusive: The Trump Party? He still holds the loyalty of GOP voters,” USA Today, February 21, 2021, usatoday.com. 13 Open Letter to Ben Bernanke,” November 15, 2010. Open Letter to Ben Bernanke | Hoover Institution Accessed February 23, 2021. 14 Please see the following US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Labor Strikes Back, Parts 1, 2 and 3,” dated January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights US inflation is set to increase sharply over the coming months as base effects kick in. Higher fuel prices, fiscal stimulus, and the partial relaxation of lockdown measures should also boost inflation. The Fed is unlikely to react hawkishly to higher inflation, arguing that it is largely transitory in nature. While the Fed’s relaxed attitude towards inflation risks may be justified in the near term, there is a high probability that inflation will get out of hand later this decade. Contrary to conventional wisdom, many of the factors that led to high inflation in the 1970s could reassert themselves. Investors should overweight stocks for now, but be prepared to reduce equity exposure in about two years. US Inflation Has Bottomed US inflation surprised on the downside in January. The core CPI was flat on the month, compared with the consensus estimate for an increase of 0.2%. We expect US inflation to move higher over the coming months. The weakness in January’s inflation print was concentrated in sectors of the economy that have been hard hit by the pandemic. Airline fares dropped 3.2%, hotel rates fell 1.9%, and entertainment admission prices declined 5.5%. Prices in these sectors should rise on a year-over-year basis as base effects kick in (Chart 1). The relaxation of lockdown measures should also help to partially restore demand in these areas. WTI crude prices have risen 70% since the end of October. Rising energy prices should push up headline inflation, with some bleed-through to core prices. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between gasoline prices and headline inflation. If gasoline prices evolve in line with what is predicted by the futures market, headline inflation could temporarily rise to 4% this spring. Chart 1Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Chart 2Strong Link Between Gasoline Prices And Headline Inflation Strong Link Between Gasoline Prices And Headline Inflation Strong Link Between Gasoline Prices And Headline Inflation   In addition, the lagged effects from a weaker dollar should translate into higher goods prices in the US (Chart 3). A stronger labor market and a slower pace of rent forgiveness should also boost housing inflation (Chart 4).  Chart 3A Weaker Dollar Will Be A Tailwind For Inflation A Weaker Dollar Will Be A Tailwind For Inflation A Weaker Dollar Will Be A Tailwind For Inflation Chart 4Stronger Labor Market Will Boost Housing Inflation Stronger Labor Market Will Boost Housing Inflation Stronger Labor Market Will Boost Housing Inflation Fiscal stimulus should further supercharge demand, adding to inflationary pressures. Ironically, Republican unwillingness to offer modest, politically palatable cuts to President Biden’s proposed aid bill has opened the door to the Democrats ramming through the entire $1.9 trillion package via the reconciliation process. As we discussed last week, the amount of stimulus in the pipeline easily dwarfs the size of the output gap.   From Reflation To Inflation? Deflation is bad for stocks, just as is high and accelerating inflation. Somewhere between deflation and inflation, however, lies reflation. Reflation is good for stocks. Chart 5Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed We are currently in a reflationary Goldilocks zone, where inflation expectations have risen but not by enough to force the Fed’s hand. There is a high probability we will stay in this Goldilocks zone for the remainder of the year. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 5). Jay Powell told The Economic Club of New York last week that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. The Fed minutes released on Wednesday echoed this view. That ‘70s Show? The path to higher interest rates is lined with lower interest rates. A period of ultra-easy monetary policy can sow the seeds for economic overheating, rising inflation, and ultimately, much higher interest rates. Since this is precisely what happened during the 1970s, it is prudent to ask whether something like that could happen again. Investors certainly do not believe a replay of the 70s is in the cards, at least if long-term CPI swaps are any guide (Chart 6). Yet, we think that a 1970s-style inflationary episode is a greater risk than most investors realize. As we discuss below, much of what investors believe about how inflation emerged during that period is either based on myths, or at best, half-truths. Let’s examine each of these misconceptions in turn. Myth #1: High inflation in the 1970s was primarily driven by supply disruptions, with oil shocks being the most prominent. Fact: Oil shocks exacerbated the inflation problem in the 1970s, but it was an overheated economy that permitted inflation to rise in the first place. Inflation took off in 1966, seven years before the first oil shock. By 1969, core CPI inflation was running at close to 6% (Chart 7). Chart 6Investors Do Not Expect Inflation To Vault Higher 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Chart 7Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again   Similar to today, fiscal policy was exceptionally accommodative in the mid-1960s. The escalation of the Vietnam War produced a surge in military expenditures. Social spending rose dramatically with the introduction of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs. Medicare and Medicaid took effect in July 1966. Amy Finkelstein has estimated that Medicare, the larger of the two health care programs, led to a 37% increase in real hospital expenditures between 1965 and 1970. Johnson’s “guns and butter” policies caused government spending to surge in the second half of the decade. The budget deficit, which was broadly balanced during the first half of the 60s, swelled to 4% of GDP (Chart 8). As fiscal policy was loosened, the economy began to overheat. The unemployment rate fell to 3.8% in 1966, two percentage points below what economists later concluded had been its full-employment level. Chart 8US "Guns And Butter" Policies In The 1960s Caused Government Spending To Swell US "Guns And Butter" Policies In The 1960s Caused Government Spending To Swell US "Guns And Butter" Policies In The 1960s Caused Government Spending To Swell Myth #2: The Phillips curve is much flatter today. Chart 9The Increase In Inflation In 1966 Was Broad-Based The Increase In Inflation In 1966 Was Broad-Based The Increase In Inflation In 1966 Was Broad-Based Fact: The Phillips curve was also flat during the 1960s. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the 60s, averaging about 1.5%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined. Then, starting in 1966, core inflation more than doubled within the span of ten months. As Chart 9 illustrates, the sudden spike in inflation in 1966 was fairly broad-based. A “kink” in the Phillips curve had been reached. That the relationship between inflation and unemployment turned out to be non-linear is not surprising. As long as there is some slack in the labor market, employers are likely to resist raising wages. Thus, a decline in unemployment from a high level to a merely moderate level is unlikely to lead to meaningful wage inflation. It takes a truly overheated labor market – one that forces firms to engage in a tit-for-tat battle to entice workers – for the relationship between unemployment and inflation to reassert itself. In the near term, there is little risk that the US economy will reach a kink in the Phillips curve. Jason Furman estimates that the unemployment rate stood at 8.3% in January if one adjusts for the drop in labor force participation and methodological problems with how the BLS defines temporarily furloughed workers. This is well above the level that could trigger a price-wage spiral. Chart 10Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Yet, it would be naïve to think that such a spiral could not materialize in a few years. As Chart 10 shows, over the past 40 years, every time the US labor market was on the cusp of overheating, something would invariably come along to push up unemployment. Last year, it was the pandemic. In 2008, it was the Global Financial Crisis. In 2000, it was the dotcom bust. In the early 1990s, it was the collapse in commercial real estate prices following the Savings and Loan Crisis. Admittedly, only the pandemic qualifies as a truly exogenous shock. The preceding three recessions were fomented by growing economic imbalances, which were ultimately laid bare by a Fed hiking cycle. One can debate the degree to which the US economy is suffering from non-pandemic related imbalances today, but one thing is certain: The Fed is not keen on raising rates anytime soon. Thus, whatever imbalances exist today may not be exposed before the economy has had the chance to overheat. Myth #3: Inflation expectations are better anchored these days. Chart 11Long-Term Bond Yields Lagged Inflation During The 1960s Long-Term Bond Yields Lagged Inflation During The 1960s Long-Term Bond Yields Lagged Inflation During The 1960s Fact: Inflation expectations certainly became unmoored in the 1970s. However, there is not much evidence that expectations were adrift prior to the sudden increase in inflation in 1966. At the time, the US had not experienced a major episode of inflation since the Civil War. While long-term bond yields did rise in the second half of the 60s, they generally lagged inflation, suggesting that investors were caught off-guard (Chart 11). It should also be noted that the US and other major economies operated under the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates during the 1960s. Each US dollar was convertible into gold at the official rate of $35 per ounce. The existence of this quasi-gold standard helped anchor inflation expectations. The system began to fall apart in the late 1960s as inflation rose. When President Nixon suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold in August 1971, the US CPI had already increased by nearly 30% from its 1965 level. While the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s undoubtedly caused inflation expectations to become further unhinged, the breakdown of the system would not have occurred if inflation had not risen in the first place. Myth #4: Widespread wage indexation and powerful trade unions fueled an acceleration in the 1960s. Fact: Just as was the case with the unmooring of inflation expectations, wage indexation was more a response to rising inflation than a cause of it. Chart 12 shows that the share of workers covered by cost of living adjustments only jumped after inflation had accelerated. Chart 12Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around As far as unions are concerned, the US unionization rate peaked by the end of the 1950s and was already on a downward path when inflation began to rise. Revealingly, Canada experienced a similar decline in inflation as the US in the early 1980s even though unionization rates remained elevated (Chart 13). This suggests that union power was not a dominant driver of inflation. Chart 13Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate   Myth #5: Today’s globalized economy will limit inflationary pressures. Fact: The empirical evidence generally suggests that the impact of globalization on US inflation has been smaller than widely supposed.1 This is not surprising. The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports account for only 15% of GDP. As a result, a fairly large change in relative prices is necessary to prompt Americans to shift a meaningful fraction of their expenditures towards foreign-made goods. Such a shift in spending would require a real appreciation of the US dollar. A real appreciation could occur either if US inflation exceeds inflation abroad or if the nominal value of the dollar strengthens against other currencies. (Admittedly, the standard terminology can be a bit confusing; just think of a real US dollar appreciation as anything that makes the US economy less competitive). Here’s the thing though: The US dollar is unlikely to strengthen unless the Federal Reserve starts to sound more hawkish. If the Fed remains in the dovish camp, real rates could fall as inflation edges higher. This will put downward pressure on the dollar, leading to a smaller trade deficit and even more aggregate demand.  Myth #6: Demographics are much more deflationary now than they were in the past. Fact: Demographic trends arguably did help push down inflation over the past few decades. However, population aging is likely to boost inflation going forward. Chart 14 shows that the ratio of workers-to-consumers in the US and around the world – the so-called “support ratio” – rose steadily in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as more women entered the labor force and the number of dependent children per household declined. An increase in the ratio of workers-to-consumers is equivalent to an increase in the ratio of production-to-consumption. A rising support ratio is thus deflationary. More recently, however, the support ratio has begun to decline as baby boomers retire but continue to spend. Consumption actually increases in old age once health care spending is included in the tally (Chart 15). As production falls in relation to consumption, inflation could rise. Chart 14Support Ratios Are Declining Globally After Rising Steadily For Three Decades Support Ratios Are Declining Globally After Rising Steadily For Three Decades Support Ratios Are Declining Globally After Rising Steadily For Three Decades Chart 15Consumption Increases In Old Age Once Health Care Spending Is Factored In 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again   Myth #7: Today’s fast pace of technological innovation will keep inflation down. Chart 16Total Factor Productivity Growth Is Lower Than It Was During The Great Inflation Total Factor Productivity Growth Is Lower Than It Was During The Great Inflation Total Factor Productivity Growth Is Lower Than It Was During The Great Inflation Fact: Total factor productivity growth – a broad measure of innovation – is not just low by historic standards today; it is lower than during the period of the Great Inflation spanning from 1966 to 1982 (Chart 16). Some have argued that productivity growth is mismeasured. We have examined this argument in the past and found it wanting. In any case, economic theory does not necessarily say that technological innovation should be deflationary. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real incomes. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Myth #8: Policymakers have learned from their mistakes. It is easy to dismiss this claim, but it is worth considering it seriously. Some of the mistakes that policymakers made during the 60s and 70s were far from obvious at the time. Athanasios Orphanides, who formerly served as a member of the ECB’s Governing Council, has documented that central banks in the US and other major economies systematically overestimated the amount of slack in their economies (Chart 17). They also overestimated trend growth, with the result that they came to see the combination of sluggish growth and seemingly high unemployment as evidence of inadequate demand. Chart 17Central Banks Overestimated The Degree Of Slack In Their Economies During The Great Inflation 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Is it possible that economic analysis has improved so much over the past 40 years that such mistakes would not be repeated today? Perhaps, but it is worth noting that not only did most economists fail to predict the productivity boom in the late 1990s, most were not even aware that it had happened until after it had ended. Knowing what is happening to the economy in real time is hard enough. Predicting what will happen to such things as trend growth and the natural rate of unemployment is even more difficult. Myth #9: The Fed is a lot more independent now. Fact: We will only know for sure when this independence is tested. History clearly shows that inflation tends to be higher in countries which lack independent central banks (Chart 18). The Fed’s independence was compromised in the 1970s. In his exhaustive study of the Nixon tapes, Burton Abrams documented how Richard Nixon sought, and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns obligingly delivered, an expansionary monetary policy in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Chart 18Inflation Is Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Starting with the appointment of Paul Volcker, the Fed sought to regain its independence. Most recently, Jay Powell publicly resisted Donald Trump’s efforts to prod the Fed to ease monetary policy. Yet, the Fed’s independence may turn out to be illusory. The Fed wasted little time in slashing rates and relaunching its QE program once the pandemic began. But will it be as quick to tighten monetary policy if inflation starts getting out of hand? Jay Powell’s four-year term as chair runs through February 2022. He will need to stay in Joe Biden’s good graces if he hopes to be reappointed to a second term. The fact that government debt levels are so high further complicates matters. Higher interest rates would force the government to shift funds from social programs towards bond holders. Will the Fed raise rates even if it faces strong political opposition? Time will tell. Investment Conclusions Chart 19Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again While no two periods are exactly the same, there are a number of striking similarities between the late 1960s and the present day. As is the case today, fiscal policy was highly expansionary back then. The same goes for monetary policy: Just like today, the Fed kept interest rates well below the growth rate of the economy. In the 1960s, the Federal Reserve was still focused on avoiding a repeat of the Great Depression and the deflationary wave that accompanied it. Today, the Fed is equally focused on reflating the economy. The 1960s was a decade of rising political and social unrest. Crime rates went through the roof, a trend that was eerily matched by rising inflation rates (Chart 19). Early estimates suggest that the US homicide rate jumped by 37% in 2020 – easily the largest one-year increase on record. As was the case in the 1960s, most of the news media has ignored this disturbing development. What should investors do? Our tactical MacroQuant model is flagging some near-term risks for stocks. Nevertheless, as long as the economy is growing solidly and the Fed remains on the sidelines, it is too early for investors with a 12-month horizon to bail on equities. Instead, equity investors should favor sectors that could benefit from higher inflation. Commodity producers are a natural choice. Banks could also gain from an uptick in inflation. Chart 20 shows the remarkably strong correlation between the performance of US banks relative to the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury yield. Higher bond yields would boost bank net interest margins, leading to higher profits. Banks are also very cheap and have started to see their earnings estimates rise faster not only relative to the broader market but even relative to tech stocks (Chart 21). Chart 20Bank Shares Are A Buy (I) Bank Shares Are A Buy (I) Bank Shares Are A Buy (I) Fixed-income investors should keep duration risk low. They should also favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Chart 21Bank Shares Are A Buy (II) 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Looking further out, the secular bull market in stocks will end when inflation rises to a high enough level that even the Fed cannot ignore. That day will arrive, but probably not for another two years.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Globalization is often cited as a potential reason behind low inflation in advanced economies, including the US. However, a number of empirical studies have found that globalization did not play a major role. In general, domestic economic conditions are seen as the main factor in the inflation process. Please see Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, “Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Inflation Hypothesis,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 891) (April 2007); Laurence M. Ball, “Has Globalization Changed Inflation?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 12687 (November 2006), and associated blog post “Has Globalization Changed Inflation?” National Bureau of Economic Research,  (June 2007); Janet. L. Yellen, 'Panel discussion of William R. White “Globalisation and the Determinants of Domestic Inflation”,' Presentation to the Banque de France International Symposium on Globalisation, Inflation and Monetary Policy (March 2008); Fabio Milani, “Global Slack And Domestic Inflation Rates: A Structural Investigation For G-7 Countries,” Journal of Macroeconomics, (32:4) (2010); and and Lei Lv, Zhixin Liu, and Yingying Xu, “Technological progress, globalization and low-inflation: Evidence from the United States,” PLoS ONE, (14:4), (April 2019).   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Special Trade Recommendations 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again Current MacroQuant Model Scores 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The amount of fiscal stimulus in the pipeline is more than enough to close the US output gap. Inflation is likely to surprise on the upside this year. The Fed will brush off any evidence of economic overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, long-term bond yields, over which the Fed has less control, will rise. As long as bond yields move higher in conjunction with improving growth expectations, stocks will remain in an uptrend. The bull market in equities will only end when the Fed starts to sound more hawkish. That is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least. Stimulus Smackdown During the past month, a debate has erupted over how much additional fiscal stimulus the US economy needs. The side arguing that the sea of red ink has gotten too deep includes an unlikely cast of characters like Larry Summers, who has famously contended that sustained large budget deficits are necessary to stave off secular stagnation. It also includes Olivier Blanchard, who previously served as the IMF’s chief economist and pushed the multilateral lender to abandon its historic adherence to fiscal austerity. Chart 1Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Rather than citing debt sustainability concerns, these newfound stimulus skeptics worry that large-scale fiscal easing at the present juncture risks overheating the economy. They point out that President Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion package, coming on the heels of the $900 billion stimulus bill Congress passed in late December, would inject another 13% of GDP into the economy, on the back of the lagged boost from the first stimulus package. We estimate that US households had accumulated $1.5 trillion in excess savings (7% of GDP) as of the end of 2020, thanks to the fiscal transfers they received under the CARES Act (Chart 1). US real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020 was 2.5% below its level in the fourth quarter of 2019. Assuming trend growth of 2%, this implies that the output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – has widened by about 4.5% of GDP since the onset of the pandemic.   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the US economy was operating 1% above potential in Q4 of 2019, suggesting that the output gap is around 3.5% of GDP. As it has in the past, the CBO is probably understating the amount of slack in the economy. Our guess is that the US was close to full employment in the months leading up to the pandemic, which implies that the output gap is currently somewhere between 4% and 5% of GDP. While fairly large in absolute terms, it is still smaller than the amount of stimulus currently in the pipeline. Gentle Jay Not So Worried About Overheating Stimulus advocates argue that households will continue to use stimulus checks to fortify their balance sheets, rather than rush out to spend the windfall. They also note that unemployment payments will come down if the labor market recovers more quickly than projected. And even if the economy does temporarily overheat, “so what” they say. The Fed has been trying to engineer an inflation overshoot for years. Now is its chance. Jay Powell seems to sympathize with this thesis. Speaking at a virtual conference organized by The Economic Club of New York this week, Powell repeated his call for fiscal easing and told attendees that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. His words echo remarks made at the press conference following January’s FOMC meeting, where he said “I’m much more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people’s careers,” before adding: “Frankly, we welcome slightly higher inflation.” Most other FOMC members have struck a similar tone. Earlier this year, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted that “The damage from COVID-19 is concentrated among already challenged groups. Federal Reserve staff analysis indicates that unemployment is likely above 20 percent for workers in the bottom wage quartile, while it has fallen below 5 percent for the top wage quartile.” How Big Is The Fiscal Multiplier From Stimulus Checks? Chart 2Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose One of the reasons that households saved much of last year’s stimulus checks was because there was not much to spend them on. Officially measured service inflation was well contained last year, but many services were simply not available for purchase. In contrast, goods prices, which usually fall over time, rose (Chart 2). As the economy opens up, total spending will recover. Rising household spending will have a multiplier effect. The simplest version of the Keynesian multiplier for fiscal transfer payments is equal to MPC/(1-MPC), where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. Assuming that households initially spend 50 cents of every dollar they receive, the multiplier would be 0.5/(1-0.5)=1. In other words, every dollar of direct stimulus payments will eventually generate one additional dollar of aggregate demand. One could argue that this multiplier estimate overstates the impact on demand because it ignores the fact that households will regard stimulus checks as one-time payments rather than a continuous flow of income. One could also point out that taxes and imports will cut into the multiplier effect on domestic spending. There is truth to all these arguments, but they are not as compelling as they seem. According to a recent US Census study, only 37% of Americans reported no difficulty in paying for usual household expenses during the pandemic. A mere 16% of workers with incomes below $35,000 reported no difficulty, compared with more than two-thirds of workers with incomes above $100,000 (Chart 3). In the euphemistic parlance of economics, most US households are “liquidity constrained,” meaning that they are likely to spend a large chunk of any income they receive, even if it is a one-off grant.1 Chart 3The Pandemic Has Put A Spotlight On The Liquidity Constraints Of US Households Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? As for taxes, while the income from subsequent spending will be taxed, the stimulus checks that households receive will remain untaxed. Granted, some of the demand generated by stimulus checks will leak abroad in the form of higher imports. However, keep in mind that the US is a fairly closed economy – imports account for only 15% of GDP. Moreover, the full impact on imports depends on what happens to the value of the dollar. If the Fed keeps rates unchanged but inflation rises, the accompanying