Equities

Highlights The market pricing of the ECB is too aggressive. More so than in the US, temporary factors explain the European inflation surge. Energy, taxes, and base effects account for the bulk of the price increases. In contrast to supply shortages, European labor shortages are small and slack will limit wage growth. Despite the lack of near-term inflation risks, European growth prospects are significantly stronger than last decade. As a result, European inflation will settle at a higher level than in the 2010s and will increase durably in the second half of the 2020s. The inflation curve will steepen, as will the yield curve. Banks will continue to outperform, especially compared to the insurance sector. A tactical opportunity to buy European high-yield corporates has emerged. In France, Macron remains the favorite for the 2022 presidential election. Feature Last week’s ECB meeting did nothing to curb the impression among traders that the ECB will start removing monetary accommodation in 2022. The implied policy rate stands at -0.25% one year from now and -0.08% in two years. Meanwhile, Italian 10-year spreads over Germany have increased to 127bps, their highest level since November 2020. This market action rests on the perception that inflationary pressures in the Euro Area are durable. While this line of reasoning may have credence in the US, it is weaker across the Atlantic where the economy shows fewer signs of genuine inflationary pressure. Moreover, the deterioration in peripheral financial conditions further limits the ability of the ECB to withdraw accommodation without a financial accident. Meanwhile, the NGEU program has created a climate where the likelihood of a premature and excessive fiscal tightening is low. Thus, the weak European growth of the past decade will not be repeated. When considering these inflationary and fiscal views, it becomes apparent that the European yield curve has room to steepen further. Consequently, European banks remain attractive and should be bought on dips, especially relative to insurance companies. The EONIA Curve Is Too Aggressive The sudden increase in interest rate hikes priced in the EONIA curve is a consequence of the rapid acceleration in European realized inflation and CPI swaps. Neither are durable. Headline HICP has surged to 4.1% and core CPI towers at 2.1%, their highest reading in 13 and 19 years, respectively. These surges are the reflection of transitory factors: Chart 1The Energy Path-Through The Energy Path-Through The Energy Path-Through Energy prices are lifting HICP and are sipping through to core CPI. Inflation for electricity, gas, and fuel has reached 14.7% and the energy CPI is at 23.5%. Both are moving in line with headline and core CPI (Chart 1). Now that Brent oil and natural gas have increased four and twenty folds since Q2 2020, respectively, their ability to contribute as much to overall inflation has decreased because they are unlikely to appreciate as much again. While oil prices may rise again here, European natural gas will decline meaningfully in the coming months. Tax increases are another important driver of core CPI. Core inflation with constant taxes stand at 1.37%, which is 0.67% below core CPI. In other words, while core CPI is high by the standard of the past decade, once we adjust for tax increases, it stands at normal levels (Chart 2). Base-effects are another dominant ingredient of the surge in European core CPI. The annualized two-year rate of change of the Eurozone’s core CPI stands at 1.11%, which is within the norm of the past seven years and below the rates experienced prior to 2014. In comparison, the annualized two-year core inflation in the US is 2.87%, well outside the range of the past decade (Chart 3). Chart 2Death And Taxes Death And Taxes Death And Taxes Chart 3Controlling For The Base Effect Controlling For The Base Effect Controlling For The Base Effect Inflation remains narrowly based. The Euro Area trimmed-mean CPI stands at 0.22%, or 1.82% below core CPI. Meanwhile, in the US, trimmed-mean CPI has reached 3.5% or 0.5% below core CPI (Chart 4). These figures confirm that the Eurozone inflation increase is more muted and narrower than that of the US. Wages are not experiencing any meaningful shock so far. Negotiated wages are growing at a 1.7% annual rate; meanwhile, the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is expanding at 3.6% and is rising even more steadily for low-skill jobs (Chart 5). Chart 4Much More Narrow Than In The US Much More Narrow Than In The US Much More Narrow Than In The US Chart 5Limited Wage Pressures Limited Wage Pressures Limited Wage Pressures Continental Europe’s more limited inflationary pressures compared to the US are a consequence of policy decisions during the crisis. The Euro Area fiscal stimulus in 2020 and 2021 amounted to 11% of 2019 GDP, but output declined by 15% in Q2 2020 and suffered a second dip in Q1 2021. Meanwhile, US fiscal packages amounted to 25% of 2019 GDP, while GDP declined by 10% in Q2 2020. Consequently, the Eurozone’s output gap is -4.1% of GDP, while that of the US has essentially closed. The contrasting nature of the stimuli accentuated the different outcomes created by their respective size. In Europe, governmental support focused on keeping people at work, which left aggregate supply unchanged. In the US, public programs allowed jobs to disappear, but they placed money directly in the pockets of consumers, which caused aggregate demand to rise relative to aggregate supply. In this context, a wage-price spiral is unlikely to develop in Europe as long as the energy crisis does not continue through 2022. Chart 6 First, the labor shortage