decline in short-term real rates could weaken the dollar, curbing imports and boosting exports in the process. This could lead to a higher multiplier rather than a lower one. Lastly, higher consumption is likely to boost corporate capex, as companies scramble to raise capacity in anticipation of strong demand (Chart 4). Economists call this the “accelerator effect.” Investment spending is 2.5-times as volatile as consumption. Hence, even modest increases in consumption can trigger large increases in investment. Chart 4Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Unemployment Benefits: Adding To Aggregate Demand But Subtracting From Supply? As Chart 5 shows, stimulus payments to households account for 17% of the December stimulus bill and 26% of Biden’s proposed package for a combined total of around $650 billion (3% of GDP, or around two-thirds of the current output gap). The balance consists of expanded unemployment benefits, health and education funding, support for small businesses, and aid to state and local governments. Chart 5Stimulus Package Breakdowns Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Unemployment benefits are likely to be spent fairly quickly since, in most cases, they replace lost income that had previously been used to finance consumption. More generous unemployment benefits could temporarily reduce aggregate supply. Higher federal unemployment benefits would more than offset the lost income of close to half of jobless workers, potentially creating a disincentive to seek employment. Inflation Expectations Will Continue To Rise Aggregate demand is likely to outstrip the economy’s supply-side potential over the coming months. Hence, inflation will probably surprise on the upside this year, although not by enough to force the Fed to abandon its easy money stance. Inflation expectations have recovered since the depths of the pandemic. However, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that BCA’s bond strategists believe the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 6). This suggests that the Fed will brush off any evidence of overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, rising inflation expectations will push up long-dated bond yields. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 1.89%. This is below the median estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 7). With policy rates on hold, higher long-term bond yields will translate into steeper yield curves. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 1.5% by the end of the year from the current level of 1.16%, with risks to yields tilted to the upside. Chart 6Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Chart 7Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections   Can Stocks Stand The Heat? To what extent will higher bond yields hurt stocks? To get a sense of the answer, it is useful to consider a dividend discount model. The simplest model, the Gordon Growth Model, says that the price of a stock, P, should equal the dividend that it pays, D, divided by the difference between the long-term discount rate, r, and the expected dividend growth rate, g: Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point?   We can write the discount rate as the combination of the long-term risk-free rate and the equity risk premium such that r = rf + ERP and then solve for the dividend yield:   Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point?   Note that the value of the stock market becomes increasingly sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate when the dividend yield is low to begin with. For example, if the dividend yield is 2%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 5%. In contrast, if the dividend yield is 1%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 10%. Today, dividend and earnings yields for most global equity sectors are quite low, although not as low as they were in 2000 (Chart 8). Watch The Correlation Between  r  And  g The fact that dividend and earnings yields are below their long-term average does make stocks vulnerable to a rise in bond yields. This is especially the case for relatively expensive equity sectors such as tech and consumer discretionary. Nevertheless, there is an important mitigating factor at work: Increases in the risk-free rate have generally been accompanied by stronger growth expectations. Chart 9 shows that S&P 500 forward earnings estimates have moved in lockstep with the 10-year Treasury yield, a proxy for the long-term risk-free rate. Chart 8Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Chart 9Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields   This suggests that the main danger to equity investors is not higher bond yields per se, but a rise in bond yields in excess of upward revisions to growth expectations, or worse, against a backdrop of faltering growth. Such a predicament could eventually manifest itself. However, it is only likely to happen when the Fed turns hawkish. This is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The difficulty that many households have had in making ends meet predates the pandemic. For example, in May 2019, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau found that about 40% of US consumers claimed that they had difficulty paying bills and expenses. Among those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less, difficulties were experienced by 6 out of 10 people. Moreover, about half of consumers reported that they would be able to cover expenses for no more than two months if they lost their main source of income by relying on all available sources of funds, including borrowing, savings, selling assets, or even seeking help from family and friends. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Special Trade Recommendations Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point? Higher Bond Yields: Where Is The Breaking Point?

Dear client, On behalf of the China Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a very happy, healthy, and prosperous Chinese New Year of the Ox (Bull)! Gong Xi Fa Chai, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A projected 8% increase in China’s real GDP for 2021 will not be an acceleration from the V-shaped economic recovery from the second half of last year. Excluding an exceptionally strong year-over-year economic expansion in Q1, the average growth in the rest of this year will be slower than in 2H20, which implies China’s economic growth momentum has already passed its peak. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, an expected 18% annual growth in Q1 would mean that China’s economic growth momentum has moderated from Q4 last year. Chinese policymakers are not in a hurry to press the stimulus accelerator again, with good reason. Commodity and risk-asset prices will be the most vulnerable to a weakened demand growth.   Feature China’s real GDP is expected to grow by more than 8% this year, which would be a significant improvement over last year’s 2.3%.1 However, it is misleading to compare this year’s growth with that of 2020 as a whole. The first three months of this year will undergo an exceptionally high year-on-year growth (YoY) rate due to the deep contraction experienced in Q1 last year. An 8% annual growth for 2021 would imply that the rate of economic expansion in the rest of this year will be slower than the sharp recovery in 2H20.  From a policy perspective, an 8% real GDP growth in 2021 implies an average rate of 5% over the 2020-2021 period, within the long-term growth range targeted in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan - this removes policymakers’ incentives to further stimulate the economy. The annual National People's Congress (NPC) in early March should provide clues about the government's growth priorities and policy directions. If policymakers set 2021’s real GDP growth target at around 8%, our interpretation is that Chinese leaders are not looking to accelerate growth beyond where it ended in 2020. Major equity indexes are already richly valued. A moderating growth momentum from China will weigh on commodity and risk asset prices, both in China and globally.  We reiterate our view that downside risks are high in the near term; the market could take the easing demand growth from China as a reason for a long overdue correction. A Perspective On Growth In 2021 Investors should put this year’s GDP growth projections into perspective given last year’s distortions in China’s economic conditions and data. On a YoY basis, data in the first quarter this year will be artificially boosted due to the deep contraction in Q1 last year. The market consensus is that Q1 2021 will register an 18% YoY rate of real GDP expansion. If we assume the economy can expand by 8% this year over 2020, then the YoY GDP growth rates in the rest of this year will average less than 6%. This would be below the 6.5% YoY rate in the fourth quarter of 2020 – meaning that on a YoY basis, China’s growth momentum has peaked (Chart 1). Importantly, sequential growth, such as month-over-month (MoM) and quarter-over-quarter (QoQ), drives the financial markets. On a QoQ basis, Q1 business activities are typically weaker due to the Chinese New Year. However, when we compare the rate of QoQ slowdown in Q1 this year with previous years, an 18% YoY increase would mean China’s output in the first three months of 2021 would be one of the worst in the past 20 years (Chart 2).  Chart 1Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Chart 2…But Will Be On The Weaker Side, On A QoQ Basis Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 The moderating growth momentum in Q1 this year was already reflected in high-frequency data in January. Most major components in last week’s PMI surveys in both the manufacturing and service sectors had larger setbacks than in January of previous years. Prices in major commodities as well as the Baltic Dry Index softened (Chart 3). Cyclical sector stocks in China’s onshore market, which is highly sensitive to domestic economic policies, have halted their outperformance relative to defensive stocks (Chart 4).  Chart 3Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chart 4Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Furthermore, it is useful to look past the growth outliers in the previous four quarters to gain insight into the status of China’s business cycle. On a two-year smoothed term, an 8% annual output growth in 2021 would represent a continuation of China’s downward economic growth trend (Chart 5). Chart 5This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend Bottom Line:  It is misleading to consider an 8% YoY real GDP growth rate in 2021 as an acceleration in China’s economic recovery. On a quarterly basis, Q1 will undergo a moderation in growth momentum. The economy in the rest of the year will remain on a downward growth trend. No Rush To Stimulate Anew If Q1 growth turns out to be weaker than the market anticipates, then will Beijing continue to dial back stimulus? Or, will it become concerned about the underlying fragility in the economy and provide more support? So far, all signs point to a continuation of a stimulus pullback. Chart 6Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy The resurgence of domestic COVID-19 cases contributed significantly to January’s shaky demand. However, tighter monetary conditions in 2H20 are likely another reason for the growth moderation (Chart 6). Here are some factors that may have prompted Chinese authorities to stay on track to scale back stimulus: Policymakers appear to consider the massive fiscal stimulus last year overdone. In contrast with the previous two years, local governments are not issuing special-purpose bonds (SPBs) before the NPC sets its quota in early March. China’s broader fiscal budgetary deficit widened to 11% of GDP in 2020 from 6% in 2019. Local governments issued nearly 70% more SPBs in 2020 than in the previous year (Chart 7). SPBs are mostly used for investing in infrastructure projects and last year’s fiscal support along with substantial credit expansion helped to speed up infrastructure investment. However, towards the end of last year local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects and thus, parked more than 400 billion yuan of proceeds from last year’s SPB issuance at the central bank (Chart 8). This will likely convince the central government to reduce the SPB quota by a large margin this year. Chart 7Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Chart 8Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year In addition, government revenues in 2020 were surprisingly strong and spending was well below budgeted annual expenditures, resulting in 2.5 trillion yuan in idle funds (Chart 9). Based on China’s fiscal budget laws, any unspent funds from the previous year will be carried over to the next year. In other words, the 2.5 trillion yuan will contribute to fiscal deficit reduction this year and are not extra savings that can be distributed.  In addition, asset price bubbles are a perennial concern. Land sales and housing demand for top-tier cities roared back last year due to cheap loans and a relaxed policy environment (Chart 10). In our opinion, Chinese leaders allowed the real estate market to temporarily heat up last year to avoid a deep economic recession. As the economy recovered to its pre-pandemic level by late 2020, policymakers have sharply reduced their tolerance for the booming housing market and substantially tightened restrictions in the real estate sector. Chart 9Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Chart 10Housing Market Heats Up Again Housing Market Heats Up Again Housing Market Heats Up Again The domestic labor market has been surprisingly resilient, removing the leadership’s political constraints and incentives to further stimulate the economy.  Labor market conditions and household income are improving. The gap between household disposable income and spending growth has narrowed, the unemployment rate is back to its pre-pandemic level and consumer confidence has rebounded (Chart 11). More importantly, China’s labor market in urban areas is tightening again, with migrant workers receiving higher pay than prior to the pandemic (Chart 12).  