problems are less acute in the Eurozone than in the US or the UK. Chart 6 highlights the factors limiting production in various industries. In the industrial sector, the “labor shortages” category has grown, but pale compared to the role of “material and equipment shortages” as a problem. In the services sector, the “weak demand” and “other” categories are greater obstacles to production than the “labor” factor, which remains at Q1 2020 levels (Chart 6, middle panel). Only in the construction sector are “labor shortages” the chief problem, but they still hurt production less than “insufficient demand” did in February 2021, when real estate prices were already strong (Chart 6, bottom panel). Second, labor market slack remains comparable to 2011 levels, when the ECB erroneously increased interest rates to fight energy-driven inflation (Chart 7). Additionally, the rise in persons available to work but not currently seeking employment represent 75% of the increase in labor market slack since Q4 2019. At the crisis peak in Q2 2020, this category accounted for 105% of the increase in labor market slack. This suggests that, as the vaccination campaign continues to progress across the continent; as households use up their savings; and as government supports ebb across Europe, a large share of those who are a part of the labor market slack will start looking for jobs again, which will increase the supply of workers and limit wage pressures. If traders are overly worried about realized inflation remaining high in Europe, they are also over-emphasizing some CPI swap measures that trade above 2%. CPI swaps only tell one part of the inflation expectations story, because they are one and the same as energy prices. Elevated energy prices sap spending power in the rest of the economy, if other inflation expectation measures remain well anchored; thus, rising energy inflation rarely translates into broad-based pricing pressure. For now, our Common Inflation Expectation measure for the Eurozone, based on the New York Fed’s method for the US, is still toward the low-end of its distribution, even though it includes CPI swaps (Chart 8). This confirms that the energy crisis remains a relative-price shock and that it is unlikely to lead to a generalized inflation outburst in the Euro Area. Chart 7 Chart 8Different Inflation Expectations Different Inflation Expectations Different Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Markets expect a first 10bps ECB rate hike by June 2022 and the deposit rate to be 25bps higher by September 2023. However, unlike in the US, there are few signs that European inflation reflects anything more than higher energy prices, rising taxes, and base effects. Moreover, the stories in the press of labor shortages are exaggerated, while broad-based inflation expectations are not unmoored. In this context, we lean against the EONIA pricing and expect the ECB to increase rates in 2024, at the earliest. Fiscal Policy Unlike Last Decade The 2010s were a lost decade for Europe. GDP only overtook its 2008 peak in 2015. Today, GDP is recovering much faster from the recession than it did twelve years ago, and it is unlikely to relapse as it did back then. Chart 9A Lost Decade A Lost Decade A Lost Decade The European economic underperformance last decade was rooted in fiscal policy. As the top panel of Chart 9 highlights, the fiscal thrust during the GFC was minimal, at 1.3% of GDP, and was rapidly followed by a negative fiscal thrust. Moreover, the ECB unduly tightened policy in 2011 and left peripheral spreads fester at elevated levels between 2011 and 2014. This combination substantially hurt demand, especially in the European periphery. Capex proved particularly vulnerable. It is derived demand and therefore adds considerable variance to GDP. Faced with strong policy headwinds, its share of GDP plunged for most of the decade, which greatly contributed to the European economic malaise (Chart 9, bottom panel). According to the IMF, the Eurozone fiscal thrust will not exert the same drag as it did last decade; hence, capex is also unlikely to repeat its mediocre performance. Instead, the poorer Eastern and Central European economies as well as the weaker peripheral nations will receive a significant fillip from the NGEU program (Chart 10). When the NGEU grants and loans as well as the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework funds are aggregated together, the EU will provide EUR1.9 trillion funding (adjusted for inflation) to member states over the next five years (Table 1). These sums will prevent any meaningful fiscal retrenchment from taking place. Chart 10 Table 1Bigger Spending To Hike Or Not To Hike? To Hike Or Not To Hike? The NGEU funds will be particularly supportive for capex. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which will be the main instrument to deliver funds across Europe, is heavily weighted toward green transition, reskilling, and digital transformation (Chart 11, top panel). Practically, this spending focuses on electrical, power, water, and broadband infrastructures, as well as renovation and modernization projects (Chart 11, bottom panel). This reinforces the notion that capex is unlikely to follow the same trajectory it did last decade. Chart 11 The implication of more accommodative fiscal policy and more robust capex is that the European output gap will close much faster than it did after the GFC. Hence, even if we expect the current inflation spike to pass next year, inflation will ultimately settle higher than it did last decade. Moreover, in the second half of the 2020s, European inflation will trend higher as full employment will be achieved. Bottom Line: The Euro Area is unlikely to experience another lost decade like the previous one. European trend growth remains low, but fiscal policy will not be as tight. Consequently, capex will not be as depressed, especially because the NGEU grants will greatly incentivize investments in certain sectors of the economy. As a result, the output gap will close much faster than it did in the 2010s. Moreover, once the current pandemic-driven inflation surge passes, CPI will settle at a higher level than it did last decade and will trend higher durably in the second half of the 2020s. Investment Implications Three main conclusions can be derived from our expectation on European inflation and growth dynamics over the coming decade. First, the inflation yield curve will steepen meaningfully. Today, near-term CPI swaps are lifted by energy markets and 2-year CPI swaps are 20bps above 20-year CPI swaps (Chart 12). From 2012 to 2020, 20-year CPI swaps stood between 30 bps and 150 bps above short maturity ones. Second, a steeper inflation curve, along with greater inflation risk toward the end of the decade will cause the European term premium to normalize from its -1.21% level. This will allow German 10-year yields to rise and the European yield curve to steepen (Chart 13). Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Upside Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Upside Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Upside Chart 13A Steeper German Yield Curve A Steeper German Yield Curve A Steeper German Yield Curve Third, higher German yields and a steeper curve will greatly benefit European banks (Chart 14, top panel). This pattern will be especially evident against insurance firms, which have massively outperformed deposit-taking institutions over the past seven years as yields fell (Chart 14, bottom panel). Additionally, banks’ balance sheets have become more robust than they once were and NPLs are unlikely to rise meaningfully as a result of government guarantees and easy fiscal policy (Chart 15). Investors should go long bank/short insurance on a cyclical basis. Chart 14Long Bank / Short Insurance Long Bank / Short Insurance Long Bank / Short Insurance Chart 15Imporving Balance Sheets Imporving Balance Sheets Imporving Balance Sheets A Tactical Buying Opportunity In European High-Yield Corporate Bond Market Chart 16Tactical Buying Opportunity Tactical Buying Opportunity Tactical Buying Opportunity The 40 basis points widening in European high-yield spreads has created a tactical buying opportunity. Inflation fears spurred by rising energy prices and by input prices are the likely culprit behind the recent spread widening (Chart 16). Although US junk spreads have already narrowed significantly, European high-yield corporate bond spreads are still 40 bps wider than at the beginning of September.     The 12-month breakeven spread, which measures the degree of spread widening required over a 12-month period for corporate bond returns to break even with a duration-matched position in government bond securities, now ranks at its 20th percentile, from 10th (Chart 16, second panel). Spreads will narrow back to near post-crisis lows before year-end on both an absolute and breakeven basis: First, monetary and fiscal policy remain very accommodative. Importantly, Spain and Italy will receive large shares of the NGEU funds until 2026. Second, growth will remain above trend despite recent inflation worries. Third, the European default rate is still falling, leaving the worst of the default cycle behind (Chart 16, third panel). Finally, our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor signals improving corporate health, which historically coincides with narrowing spreads (Chart 16, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The recent widening in European high-yield spreads represents a short window of opportunity to buy the dip. Beyond this timeframe, a more cautious approach toward European credit is appropriate, as the ECB will become less active in the bond market. A French Update Chart 17 Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a EUR30 billion investment plan aimed at supporting and fostering industrial and tech “champions of the future.” This new plan comes on top of the EUR100 billion recovery package that was announced in September 2020 to face the pandemic. While these investments will be made across many sectors of the French economy, the focus will be the French tech and energy sectors (Chart 17, top panel). This announcement comes six months before the next presidential election and amid the emergence of Eric Zemmour as a potential far-right candidate. However, Zemmour’s candidacy is unlikely to alter our expectation that Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Recent polls that include Zemmour as a potential candidate in the first-round show that he is appealing to Marine Le Pen’s voter base (Chart 17, bottom panel). Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe—who would have made a formidable opponent to Macron had he decided to run—announced the creation of his own party with the objective of supporting Macron’s re-election campaign. Chart 18Recent Developments Support These Trades Recent Developments Support These Trades Recent Developments Support These Trades These political developments come as the French health and economic picture keeps improving. Although the vaccination pace has slowed in France, 68% of the population is fully vaccinated and 76% of the population has received at least one dose. Thus, the healthcare system continues to weather well recent COVID waves. Moreover, business confidence remains robust and reached its highest reading since July 2007, despite supply issues holding back production. The French jobs market is also recovering, with the unemployment rate expected to fall to 7.6% in Q3 from 8% in Q2. The introduction of a new investment plan, the emergence of a far-right candidate and Edouard Philippe’s newfound support, and the COVID-19 and economic developments bode well for President Macron’s chances at re-election. This implies additional French reforms over the next five years that aim to suppress unit labor costs and to make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. As a result, investors should overweight French industrial stocks relative to German ones (Chart 18, top panel). Meantime, additional investment in the French tech is bullish for a sector that is inexpensive relative to its European peers. Overweight French tech equities relative to European ones (Chart 18, panel 2 and 3).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations To Hike Or Not To Hike? To Hike Or Not To Hike? Cyclical Recommendations To Hike Or Not To Hike? To Hike Or Not To Hike? Structural Recommendations To Hike Or Not To Hike? To Hike Or Not To Hike? Closed Trades Image Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

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

Highlights The circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, but data highlighting the economic consequences of the Delta wave grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, driven by lower car sales and a slowdown in services spending. The imminent vaccination of school-aged children, and signs that services activity and spending are increasing, will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Investors have the right bond view, but the wrong reason. Investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas it will likely do so because of a quicker return to maximum employment. Bond yields are likely to move higher over the coming year, but this will be driven by real yields, not inflation expectations. Once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and a gap between these two measures no longer makes sense. Stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. A benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis; stay overweight for now, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Feature Chart I-1The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta Over the past month, the focus of investors has shifted from day-to-day developments to the consequences of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Chart I-1 highlights that, while an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction rates in advanced economies has recently inched higher, it remains below one and hospitalizations continue to trend lower in most major economies. UK hospitalizations have increased over the course of the month, but remain at a level that is a quarter of their January peak – despite an elevated pace of confirmed cases. In the US, both these cases and hospitalizations continue to fall, trends that are likely to be reinforced by the vaccination of children over the coming weeks. A 50-60% vaccination rate for school-aged children would increase the US vaccination rate by 4-5 percentage points. Vaccinating all children at this rate would increase the total vaccination rate by 7-8 percentage points. In combination with a meaningful level of natural immunity, the vaccination of children is likely to bring the US very close to, if not above, the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity (or “NAHRI”).1 The Delta Hangover While the circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, the economic consequences grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, as highlighted by yesterday’s advance release. Chart I-2 highlights that durable goods spending subtracted almost three percentage points from Q3 growth, and that most other components of GDP contributed less to growth in Q3 than in Q2. Chart I-2 The significant slowdown in Q3 growth is disappointing, but several factors point toward the conclusion that it is not likely to be sustained: Chart I-3Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 The Delta wave very likely impacted services spending, which we have highlighted is likely to drive overall consumption over the coming year. Given the ongoing impact of semiconductor shortages on the availability of new cars, it is not surprising that a slowdown in services spending resulted in a significant slowdown in overall growth. After having declined significantly in Q3, Chart I-3 highlights that the US, UK, French, and Japanese October flash services PMI rose anew, underscoring that recent services weakness have been closely linked to the Delta variant of COVID-19 (whose impact is now waning). Chart I-3 also highlights that the US services PMI is currently at a level that has been historically consistent with solid real PCE growth. Finally, while it is true that manufacturing PMIs are being supported by supplier deliveries components, the October output component of the US Markit manufacturing index remained in expansionary territory, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and the UK (despite month-over-month declines in these components). Chart I-4 highlights that Q3’s real GDP reading was highly anomalous relative to the pace of jobs growth in the quarter, based on the relationship between the two since the global financial crisis. In quarters in which real GDP growth was 1% or less than implied by the trendline shown in Chart I-4, real GDP accelerated in the subsequent quarter 80% of the time. In conjunction with a pickup in services activity in