Chart 11Labor Market Is On The Mend Labor Market Is On The Mend Labor Market Is On The Mend Chart 12China’s Urban Labor Market Is Tightening Again Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Bottom Line: Growth rates will moderate, but policymakers will wait for more evidence of a pronounced slowdown in economic conditions before they ease policies. Concerns about financial risks and excesses in the property market entail authorities to allow stimulus of 2020 to relapse. It will take a much deeper slowdown in the business cycle before easing is re-introduced. Investment Implications Our baseline view indicates that credit growth will decelerate by two to three percentage points in 2021 from 2020, and the local government SPB quota will drop by 10%. The projected pullbacks on stimulus are small and more measured than the last policy tightening cycle in 2017/18. Nevertheless, a smaller stimulus and tighter policy environment will consequently lead to moderating growth momentum in China’s domestic economy and demand, particularly in the second half of this year.   Chart 13How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds Commodity prices may be at high risk of easing demand. The strong rebound in China’s commodity imports in 2H20 was not only due to a recovery in domestic consumption, but also inventory restocking from an extremely low level. Chart 13 shows that the change in China’s industrial inventories relative to exports has risen substantially from a two-year contraction. Going forward, the pace of inventory accumulation will slow following a weaker policy tailwind and growth momentum, which will weigh on the demand for and prices of key industrial raw materials. Corporate profits should continue to recover, albeit at a slower rate than in 2H20. At the same time, risks are tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. As such, we maintain a cautious view on Chinese stocks.    Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnote: 1     IMF World Economic Outlook and World Bank Global Outlook, January 2021   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar versus the euro and Swiss franc. While we agree a barbell strategy makes sense, we would rather hold the yen and the Scandinavian currencies. In the near term, we recommend trades at the crosses, given the potential for the dollar rally to run further. An opportunity has opened up to short the AUD/MXN cross. We are tightening the stop on our short EUR/GBP position to protect profits. We believe EUR/CHF still has upside. While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is Europe. Precious metals remain a buy. We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial target of 65 was touched. Platinum should also outperform in 2021. Remain long AUD/NZD, as the key drivers (relative terms of trade and cheap valuation) remain intact. Feature Currency markets are at a crossroads. On the one hand, news on the vaccine front continues to progress, raising the specter that we might return to normalcy sometime in the second half of this year. On the other hand, the current lockdowns are slowing down economic activity across the developed world, which is bullish for the dollar. With the DXY index up 1.4% this year, it appears near-term economic weakness is dominating the currency market narrative. Our long-term trade basket is centered on a dollar-bearish theme, but we have been shifting much focus in the near term to non-US dollar opportunities. Central to this has been our conviction that the dollar is due for a countertrend bounce, in an order of magnitude of 2%-4%.1 It appears we are already halfway there (Chart I-1). For the month of January, our trade recommendations outperformed the model allocation. Notable trades were being short gold versus silver and being short EUR/GBP. Silver in particular was a big winner in January (Chart I-2). Most emerging market currencies saw weakness, especially the Korean won, Russian ruble, and Brazilian real Chart I-1The Dollar Has Been Strong In 2021 Portfolio And Model Review Portfolio And Model Review Chart I-2Our FX Portfolio Did Well In January Portfolio And Model Review Portfolio And Model Review For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar, mostly versus the euro and Swiss franc (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The model gets its signal from three variables: Relative interest rates (both levels and rates of change), valuation, and sentiment.2 While some of these variables have moved in favor the dollar, the magnitude of these moves has not been sufficient to trigger a model shift. We agree a barbell strategy makes sense. That said, we would rather hold the yen (as the safe haven, compared to the CHF) and the Scandinavian currencies (compared to the EUR). These are our two strategic positions, and we made the case for yen long positions last week. Chart I-3Our FX Model Remains ##br##Short USD... Our FX Model Remains Short USD... Our FX Model Remains Short USD... Chart I-4...Especially Versus The Euro And Swiss Franc ...Especially Versus The Euro And Swiss Franc ...Especially Versus The Euro And Swiss Franc Circling back to our trades at the crosses, we maintain that they should continue to perform well in February and beyond. We revisit the rationale behind these trades, as well as introduce a new idea: Short the AUD/MXN cross. Go Short AUD/MXN A tactical opportunity has opened up to go short the AUD/MXN cross. Central to this thesis are three catalysts: relative economic activity, valuation, and sentiment. The Australian PMI has rebounded quite strongly relative to that in Mexico, driven by the performance of the Chinese economy, versus that of the US economy. Australia exports mostly to China, while Mexico is heavily tied to the US economy. With the Chinese credit impulse rolling over, the US economy has been outperforming of late. If past is prologue, this will herald a lower AUD/MXN exchange rate (Chart I-5). Correspondingly, oil prices are outperforming metals prices. China is the biggest consumer of metals, while the US is the biggest consumer of oil. A higher oil-to-metal ratio is negative for AUD/MXN. Terms of trade between Australia and Mexico have been an important driver of the exchange rate (Chart I-5). China had a massive restocking of metals last year, much more than oil and natural gas. This implies that the destocking phase (should it occur) will be most acute among metal inventories (Chart I-6), suggesting oil imports into China could fare better than metals. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the Aussie is expensive relative to the Mexican peso. Historically, this has heralded a lower exchange rate (Chart I-7). Chart I-5AUD/MXN And Terms Of Trade Portfolio And Model Review Portfolio And Model Review   Chart I-6Chinese Destocking: From Crude Oil To Metals? Chinese Destocking: From Crude Oil To Metals? Chinese Destocking: From Crude Oil To Metals? Chart I-7AUD/MXN Is ##br##Expensive AUD/MXN Is Expensive AUD/MXN Is Expensive Back in 2020, when everyone was short the Aussie and long the MXN, being a contrarian paid off handsomely. Now, speculators are roughly neutral both crosses. Should the trends we are highlighting carry on into the next few months, this will be a powerful catalyst for speculators to jump on the bandwagon. We recommend opening a short AUD/MXN trade today, with a stop loss at 16.50 and an initial target of 13. Stay Short EUR/GBP Chart I-8An Asymmetry In Pricing An Asymmetry In Pricing An Asymmetry In Pricing Our short EUR/GBP position is performing well, amidst a more hawkish Bank of England this week. Technically, there remains room for much downside on the cross. Real interest rates in the UK are rising relative to those in the euro area. The Brexit discount has not been fully priced out of the EUR/GBP cross, whereas broad US dollar weakness has eroded the discount in cable (Chart I-8). From a technical perspective, speculators are still very long the EUR/GBP, even though our intermediate-term indicator is nearing bombed-out levels (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EUR/GBP Still Has Downside EUR/GBP Still Has Downside EUR/GBP Still Has Downside Finally, short EUR/GBP tends to benefit from an outperformance of oil prices. We will be revisiting the fair value of the pound in upcoming reports given the fundamental shifts that are happening in the post-EU relationship. For now, we are tightening stops on our short EUR/GBP position to 0.89, in order to protect profits. Remain Long NOK And SEK Chart I-10NOK Follows Oil Prices NOK Follows Oil Prices NOK Follows Oil Prices The Scandinavian currencies are  extremely cheap and an attractive bet for 2021. As such, we believe the recent relapse in their performance provides an opportunity for fresh long positions. For the NOK, a rising oil price is bullish, both against the EUR and USD (Chart I-10). Meanwhile, superior handling of the pandemic has buoyed domestic economic data in Norway. Both retail sales and domestic inflation have been perking up, pushing the Norges Bank to dial forward expectations of a rate lift-off. Sweden is also holding up relatively well this year. Part of the reason for this is that over the years, the drop in the Swedish krona, both against the US dollar and euro, has made Sweden very competitive. With our models showing the Swedish krona as undervalued by 13% versus the USD, there is much room for currency appreciation before financial conditions tighten significantly. The bottom line is that both Norway and Sweden are well positioned  to benefit from a global economic recovery, with much undervalued currencies that will bolster their basic balances. We expect both the SEK and NOK to remain the best performers versus the USD in the coming year.  Stay Long EUR/CHF While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is the euro area. To be clear, the SNB has been actively intervening in the currency markets. However, when one looks at relative monetary policy, the expansion in the ECB’s balance sheet far outpaces that of the SNB (Chart I-11). With the correlation between balance sheet policy and the exchange rate shifting, it may embolden Switzerland to intervene even more strongly in currency markets. Historically, the Swiss franc was buffeted by the global environment (improving global trade) and rising productivity in Switzerland. As a result, the SNB had no alternative but to try to recycle those excess savings abroad by lifting its FX reserves, or see even stronger appreciation of its currency. With global trade much more muted, intervention in the FX market could be a more potent headwind for the franc. Chart I-11The SNB Is More Hawkish Than The ECB The SNB Is More Hawkish Than The ECB The SNB Is More Hawkish Than The ECB Chart I-12EUR/CHF And The Global Cycle EUR/CHF And The Global Cycle EUR/CHF And The Global Cycle In the near-term, the risk to this trade is that safe-haven flows  reaccelerate, as investors re-price risk. However, this will be a short-term hiccup. EUR/CHF is a procyclical cross and will benefit from improvement in the Eurozone economy relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, by many measures, the Swiss franc remains expensive versus the euro. Stay Long AUD/NZD Chart I-13RBA QE Will Hurt AUD/NZD RBA QE Will Hurt AUD/NZD RBA QE Will Hurt AUD/NZD The rally in the kiwi has provided an exploitable opportunity to lean against it. We remain long the AUD/NZD cross, despite the RBA stepping up the pace of QE at its latest meeting. The rationale is as follows: The balance sheet of the RBA was already lagging that of the RBNZ, so the latest move is simply  catch up (Chart I-13). It has no doubt been negative for the cross, as Australia-New Zealand rates have compressed. However, when the program expires, the AUD will be subject to external forces once again.  The Australian bourse is heavy in cyclical stocks, notably banks and commodity plays, while the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the G10. Should value outperform growth, this will favor the AUD/NZD cross. The kiwi has benefited from rising terms of trade, as agricultural prices have catapulted higher. Should a correction ensue, as we expect, this will favor NZD short positions. Our conviction on long AUD/NZD has clearly been hit with the RBA’s latest move. As such, we are tightening stops to 1.05 for risk management purposes. Stay Long Precious Metals, Especially Silver And Platinum We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial 65 target was hit. The rationale for the trade remains intact: In a world of ample liquidity and a falling US dollar, gold and precious metals are bound to benefit. However, silver has underperformed the rise in gold. The long-term mean for the gold/silver ratio is 50, providing ample alpha for this trade (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The Case For Short Gold Versus Silver The Case For Short Gold Versus Silver The Case For Short Gold Versus Silver Silver is heavily used in the electronics and renewable energy industries, which are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Silver faced resistance near $30/oz. However, this will be a temporary hiccup. The next important level for silver will be the 2012 highs near $35/oz. After this, silver could take out its 2011 highs that were close to $50/oz, just as gold did.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Sizing A Potential Dollar Bounce," dated January 15, 2021. 2 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Introducing An FX Trading Model," dated April 24, 2020. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights US-China tensions are escalating over the Taiwan Strait as Beijing tests the new Biden administration, yet financial markets are flying high and unprepared for a resumption of structurally elevated geopolitical risk. US restrictions on Chinese tech and arms sales, US internal political divisions, Taiwanese independence activists, China’s power grab in Hong Kong, and aggressive foreign policy from Xi Jinping create what could become a perfect storm. The rattling of sabers can escalate further as a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” has been a long time coming – though “gun to head” we do not think China’s civilian leadership is ready to initiate a war over Taiwan. Biden’s shift to a more defensive US strategy on tech offers Beijing the far less risky alternative of continuing its current (very successful) long game. We are closing most of our risk-on, cyclical trades and shifting to a neutral position until we can get a better read on how far the crisis will escalate. Maintain hedges and safe-haven trades: gold, yen, health stocks, an Indian overweight in EM, and defense stocks relative to others. Feature President Joe Biden faces his first crisis as the US and China rattle sabers over the Taiwan Strait. The crisis does not come at a surprise to watchers of geopolitics but it could produce further negative surprises for financial markets that are just starting to take note of it. This premier geopolitical risk combined with vaccine rollout problems, weak economic data releases, and signs of froth sent global equities down 2% over the past five days. The US 10-year Treasury yield fell to 1%, the USD-CNY rose by 0.03%, gold fell by 0.6%, and copper fell by 2%. As things stand today, we are prepared to buy on the dip but we are closing most of our long bets and positioning for a big dip now that our premier geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait shows signs of materializing. A series of Chinese air force drills have cut across the far southwestern corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the past week, giving alarm to the Taiwanese military (Map 1). Beijing is sending a clear warning to the Biden administration that Taiwan is its “red line” – namely Taiwanese independence but also Beijing’s access to Taiwanese-made semiconductors. There is not yet a clear signal that China is about to attack or invade Taiwan but an attack is possible. Investors should not underrate the significance of a show of force over Taiwan at this juncture. Map 1Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 24, 2021 Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Chart 1Global Trade Troubles Global Trade Troubles Global Trade Troubles We are also taking this opportunity to book a 37% gain on our long US energy trade. Global politics are fundamentally anarchic in the context of the US’s relative geopolitical decline, and internal divisions and distractions, and the simultaneous economic shocks that have knocked global trade off course (Chart 1), jeopardizing the newfound success and stability of the ambitious emerging market challengers to the United States. Geopolitical Risk Is Back (Already) Chart 2US And China Lead Global Growth Recovery US And China Lead Global Growth Recovery US And China Lead Global Growth Recovery The US and China have snapped back more rapidly than other economies from the COVID-19 pandemic despite their entirely different experiences (Chart 2). The virus erupted in China but its draconian lockdowns halted the outbreak while it unleashed a wave of monetary and fiscal stimulus to reboot the economy. The US showed itself unwilling and unable to maintain strict lockdowns, leaving its economy freer to operate, and yet also unleashed a wave of stimulus. The US stimulus is the biggest in the world yet China’s is underrated in Chart 3 due to its reliance on quasi-fiscal credit expansion, which amounted to 8.5% of GDP. That goes on top of the 5.6% of GDP fiscal expansion shown here. For most of the past year financial markets have priced the positive side of this stimulus – the fact that it prevented larger layoffs, bankruptcies, and defaults and launched a new economic cycle. Going forward they will face the negative side, which includes financial instability and foreign policy assertiveness. Countries that are domestically unstable yet fueled by government spending can take risks that they would not otherwise take if their economy depended on private or foreign sentiment. The checks and balances that prevent conflict during normal times have been reduced. Chart 3US Leads Stimulus Blowout This Time, Though China Stimulus Larger Than Appears Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Global economic policy uncertainty has fallen from recent peaks around the world but it remains elevated in the US, China, and Russia, which are engaged in a great power struggle that will continue in the coming years (Chart 4). This struggle has escalated with each new crisis point, from 2001 to 2008 to 2015 to 2020, and shows no sign of abating in 2021. Chart 4APolicy Uncertainty Still Rising Here ... Policy Uncertainty Still Rising Here ... Policy Uncertainty Still Rising Here ... Chart 4B... And Can Easily Revive Here ... And Can Easily Revive Here ... And Can Easily Revive Here   Chart 5Terrorism Falling In World Ex-US (For Now) Terrorism Falling In World Ex-US (For Now) Terrorism Falling In World Ex-US (For Now) Europe, the UK, Australia, and various emerging markets will suffer spillover effects from this geopolitical struggle as well as from their own domestic turmoil in the wake of the global recession. Immigration and terrorism have dropped off in recent years but will revive in the Middle East and elsewhere when the aftershocks of the global crisis lead to new state failures, weakened governments, and militant extremism (Chart 5). In many countries, domestic political risks appear contained today but the reality is that social unrest and political opposition will mount over time if unemployment is not dealt with and inflation starts to climb. These two factors combine form the “Misery Index,” a useful indicator of socio-political discontent. India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia are just a few of the major emerging markets that face high or rising misery indexes and hence persistent forces for political change (Chart 6). Chart 6AMore Social And Political Unrest To Come More Social And Political Unrest To Come More Social And Political Unrest To Come Chart 6BMore Social And Political Unrest To Come More Social And Political Unrest To Come More Social And Political Unrest To Come So far there have not been many changes in government – the US is the major exception. But change will accelerate from here. It is not hard to see that weakening popular support for national leaders and their ruling coalitions will result in more snap elections, election upsets, and surprise events in the coming months and years (Chart 7). Chart 7Changing Of The Guard Under Way In Global Politics Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Chart 8Italian Elections Heighten Sovereign Spread Italian Elections Heighten Sovereign Spread Italian Elections Heighten Sovereign Spread For example, Italian voters likely face an early election even though Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte saw some of the best opinion polling of any first-world leader since COVID emerged. Last year we identified Italy as a leading candidate for an early snap election and we still maintain that an election is the likeliest outcome of the crumbling ruling coalition. The pandemic has created havoc in the country and now the ruling parties want to take advantage of the situation to strengthen their hand in distributing the $254 billion in European recovery funds destined for Italy. A new electoral law was passed in the fall, enabling an election to go forward, and the leading parties all hope to have control of parliament when the next presidential election occurs in early 2022, since the president is a key player in government and cabinet formation. Political risk is therefore set to increase and boost the risk premium in Italian bonds, producing a counter-trend spread widening for the coming 12 months or so (Chart 8). Anti-establishment right-wing parties, which taken together lead in public opinion, threaten to blow out the Italian budget. It is not a foregone conclusion that they will prevail – and these parties have moderated their rhetoric on the euro and monetary union – but it is an understated risk at present and has some staying power, even if moderate by the standards of geopolitical risks in other regions. Russia also faces rising political and geopolitical risk in the aftermath of the pandemic, which has had an outsized effect on a population that is disproportionately old and unhealthy (Chart 9). Moscow is now witnessing the most serious outpouring of government opposition since 2011 despite the fact that its cyclical economic conditions are not the worst among the emerging markets. The economic recovery is likely to be stunted by the new US administration’s efforts to extend and expand sanctions and any geopolitical conflicts that ensue. We remain negative on Russian equities as we have for the past two years and look at other emerging market oil plays as offering the same value without the geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 9Russian Social Unrest Aggravated By Pandemic Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Chart 10Russian Equities Face Persistent Geopolitical Risk Russian Equities Face Persistent Geopolitical Risk Russian Equities Face Persistent Geopolitical Risk Investors do not need to care about social unrest in itself but do need to pay attention when it leads to a change in government or the overall policy setting. This is what we will monitor for the countries highlighted in these charts as being especially at risk. Italy and Spain are the most likely to see government change in the developed world, though we should note that however stable Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats appear as Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down, there could still be an upset this fall (Chart 11). France’s Emmanuel Macron is still positioned for re-election next year but his legislative control is clearly in jeopardy – and it is at least worth noting that the right-wing anti-establishment leader Marine Le Pen has started to move up in the polls for the first time since 2017, even though she has a very low chance of actually taking power (Chart 12). Chart 11German Election Not A Foregone Conclusion German Election Not A Foregone Conclusion German Election Not A Foregone Conclusion Chart 12Signs Of Life For Marine Le Pen? Signs Of Life For Marine Le Pen? Signs Of Life For Marine Le Pen? Chart 13UK Now Turns To Keeping Scotland UK Now Turns To Keeping Scotland UK Now Turns To Keeping Scotland Even the UK, which has found the “middle way” solution to the Brexit imbroglio, in true British form, faces a significant increase in political risk beginning with local elections in May. If these produce a resounding victory for the Scottish National Party then it will interpret the vote as a mandate to pursue a second independence referendum, which will be a narrow affair even if Prime Minister Boris Johnson is tentatively favored to head it off (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Financial markets have been preoccupied with the pandemic and global stimulus. But now political and geopolitical risks are underrated once again. They are starting to rear their heads, not only in the US-China-Russia power struggle but also in the domestic politics of countries that face high policy uncertainty and high or rising misery indexes. Biden And Xi Bound To Collide It is too soon to identify the “Biden Doctrine” in American foreign policy, as the new president has not yet taken significant action, but the all-too-predictable showdown in the Taiwan Strait could provide the occasion. Since the fall of 2019 we have warned that US-China great power competition would intensify despite any “phase one” trade deal. President Trump undertook a flurry of significant punitive measures on China during his lame duck months in office and now Beijing is pressuring the Biden administration to reverse these measures or at least call a halt to them. The fundamental premise of Biden’s campaign against President Trump was that he would restore America’s active role in international affairs against the supposed isolationism of Trump. Of course, the fact that the Democrats gained full control of Congress means that Biden will not be restricted to foreign policy over his four-year term but will be consumed with trying to cut deals on Capitol Hill to pass his domestic agenda. Nevertheless Biden’s foreign policy schedule is already packed as he is rattling sabers with China, issuing warnings to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to signal that he intends to reformulate the Iranian nuclear deal. Americans broadly favor an active role in the world, which is clear from opinion polling in the wake of Trump’s challenge to the status quo – they are weary of wars in the Middle East but are not showing appetite for a broader withdrawal from global affairs (Chart 14). Similarly polling on global trade shows that Trump, if anything, roused the public’s support for trade despite French or Japanese levels of skepticism about it. Chart 14Americans Still Favor Global Engagement Americans Still Favor Global Engagement Americans Still Favor Global Engagement The implication is that the US budget deficit will remain larger for longer and that the US trade deficit will balloon amidst a surge in domestic demand. Trump’s attempt to shrink trade deficits without shrinking the budget deficit (or overall demand) proved economically impossible. Chart 15Biden And The US Role In The World Biden And The US Role In The World Biden And The US Role In The World The Biden administration is opting for expanding the twin deficits albeit at a much greater risk to the dollar’s value. Markets have already discounted this shift to the point that the dollar is experiencing a bounce from having reached oversold levels. The bounce will continue but it is against the grain, the fall will resume later, as indicated by these policies. Another implication is that defense spending will not fall much due to the geopolitical pressures facing the Biden