October, this suggests that growth will be meaningfully stronger in Q4. Chart I-4 Chart I-5Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Chart I-5 shows our global Nowcast indicator, alongside our global LEI. Our Nowcast indicator is a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global LEI are declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. The global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart I-5 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not a major cyclical downturn. The expectation of a slowdown in growth in Q3 has significantly raised concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation in the minds of many investors. We address this topic in depth in this month’s Special Report, and conclude that, while investors cannot rule out the possibility of stagflation, there are important differences that point toward a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We note in our report that the risk of stagflation can be monitored in real time by tracking the Misery Index, which is the sum of headline PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. Currently, the Misery Index is elevated relative to the average of the past 30 years, but it is meaningfully lower than it was during the latter half of the 1970s. This also underscores that true stagflation is only likely to occur if the unemployment rate rises, which means that the economic and financial market outlook over the coming year is strongly tied to the pace of jobs growth (even more so than usual). Table I-1 presents an industry breakdown of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, sorted by industries with the largest gap. The table highlights that leisure and hospitality, government, and education and health services jobs continue to account for two-thirds of the five million jobs gap, with the latter two largely reflecting the same effect: 60% of the government jobs gap is accounted for by state and local government education-related employment. Chart I- Chart I-6Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate US education employment has been impacted by school and classroom closures, which we noted above are likely to end once school-aged children are vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-6 highlights that leisure and hospitality employment is clearly predicted by the US hotel occupancy rate, which wobbled over the past few months as a result of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Correspondingly, monthly growth in leisure and hospitality employment slowed in August and September. Taken together, the imminent vaccination of school-aged children and signs that services activity and spending are increasing will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. The Bond Market Outlook Chart I-7The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... A continued normalization of the labor market over the coming 6-12 months argues in favor of Fed rate hikes next year, which is a view that we have maintained for several months. Recently, investors have come to agree with us, by moving forward their expectations for the Fed funds rate (Chart I-7). However, Chart I-8 highlights that investors have the right view for the wrong reason. The chart highlights that US government bond yields have risen entirely due to inflation expectations and that real yields have fallen. This means that investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas we believe that they will do so because of a return to maximum employment. The implication for investors is that bond yields are still likely to rise over the coming year, but that higher yields are likely to occur alongside falling inflation expectations. This trend underscores that common hedges against inflation, such as precious metals and the relative performance of TIPS, are likely to underperform over the coming year. We have noted in previous reports that the fair value for long-maturity government bond yields implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections is not likely threatening for equity multiples, and certainly not for economic activity. A September 2022 rate hike, coupled with a pace of three hikes per year and a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, implies that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to 2.15% over the coming year, which would be only modestly higher than the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-8...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason Chart I-9Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year   However, once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and, while a gap between these two measures made sense in the years following the global financial crisis, this no longer appears to be the case. Chart I-10 highlights that real household mortgage liabilities began to contract sharply in 2006, and did not turn positive on a year-over-year basis until the end of 2016. It is likely that R-star was falling or weak during this period, but the correlation between the two series clearly shifted in the latter phase of the last economic cycle. Chart I-11 emphasizes this point by highlighting that the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s, underscoring the capacity that US consumers have to withstand higher interest rates. Chart I-10R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time Chart I-11Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates     We doubt that investor expectations for the terminal rate will rise significantly before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy, but it may happen. In addition, the Fed may begin raising interest rates next year as soon as late in the summer or early in the fall, which would locate the liftoff date within our 6-12 month investment time horizon. As such, our base case view is that a rise in interest rates over the coming year will not be threatening to the equity market, but this view may change at some point next year. Equities: Expect Modest Returns In 2022 A benign increase in long-maturity bond yields in 2022 suggests that equity multiples will neither contribute to, nor subtract from, equity returns. As such, return expectations for equities should be centered around expected earnings growth. Chart I- Table I-2 presents consensus estimates for nominal GDP growth, S&P 500 revenue growth, and earnings growth for 2022. The table highlights that expectations for revenue growth estimates appear to be reasonable, given that bottom-up analysts continue to expect an expansion in profit margins next year. Chart I-12 highlights that margins have already risen back above their pre-pandemic high, and that this is true for both tech and ex-tech sectors. Chart I-12US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels We doubt that further increases in profit margins will be sustained next year. It is possible that margins will actually decline – a view that was recently espoused by our US Equity Strategy service.2 Risks to profit margins underscore that stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. Within the equity market, we remain of the view that even a benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Chart I-13 highlights that the rolling one-year correlation between relative global growth versus value stock prices and the US 10-year Treasury yield has become increasingly negative over time, which bodes well for value. We also continue to recommend that investors favor small over large caps and cyclicals over defensives, although cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis as they are closing in on their 2018 highs (Chart I-14). We think it is too early to position against cyclicals, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Chart I-13Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-14Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives   Investment Conclusions Next month’s report will feature BCA’s 2022 outlook, as well as a transcript of our recently held annual discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X (who joined his family office a couple of years ago). Our annual outlook will provide a detailed walkthrough of our views for the upcoming year, as well as answers to sobering questions raised by Mr. X and Ms. X about the longer-term outlook. For now, we recommend that investors stick with a pro-cyclical view, favoring the following assets: Global stocks over bonds A short-duration position within a government bond portfolio Speculative-grade corporate bonds within a credit portfolio Global ex-US stocks vs US, focused on DM ex-US Global value versus growth stocks Cyclicals versus defensives, and small versus large caps Major currencies versus the US dollar Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2021 Next Report: November 30, 2021 II. Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.3 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,4 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,5 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.6 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,7 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises appear to have peaked, but there is not yet any meaningful sign of waning forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we would continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yield. The US 10-Year Treasury yield remains above its 200-day moving average after failing to break meaningfully below it. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is likely. However, most of the recent move higher in government bond yields has occurred due to rising inflation expectations, whereas the increase in yields over the coming year will likely occur in real terms. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they are still overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, may weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see Section 1 of the September 2021 Bank Credit Analyst for a detailed discussion of the US immunity level. 2  Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 7  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Oct 28, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 0.30% 1.03% Top Contributors   SIM:US SHW:US WMG:US PSA:US GOOG.L:US Weekly Return 50 bps 15 bps 10 bps 9 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   GRMN:US LAMR:US TTC:US MMP:US ESGR:US Weekly Return -36 bps -16 bps -15 bps -13 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   GOOG.L:US AMN:US MPLX:US SC:US ESGR:US BCA Score 97.20% 94.53% 94.00% 92.50% 92.09% BCA Canada Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.33% -0.00% Top Contributors   IMO:CA LNF:CA BTE:CA IGM:CA TOU:CA Weekly Return 19 bps 13 bps 8 bps 8 bps 8 bps Top Detractors   CS:CA IFP:CA NVEI:CA ONEX:CA CSH.UN:CA Weekly Return -30 bps -19 bps -11 bps -11 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   ELF:CA CS:CA WIR.UN:CA IMO:CA TOU:CA BCA Score 98.70% 98.07% 96.62% 96.03% 95.74% BCA UK Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.45% 0.84% Top Contributors   SVT:GB UU.:GB NG.:GB FXPO:GB SGRO:GB Weekly Return 14 bps 13 bps 13 bps 12 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   KETL:GB PZC:GB OXB:GB TUNE:GB CTH:GB Weekly Return -21 bps -13 bps -13 bps -7 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   