administration. Non-defense spending will go up but defense spending will remain at least flat as a share of overall output (Chart 15). With this policy setting in the US, policy developments in China made it inevitable that US-China strategic tensions would resume where Trump left off despite Biden’s campaign platform of de-emphasizing the China threat. In the long run, Biden’s push for renewed engagement with China runs up against the fact that Beijing’s overarching political and economic strategy is focused on import substitution and technological acquisition, as outlined in the fourteenth five-year plan. China’s share of global exports has grown even larger despite the pandemic and yet China is weaning itself off of global imports in pursuit of strategic self-sufficiency. The US will be left with less global export share, less market access in China, and ongoing dependency on trade surplus nations to buy its debt (Chart 16). Unless, that is, the Biden administration engages in very robust diplomacy and is willing to take geopolitical risks not unlike those that Trump took. Chart 16China's Role In The World Motivates Opposition China's Role In The World Motivates Opposition China's Role In The World Motivates Opposition Chart 17China Plays Are Getting Stretched China Plays Are Getting Stretched China Plays Are Getting Stretched One of the clear takeaways from the above is that industrial metals and China plays, like the Australian dollar and Swedish equities, are facing a pullback. Though Chinese policymakers will ultimately accommodate the economy, the combination of a domestic policy tug-of-war and a renewal of US-China tensions will take the air out of these recent outperformers (Chart 17). Bottom Line: The Biden administration faces a resumption in strategic tensions with China. First, the immediate crisis over the Taiwan Strait can escalate from here (see below). Second, the US-China economic conflict is set to escalate over the long run with the US pursuing an unsustainable policy of maximum reflation while China turns away from the liberal “reform and opening” agenda that enabled positive US-China ties since 1979. This combination points to a large increase in the US trade dependency on China even as China grows more independent of the US and technologically capable. This result ensures that tensions will persist over the long run. Is The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Already Here? Biden may be forced into significant foreign policy action right away in the Taiwan Strait, where General Secretary Xi Jinping has put his fledgling administration to the test. Over the past week Beijing has sent a large squadron of nuclear-capable bombers and fighter jets to cut across the far southwest corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (Map 2). This activity is a continuation of an upgraded tempo of military drills around the island, including a flight across the median line last year, and follows an alleged army build-up across from the island last year.1 The US for its part has upgraded its freedom of navigation operations over the past several years, including in the Taiwan Strait (though not yet putting an aircraft carrier group into the strait as in the 1990s). Map 2Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 25-28, 2021 Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update Is The Taiwan Strait Crisis Here? – A GeoRisk Update In response to China’s sorties on January 23, the US State Department urged the People’s Republic to stop “attempts to intimidate its neighbors, including Taiwan,” called for mainland dialogue with Taiwan’s “elected representatives” (albeit not naming anyone), declared that the US would deepen ties with Taiwan, and pledged a “rock-solid” commitment to the island. Not coincidentally the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier arrived in the South China Sea on the same day as China’s largest sortie, January 24. Meanwhile a Chinese government spokesman said the military drills should be seen as a “solemn warning” to the Biden administration that China will reunify the island by force if necessary. China is not only concerned about Taiwanese secession and US-Taiwan defense relations, as always, but is specifically concerned that the Biden administration will persist with the technological “blockade” that the Trump administration imposed on Huawei, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), their suppliers, and a range of other Chinese state-owned enterprises and tech firms. Neither the US nor Chinese statements have yet made a definitive break with the longstanding policy framework on Taiwan that first enabled US-China détente and engagement. The US State Department reiterated its commitment to the diplomatic documents that frame the relationship with the People’s Republic and the Republic of China, namely the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances. It did not make explicit mention of the One China Policy although the US version of that policy is incorporated in the first of the three communiques (the 1972 Shanghai Communique). However, China may not be appeased by this statement. Xi Jinping has gradually shifted the language in major Communist Party policy statements over the past several years to indicate a greater willingness to use force against Taiwan, even suggesting that he envisions the reunification of China by 2035.2 The Trump administration’s offensives have accelerated this security dilemma. In addition to export controls on high tech, Trump signed several significant bills on Taiwan into law over the course of his term that aim to upgrade the relationship. These include the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 at the end of last year, which calls for deeper US-Taiwan relations, greater Taiwanese involvement in international institutions, larger US arms sales to support Taiwan’s defense strategy, and more diplomatic exchanges.3 Separately, the US and Taiwan also signed a science-and-technology cooperation agreement on December 15 and the Biden administration is interested in negotiating a free trade agreement.4 A few additional points: The struggle over access to Taiwan’s state-of-the-art semiconductor production continues to escalate. The Trump administration concluded its tenure by cutting off American exports of chips, parts, designs, and knowhow to Chinese telecom giant Huawei, thus putting Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) into the position of having to halt sales of certain goods to the mainland. TSMC accounts for one-fifth of global semiconductor capacity and produces the smallest, fastest, and most efficient chips. China’s SMIC has been hamstrung by these controls as well as Huawei and other Chinese tech champions. This issue remains unresolved and is the primary immediate driver of conflict between the US and China since both economies would suffer if semiconductor supplies were severed. The US’s capability of imposing a tech blockade on China threatens its long-term productivity and hence potentially regime survival, while China’s capability of attacking Taiwan threatens the critical supply lines of the US and its northeast Asian allies, including essential computer chips for US military needs (the main reason the US has tried to strong-arm TSMC into building a fabrication plant in Arizona).5 US arms sales en route to Taiwan. While there are rumors that the Biden administration will delay these sales, the Taiwanese government claims they have been assured that the transfers will go forward. This arms package does not include the most provocative weapons systems, such as F-35 fighter jets, but it does contain advanced weapons systems and weapons that can be seen as offensive rather than defensive. These include truck-mounted rocket launchers, precision strike missiles, 66 F-16 fighter jets, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, subsea mines, and advanced drones. So it is possible that Beijing will put its foot down to prevent the transfer, just as it tried to halt the less-sensitive transfer of THAAD missiles to South Korea during the last US presidential transition. If this should be the case then it will cause a major escalation in tensions until the US either halts the arms transfer or completes it – and completing the transfer, if China issues an ultimatum, will lead to conflict. Growth of “secessionist forces” in Taiwan. Chinese media have specifically cited a political “alliance” that formed on January 24 and aims to revise the island’s democratic constitution. The Taiwanese public no longer sees itself primarily as Chinese but as Taiwanese and is increasingly opposed to eventual reunification. What is the end-game? First, as stated, the current escalation in tensions can go much further in the coming weeks and months. We are not prepared to sound the “all clear” as a confrontation has been building for years and could conceivably amount to Cuban Missile Crisis proportions, which would likely trigger a bear market. Second, we do not yet see China staging a full-scale attack or invasion on Taiwan. China’s goal is to continue expanding its economy and technology, its economic heft in Asia and the world, and thus its global influence and military power. It cannot achieve this goal if it is utterly severed from Taiwan, but it also cannot achieve this goal if it precipitates a war with not only Taiwan but also the US, Japan, other US allies, and a devastation of the very semiconductor foundries upon which Taiwan’s critical importance stands. Playing the long game of growing its economy and taking incremental steps of imposing its political supremacy has paid off so far, including in Hong Kong and the South China Sea. Both Russia’s and China’s gradual slices of regional power have demonstrated that the US does not have the appetite, focus, and resolve to fight small wars at present – whereas Washington is untested on its commitment to major wars such as an invasion of Taiwan would precipitate. At very least China needs to determine whether the Biden administration intends to impose a technological blockade, as the Trump administration looked to do. Biden has so far outlined a “defensive game” of securing US networks, preventing US trade in dual-use technologies that strengthen China’s military, on-shoring semiconductor production, and accelerating US research and development. This leaves open the possibility of issuing waivers for trade in US-made or US-designed items that do not have military purposes, albeit with the US retaining the possibility of removing the waivers if China does not reciprocate. This strategy amounts to what Biden’s “Asia Tsar,” Kurt Campbell, has called “stable competition.” Therefore the earliest indications from the Biden administration suggest that it will seek a lowering of temperature while defending the US’s red lines – and this should prevent a full-scale Taiwan war in the short run, though it does not prevent a major diplomatic crisis at any time. If Biden does in fact pursue this more accommodative approach, and seeks to reengage China, then that Beijing has a much lower-cost strategy that is immediately available, as opposed to an all-or-nothing gambit to stage the largest amphibious assault since D-Day, which is by no means assured to succeed and could in the worst case provoke a nuclear war. This strategy includes negotiating waivers on US tech restrictions, accelerating its high-tech import substitution strategy, and continuing to poach the talent from Taiwan and steal the technology needed to circumvent US restrictions. As long as Washington does not make a dash for a total blockade, Beijing should be expected to pursue this alternate strategy. Investment Takeaways The market is not priced for a serious escalation in US-China-Taiwan tensions. If there is a 17% chance of a 30%-40% drawdown in equities on jitters over a major war, then equities should suffer a full 7%+ correction to discount the possibility. While the prospects of full-scale war are much lower, at say 5%, these odds could escalate rapidly if the two sides fail to mitigate a diplomatic or military crisis through red telephone communications. Chart 18China/Taiwan Policy Uncertainty Will Converge To Upside China/Taiwan Policy Uncertainty Will Converge To Upside China/Taiwan Policy Uncertainty Will Converge To Upside While Chinese policy uncertainty remains elevated, it still has plenty of room to rise. It has diverged unsustainably from Taiwanese uncertainty, which only recently showed signs of ticking up in response to manifest strategic dangers. This gap will converge to the upside as US-China tensions persist and the global news media gradually turns its spotlight away from Donald Trump, alerting financial markets to the persistence of the world’s single most important geopolitical risk right under their nose (Chart 18). Inverting our market-based Geopolitical Risk Indicators, so that falling risk is shown as a rising green line, it becomes apparent that Chinese equities and Taiwanese equities have gone vertical, have only started to correct, and are highly exposed to exogenous events stemming from their fundamentally unstable political relationship. Hong Kong stocks, by contrast, have performed in line with the market’s perception of their political risk, so that there is less discrepancy between market sentiment and reality – even though they will also sell off in the event that this week’s events escalate into a larger confrontation (Chart 19). Chart 19Geopolitical Risks Lurking In Asian Equities Geopolitical Risks Lurking In Asian Equities Geopolitical Risks Lurking In Asian Equities Chart 20Stay Long Korea / Short Taiwan Due To Geopolitical Risk Stay Long Korea / Short Taiwan Due To Geopolitical Risk Stay Long Korea / Short Taiwan Due To Geopolitical Risk South Korean stocks were also overstretched and due for correction. We have long advocated a pair trade favoring Korean over Taiwanese stocks to capture the relative geopolitical risk as well as more favorable valuations in Korea (Chart 20). The ingredients for a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis are all present. This week’s showdown could escalate further. Global and East Asian equities are overbought and vulnerable to a larger correction, especially Taiwanese stocks. US equities are also sky-high and vulnerable to a larger correction, although they would be favored relative to the rest of the world in the event of a full-fledged crisis. Chart 21Geopolitical Flare-Up Would Upset This Trend Geopolitical Flare-Up Would Upset This Trend Geopolitical Flare-Up Would Upset This Trend We maintain our various geopolitical longs and hedges, including gold, Japanese yen, an Indian overweight within EM, and health stocks. We remain long global defense stocks as well. Because our base case is that the current crisis will not result in war, but rather high diplomatic tensions, we are inclined to buy on the dips. But we expect a big dip even in the event of a merely diplomatic crisis that involves no jets shot down or ships sunk. Therefore for now we are closing long municipal bonds versus Treasuries, long international stocks versus American, long GBP-EUR, long Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, and long value versus growth stocks. These trades should be reinitiated once we have clarity on the magnitude of the US-China crisis, given the extremely accommodative economic and policy backdrop, which will, if anything, become more accommodative if geopolitical risks materialize yet fall short of total war. Oil and copper would suffer relative to gold in the meantime (Chart 21). Our remaining strategic portfolio still favors stocks that would ultimately benefit from instability in Greater China, such as European industrials relative to global, Indian equities relative to Chinese, and South Korean equities relative to Taiwanese. While the spike in tensions reinforces our conclusion in last week’s report that long-dated Chinese government bonds should rally on Taiwan risk, this recommendation was made in the context of discussing domestic Chinese markets and is primarily intended for mainland investors or those with a mandate to invest in Chinese assets. Foreign investors could conceivably be exposed to sanctions or capital controls in the event of a major crisis – as we have long flagged is also a risk with foreign holders of Russian ruble-denominated bonds. We have made a note in our trade table accordingly.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Brad Lendon, "Almost 40 Chinese warplanes breach Taiwan Strait median line; Taiwan President calls it a 'threat of force,'" CNN, September 21, 2020, cnn.com. 2 Richard C. Bush, "8 key things to notice from Xi Jinping’s New Year speech on Taiwan," Brookings Institute, January 7, 2019, brookings.com. 3 Trump also signed the Taiwan Travel Act on March 16, 2018 and the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act on March 26, 2019. For the Taiwan Assurance Act, see Kelvin Chen, "Trump Signs Taiwan Assurance Act Into Law," Taiwan News, December 28, 2020, taiwannews.com. 4 Jason Pan, "Alliance formed to draft Taiwanese constitution," Taipei Times, January 24, 2021, taipeitimes.com; Emerson Lim and Matt Yu, "Taiwan, U.S. sign agreement on scientific cooperation," Focus Taiwan, December 18, 2020, focustaiwan.tw; Ryan Hass, "A case for optimism on US-Taiwan relations," Brookings Institute, November 30, 2020, brookings.com. 5 Thomas J. Shattuck, "Stuck in the Middle: Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry, the U.S.-China Tech Fight, and Cross-Strait Stability," Foreign Policy Research Institute, Orbis (65:1) 2021, pp. 101-17, www.fpri.org. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Increased fiscal assistance in the US and other advanced economies will support economic activity until the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. The US is not yet vaccinating at a pace that is consistent with herd immunity, but that pace is likely to quicken over the coming weeks. A September herd immunity milestone should allow for a significant increase in public “contacts” over the summer and for a substantial closure of the output gap in the second half of the year. The spending of accumulated household savings in the US would rapidly push the output gap into positive territory if those savings were fully deployed upon reopening. But expectations of eventual tax increases and some permanent reduction in services spending suggests that some of those savings will not be spent, and that major economic overheating this year is not likely. The market has largely priced in the most likely economic outcome over the coming year, suggesting that investors should not expect outsized returns in 2021. But our base case view still favors equities relative to bonds, and implies mid-to-high single-digit returns from stocks in absolute terms. An aggressively hawkish deviation in monetary policy later this year is unlikely, barring a sharp and sustained rise in inflation back to target levels. Still, a closure of the output gap this year will push long-dated bond yields higher, suggesting that fixed-income investors should be short duration. Investors should favor global over US and value over growth stocks over the coming year. The US dollar will continue to trend lower, albeit at a slower pace. Feature Chart I-1The Near-Term Outlook For Economic Growth Is Poor The Near-Term Outlook For Economic Growth Is Poor The Near-Term Outlook For Economic Growth Is Poor The outlook for growth in the US and other developed economies remains poor over the very near term. The combination of another major wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, at least partially driven by more transmissable variants of the virus, as well as the lagged effects of diminished US fiscal support in the second half of last year have led to a slowdown in economic activity that is likely to linger for the coming several weeks (Chart I-1). Outside of the US, the pressure on the medical system has led to the re-imposition of heavy control measures that mechanically weigh on consumer spending. Within the US, some restrictions have been re-imposed, but spending has also slowed due to the exhaustion of the stimulative benefits of last year’s CARES act for a sizeable portion of recipients. There are early signs suggesting that the second wave is cresting in advanced economies: hospitalizations appear to have peaked in the US and a few major European economies, and the number of new cases is either trending lower or has plateaued (Chart I-2). However, even if this is the beginning of the end of the latest wave, the gains in the war against COVID-19 have clearly been won through changes in policy and human behavior, not through inoculation. Chart I-2Infections Are Slowing Because Of Policy And Behavior (Not Vaccinations) Infections Are Slowing Because Of Policy And Behavior (Not Vaccinations) Infections Are Slowing Because Of Policy And Behavior (Not Vaccinations) For example, in the US, some market commentators have highlighted the fact that hotbed midwestern states such as North and South Dakota have administered more doses of the vaccine and that the Midwest is experiencing the largest decline in new cases in the country, inferring a causal relationship. This ignores the fact that new confirmed cases peaked in the Midwest almost a month before the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was approved by the CDC. This suggests that a decline in cases there, which led the overall US trend, much more likely occurred in response to an exponential rise in hospitalizations in October and early November. We cannot identify a specific policy change in Midwestern states that catalyzed a peak in cases, but we hypothesize that residents of these states took it upon themselves to reduce their contacts as the threat of medical system collapse and health care rationing increased sharply. A cresting second wave is certainly positive from a health perspective, and should reduce the pressure on the medical system. But the fact that additional restrictions and/or growth-negative consumer behavior were required yet again to “flatten the curve” underscores that many of these measures will likely remain in place for the coming few weeks to durably end the wave, and thus will weigh on Q1 growth. They will also likely remain the only viable response to combat future outbreaks until vaccination reaches levels that are sufficient to reduce the impact of the pandemic on economic activity. More Fiscal Support On The Way In Europe and Canada, the fiscal response to the second wave has generally been to extend wage subsidy and income support programs. In the US, after having let unemployment benefit payments lapse in the second half of 2020, the US congress passed a US$900 billion aid bill in late December that provides US$300 per week in supplemental unemployment benefit payments and US$600 in direct checks to most Americans. Chart I-3 highlights that these payments have already begun to reach US households. In addition, following the Democratic Senate wins in Georgia earlier this month, President Biden announced a $1.9 trillion emergency relief package that topped up individual direct payments to US$2,000, assistance to small businesses, aid to state & local governments, and funding for pandemic-related expenses such as testing and the rollout of vaccines. While the size and contents of Biden’s proposal may get scaled down, our geopolitical strategists expect most of the plan to gain approval in Congress early this year. That implies that the federal deficit is on track to fall somewhere between the “Democratic Status Quo” and “Democratic High” scenarios shown in Chart I-4, meaning that the deficit will peak at between 22% and 25% of GDP in fiscal year 2021. Chart I-3Unemployment Benefit Payments Are Rising Again Unemployment Benefit Payments Are Rising Again Unemployment Benefit Payments Are Rising Again Chart I-4A Very Significant Amount Of Stimulus Is Still To Come February 2021 February 2021   This is a very significant amount of stimulus, and will provide a substantial reflationary bridge to help counter the negative impact on Q1 growth from the pandemic. But in the aggregate, some portion of the fiscal stimulus is unlikely to be spent by households until there is no longer a need for social distancing and the economy fully reopens. How long it takes to arrive at that moment depends enormously on the US’ progress at vaccinating its population. Vaccines, Herd Immunity, And Reopening For now, the news on the vaccine front is mixed. Israel, which has vaccinated over 40% of its population with at least one dose (Chart I-5), has demonstrated that it is technically possible to deploy the vaccine at an extremely rapid pace. But it is not clear that Israel’s experience is applicable to other countries, given aggressive efforts by the Israeli government to obtain early access to vaccine doses (which cannot, by definition, be achieved by everyone). While Chart I-5 shows that the US currently ranks highly among other countries at administering vaccines, Chart I-6 highlights that the pace must quicken for herd immunity to be reached later this year. The chart shows the number of actual US doses administered per 100 people, alongside the range that would need to be followed for 50-80% of the US population to be fully immunized by the end of September. Note that more than 100 doses per 100 people will be required in order to vaccinate most of the US population, given that two vaccine doses will need to be administered per person. Chart I-5Israel Is Winning The Vaccine Race Because Of Preferential Access February 2021 February 2021 Chart I-6Although It Likely Will, The Pace Of US Vaccinations Must Quicken Although It Likely Will, The Pace Of US Vaccinations Must Quicken Although It Likely Will, The Pace Of US Vaccinations Must Quicken   The “X” on the chart highlights the Biden administration’s previous goal of 100 million doses administered in the first 100 days following inauguration, which was too timid of an objective to be on any of the herd immunity paths shown in the chart. The administration’s new goal of 1.5 million injections administered per day starting by the middle of February is more promising and suggests that the US will be within the herd immunity range by late April. Chart I-6 is somewhat daunting, in that it highlights the risk that the US may not actually achieve herd immunity this year, and that investors are overestimating the odds of true economic reopening. However, that would be an overly pessimistic assessment, for three reasons: Due to the scaling up of vaccine production, the pace of vaccine dose deliveries will likely soon grow at an exponential rather than linear rate. This implies that the “underperformance” of actual vaccine doses administered versus the herd immunity paths shown in Chart I-6 is temporary. Private industry is likely to help the government meet its new vaccination goals. Amazon has recently offered the federal government assistance at distributing vaccine doses, and CVS, the retail pharmacy chain, has recently suggested that its stores could provide 1 million injections per day. These estimates do not include the likely establishment of large-scale, federally-funded vaccination sites. Despite what health professionals may advise, wide-ranging re-opening of economic activity and the end of social distancing policies will likely occur before herd immunity is technically reached. From the perspective of a health care professional, case minimization should be the objective of policy as it stands to minimize the number of deaths linked to the pandemic. But given the tremendous economic, emotional, and mental health toll inflicted by social distancing, from the perspective of politicians and many members of the public, the objective of policy should instead be to ensure that the medical system remains functional and that rationing of critical care is not required. The fact that vaccines are being administered to those most likely to become hospitalized suggests that the peak impact on the health care system will occur before herd immunity is achieved, which should allow for an