ROSN:GB VVO:GB JHD:GB SVST:GB FDM:GB BCA Score 98.72% 98.38% 98.09% 98.01% 97.52% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI 1.25% 1.51% Top Contributors   BSL:DE OR:FR HLAG:DE ARG:FR BREB:BE Weekly Return 34 bps 20 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   SRT:DE RWAY:IT DLG:IT TTE:FR STR:AT Weekly Return -22 bps -10 bps -7 bps -7 bps -6 bps Top Prospects   094124453:BE ROTH:FR STR:AT SOL:IT FSKRS:FI BCA Score 99.51% 99.44% 97.48% 96.61% 95.31% BCA Japan Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.92% -0.06% Top Contributors   8739:JP 2208:JP 4298:JP 1417:JP 4928:JP Weekly Return 11 bps 9 bps 8 bps 4 bps 3 bps Top Detractors   5019:JP 9436:JP 9509:JP 5930:JP 9729:JP Weekly Return -18 bps -13 bps -11 bps -9 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   9436:JP 6960:JP 9422:JP 9882:JP 9729:JP BCA Score 99.91% 99.33% 99.22% 99.07% 97.26% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI -0.10% -1.77% Top Contributors   746:HK 973:HK 1967:HK 1708:HK 6868:HK Weekly Return 60 bps 35 bps 29 bps 20 bps 15 bps Top Detractors   6118:HK 323:HK 1088:HK 1866:HK 857:HK Weekly Return -39 bps -39 bps -31 bps -28 bps -26 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 1088:HK 857:HK 1576:HK 6118:HK BCA Score 100.00% 99.36% 98.96% 98.71% 97.42% BCA Australia Portfolio Image Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.08% 0.15% Top Contributors   CDD:AU 360:AU CGS:AU PWH:AU TLS:AU Weekly Return 60 bps 50 bps 21 bps 18 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   CDA:AU BLX:AU NHC:AU AUB:AU CAJ:AU Weekly Return -59 bps -26 bps -23 bps -18 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   MHJ:AU BLX:AU ADI:AU MMS:AU PL8:AU BCA Score 99.61% 98.62% 98.34% 97.98% 97.92%

Highlights Faced with large excesses in the housing market, we contend that Beijing’s goal is to achieve flat property prices in the coming years. Stable property prices would allow for improved housing affordability over the coming years while precluding debt deflation. However, when authorities fix/control prices, they lose control of volumes/activity. The housing market will not clear. Property sales and construction activity will hit an air pocket. Shrinking construction activity will weigh on China’s economy and China-plays around the world. Feature The recent struggles of several Chinese property developers to service their debt have put the mainland’s real estate market on the radar of global investors. What is the outlook for the Chinese property market and what will be its impact on the mainland and global economies? What does it mean for global financial markets? In contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the central pressure point in China’s property market adjustment will not be home prices and mortgage defaults but retrenchment by property developers and a downsizing in construction activity. That is why we are maintaining our negative view on Chinese demand for raw materials and machinery. This will have implications for emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials and machinery stocks worldwide. How Important Is The Property Market? Chart 1Land Sales Revenue And Property Developers Funding Are Sizable Land Sales Revenue And Property Developers Funding Are Sizable Land Sales Revenue And Property Developers Funding Are Sizable In a 2020 paper,1 Kenneth Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang estimate that real estate investment accounted for 12-15% of GDP in China between 2011 and 2018. This compares with a 7% share of GDP in the US at the peak of the housing boom in 2005. Hence, the sheer size of real estate construction in China – which does not include infrastructure investment – implies that real estate investment is very important for the mainland economy. The above numbers do not capture secondary effects from fluctuations in real estate investment. Thereby, the impact of property construction is greater than what is implied by its share of GDP. Further, local governments derive more than 40% of their aggregate revenues – budgetary and off budgetary (managed funds) – from land sales (Chart 1, top panel). As land sales dry up, local government revenues will plummet, undermining their ability to finance infrastructure spending – which is also a major part of the economy. Property developers’ annual funding makes up a very large 20% of GDP, which attests to their importance to the economy and the financial system (Chart 1, bottom panel).  Critically, construction activity drives demand for raw materials and machinery. Granted, Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery used in real estate construction and infrastructure building are non-trivial, the shockwaves from the downturn will spill over to the rest of the world in general and to developing economies in particular. Excesses  The Chinese property market’s vulnerability stems from its excesses. These excesses are apparent on multiple fronts. Table 1Chinese Housing Is Expensive / Unaffordable China: Is The Property Carry Trade Over? China: Is The Property Carry Trade Over? 1. Extreme Overvaluation: Compared to most countries around the world, housing in China is very expensive. The house price-to-household income ratio is 19 in tier-1 cities, 10 in tier-2 and 7 in tier-3 cities (Table 1). For comparison, even after the recent surge in property prices, the house price-to-income ratio is 4 in the US nationwide. Importantly, the mortgage rate in China – currently at 5.4% – is considerably higher than mortgage rates in the US or in other developed economies. The high house price-to-income ratio and relatively high mortgage rate entail that mortgage interest payments