increase in public “contacts” over the summer. What Happens When The Economy Re-Opens? In the US and in most advanced countries, the gap in spending is focused entirely on the services side of the economy. Table I-1 presents a simple estimate of the US spending gap for real personal consumption expenditures, broken down by type. The table highlights that goods spending is currently above not just pre-pandemic levels, but also above what would have been expected if the pandemic had not occurred. The only exceptions to this are nondurable goods categories that have been highly impacted by working-from-home policies, such as clothing and footwear and gasoline and other energy goods. The household services consumption gap, on the other hand, was deeply negative in Q3, concentrated within transportation, recreation, and food/accommodation services. Table I-1The Spending Gap Is Almost Entirely On The Services Side February 2021 February 2021 My colleagues Peter Berezin and Doug Peta have recently estimated that US households are sitting on roughly $1.4-1.5 trillion in excess savings as a combined result of the CARES act and the massive services spending gap noted above (Chart I-7). That amounts to approximately 7% of GDP, which significantly exceeds an estimated output gap of roughly 3% at the end of Q4 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7A Massive Horde Of Excess Savings Has Been Accumulated A Massive Horde Of Excess Savings Has Been Accumulated A Massive Horde Of Excess Savings Has Been Accumulated Chart I-8Excess Savings Of 7% Of GDP Dwarf A -3% Output Gap Excess Savings Of 7% Of GDP Dwarf A -3% Output Gap Excess Savings Of 7% Of GDP Dwarf A -3% Output Gap At first blush, this suggests that the deployment of those savings, which seems likely once the pandemic is over and the need for social distancing measures are no longer required, could rapidly push the output gap into positive territory. But that calculation assumes that all excess savings will be spent, which will probably not occur given that some holders of those savings will expect future tax increases. An enormous budget deficit combined with Democratic control of government means that individual and corporate tax increases are highly likely over the coming 12-24 months, suggesting that higher-income individuals will expect some of those excess savings to ultimately be taxed away. In addition, even once social distancing is no longer required, it seems likely that some small portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return. While it seems reasonable to expect that the gap in spending on hospitality and travel will close quickly and even potentially exceed pre-pandemic levels once the health situation allows, it also seems reasonable to expect that some service areas, particularly retail, will experience a permanent loss in demand owing to durable shifts in consumer behavior that occurred during the pandemic (greater familiarity and use of online shopping, a permanent reduction of some magnitude in commuting, etc). Chart I-9So Far, There Is Little Evidence Of Major Permanent Labor Market Damage So Far, There Is Little Evidence Of Major Permanent Labor Market Damage So Far, There Is Little Evidence Of Major Permanent Labor Market Damage It remains unclear how much of a permanent decline will occur, and it is very difficult to forecast because of its dependency on the pace at which vaccination occurs. The faster that economic circumstances return to normal, the less permanent changes are likely to occur. For now, evidence from the labor market remains encouraging, in that permanent job loss has not surged beyond that experienced during a typical income-statement recession (Chart I-9). But the bottom line is that some of the mountain of savings that has been accumulated over the past year has occurred due to a reduction in spending on certain services that may not return once the pandemic is over, meaning that those funds may be permanently saved. This suggests that meaningful output gap closure, rather than major overheating of the economy, is the more likely scenario later this year. Is Re-Opening Priced In? Charts I-10 and I-11 highlight market expectations for growth and earnings over the next 12 months. The charts highlight that expectations are already in line with a meaningful closure of the output gap later this year: consensus growth expectations suggest that real GDP will only be about half a percentage point below potential output by the end of 2021, and bottom-up analysts expect that S&P 500 earnings per share will be approximately 3% higher in 12 months’ time than they were at the onset of the pandemic. Chart I-10Meaningful Output Gap Closure Is Likely This Year Meaningful Output Gap Closure Is Likely This Year Meaningful Output Gap Closure Is Likely This Year Chart I-11Analysts Already Expect A Complete Earnings Recovery Analysts Already Expect A Complete Earnings Recovery Analysts Already Expect A Complete Earnings Recovery   Does the fact that market expectations already reflect what is likely to occur over the coming year mean that stock prices have nowhere to go? At a minimum it suggests that strong, double-digit returns are unlikely, especially given that equities are more technically stretched to the upside than they have been at any point over the past decade and that investor sentiment is very bullish (Chart I-12). However, even if earnings grow exactly in line with analyst expectations over the coming year, it is not correct to say that stocks offer no return potential. Chart I-13 illustrates this point by showing the historical relationship between earnings surprises and the price performance of the S&P 500. Chart I-12US Equities Are Extremely Overbought US Equities Are Extremely Overbought US Equities Are Extremely Overbought Chart I-13Positive Stock Returns Almost Always Accompany In-Line Earnings Performance Positive Stock Returns Almost Always Accompany In-Line Earnings Performance Positive Stock Returns Almost Always Accompany In-Line Earnings Performance   The first point to note from the chart is that positive earnings surprises are quite rare, in that actual earnings tend to underperform expectations of earnings 12 months prior. As such, earnings performance over the coming 12 months that is exactly in line with expectations would be a better fundamental result than what investors can typically expect. The second point to note is that it is rare for stocks to fall when earnings meet or exceed prior expectations, unless faced with a significant growth shock. Earnings met or exceeded expectations in 1995, from 2004-2007, from 2010-2011, and in 2018, and in all four cases, stocks delivered either high single-digit or low double-digit price returns. Negative year-over-year returns occurred only briefly in two of these episodes and were tied to major changes to the economic outlook: the euro area sovereign debt crisis in 2011-2012, and the onset of the Sino-US trade war in 2018. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations Chart I-14Investors Should Favor Global Ex-US and Value Stocks This Year Investors Should Favor Global Ex-US and Value Stocks This Year Investors Should Favor Global Ex-US and Value Stocks This Year For investors focused on the coming 6-12 months, the key conclusions of our analysis are as follows: The outlook for economic growth is negative over the very near term, but additional fiscal support will likely provide enough of a reflationary bridge to avoid a serious contraction in activity. The achievement of herd immunity and the end of social distancing must occur this year for consensus 2021 expectations for economic growth and earnings to be realized. The US is not yet vaccinating at a pace that is consistent with herd immunity later this year, but credible projections from the new administration suggest that the pace will meaningfully quicken by the end of February. Some US households have accumulated significant savings over the past year, which would rapidly push the output gap into positive territory were they to all be deployed following full economic reopening. The expectation of eventual tax increases and a permanent reduction in some services spending means that not all of these savings will be spent, suggesting that the output gap will close meaningfully this year – but not overshoot into positive territory. Consensus market expectations already reflect what is likely to occur over the coming year, but the realization of these expectations still implies mid-to-high single-digit returns from equities. Chart I-15The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency, And Will Continue To Trend Lower The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency, And Will Continue To Trend Lower The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency, And Will Continue To Trend Lower Given these conclusions, we recommend the following investment stance over the coming 6-12 months: Stock prices are likely to rise in absolute terms despite already elevated multiples, and investors should remain overweight equities relative to government bonds. A meaningful closure of the output gap is consistent with the Fed’s economic projections, suggesting that an aggressively hawkish deviation in monetary policy later this year is unlikely, barring a sharp and sustained rise in inflation back to target levels. Still, a closure of the output gap this year will push long-dated bond yields higher, suggesting that fixed-income investors should be short duration. The “reopening trade” favors global over US stocks, and value over growth stocks. Chart I-14 highlights that global ex-US stocks are now in a clear uptrend versus their US peers, whereas value stocks have yet to decisively break out. We expect the latter will occur over the coming 6-12 months. The US dollar is a reliably counter-cyclical currency, and has behaved exactly as a counter-cyclical currency should have over the past year (Chart I-15). We thus expect a further, albeit less sharp, decline in the dollar over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 28, 2021 Next Report: February 25, 2021 II. Surging US Money Growth: Should Investors Be Concerned? Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System February 2021 February 2021 The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits February 2021 February 2021   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year February 2021 February 2021   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output February 2021 February 2021   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, 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. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% February 2021 February 2021 The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. 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 are very extended, highlighting that a near-term pullback in stock prices remains a significant risk. Our monetary indicator is in a clear downtrend, reflecting a reduced intensity of monetary support, but it remains above the boom/bust line. The upshot is that while the marginal stimulus provided by monetary policy is falling, the level of stimulus from easy monetary conditions remains significant. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain solidly positive. Within a global equity portfolio, the US underperformance that we noted last month continues, led by strong gains in emerging markets (including China). Euro area stocks have significantly underperformed EM over the course of the pandemic, are likely to emerge as the new regional leader within a global ex-US portfolio at some point later this year. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken convincingly above its 200-day moving average. Long-dated yields are technically stretched to the upside, but our valuation index highlights that bonds are still extremely expensive and that yields have room to move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. The technical and valuation profile is similar for the US dollar. The USD is technically oversold, but it remains expensive according to our models. We noted in Section 1 of this month’s report that the dollar has traded almost exactly in line with what one would expect from a counter-cyclical currency, suggesting that USD will continue to trend lower, at a more moderate pace, over the coming year. Raw industrials prices have recovered not just back to pre-pandemic levels, but also back to 2018 levels (i.e., before the Sino/US trade war). This underscores that many commodity prices are extended, and are likely due for a breather. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. The waning US payroll momentum that we flagged in last month’s Section 3 culminated in a slowdown in economic activity that is likely to linger for the coming several weeks. However, the very significant amount of stimulus that is still set to arrive will provide a substantial reflationary bridge to help counter the negative impact on Q1 growth from the pandemic. 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-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator 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 USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System February 2021 February 2021 The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits February 2021 February 2021   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… February 2021 February 2021 Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year February 2021 February 2021   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Money Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity... Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply ...But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term... Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output February 2021 February 2021   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, 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. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% February 2021 February 2021 The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.