account for a larger share of household income in China than in any advanced economy. For new buyers, assuming a 30% down-payment, mortgage interest payments alone make up 28% of household income on average nationwide (Table 1). Chart 2Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As Their US Peers Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As Their US Peers Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As Their US Peers Finally, Chinese household indebtedness is much higher than is often presumed by the global investment community – the household disposable income-to-debt ratio is close to 100%, as high as it is in the US (Chart 2). All this does not mean that China will experience a US-style 2008 credit crisis with households defaulting on their mortgages. As we discuss below, the adjustment process will be different in China than it was in the US. 2. Capital misallocation: Property developers have been building the wrong type of housing at the wrong prices and for the wrong type of buyers. They have been building high-end houses and selling them at very high prices to high-income households who have been buying multiple properties as investments. This represents capital misallocation. Widespread home vacancies confirm this thesis. As of 2017, 21.5% of the housing stock was vacant according to the Survey and Research Center for China Household Finance.  As per the same source, only 11.5% of homebuyers in 2018 were first timers. That compares with 70% of first-time buyers in 2008-2010. In 2018, 22.5% of homebuyers already owned two or more dwellings while 66% owned one. Clearly, housing in China has become an object of speculation which has made it unattainable for first-time homebuyers. Chart 3Property Developers Have Accumulated Massive Assets Property Developers Have Accumulated Massive Assets Property Developers Have Accumulated Massive Assets 3. Speculation and the carry trade: There is nothing wrong with individuals investing in real estate. This practice is widespread all around the world. However, contrary to many other countries, multiple home owners in China do not rent out their properties, but instead keep their houses vacant. For those few owners who rent their houses, the current rental yield on properties rarely exceeds 2%. Given that the mortgage rate is currently 5.4%, the carry costs for individual investors is negative. Therefore, property investors in China can only expect to profit from ever rising prices. This strategy has paid off enormously over the last 20 years. Yet, past performance does not guarantee future gains. A stampede into real estate since 2009 has made housing extremely expensive and has instigated socio-political problems that have made Beijing wary. Critically, property speculation has been prevalent not only among households but also among property developers. The latter have been participating in the largest carry trade of the past 12 years. Facing borrowing costs that were lower than the pace of house price appreciation, property developers in China have done what any business would do: they borrowed as much as they could and accumulated real estate assets in the form of land, incomplete construction as well as completed but unsold properties. Chart 4Property Developers Are Very Leveraged Property Developers Are Very Leveraged Property Developers Are Very Leveraged As long as the rate of annual asset price appreciation exceeds the borrowing costs (the carry), carrying these assets on a balance sheet produces lofty profits. The top panel of Chart 3 demonstrates that housing starts have chronically exceeded completions, i.e., developers have been starting but not completing/delivering properties. The gap between starts and completions – unfinished construction – has ballooned (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, property developers have been holding on to a lot of land and unfinished construction and have been financing it via debt. The asset-to-equity ratio for property developers trading on the A-share market has surged to 9 (Chart 4).  Overall, the primary reason for real estate asset accumulation in China by individuals and companies has been expectations of continuous price appreciation. When an investor purchases an asset that generates little or no recurrent cash flow and the only rationale for holding onto it is expectations for continuous price appreciation, it qualifies as speculation – not investment. This speculation can continue only as long as there is demand from new buyers. Bottom Line: The property market is suffering from numerous excesses such as extreme overvaluation, capital misallocation and widespread speculative activities. Clouds Are Forming Over Real Estate Odds are that the speculative fever that has held the Chinese housing market in its grip is waning. Chart 5Less Funding = Less Completions = Less Commodity Demand Less Funding = Less Completions = Less Commodity Demand Less Funding = Less Completions = Less Commodity Demand First, the three red lines introduced by authorities a year ago limit property developers’ ability to take on more debt. In fact, many property developers are being forced to reduce their indebtedness to meet these regulatory requirements. These rules mean that property developers will have to reduce new construction at best or sell their assets at worst. When many developers try to offload their assets simultaneously, asset prices will deflate, producing a vicious debt deflation cycle. Second, the reluctance of authorities to bail out large property developers – which are struggling to service their debt – is sending a clear message to both onshore and offshore creditors not to lend to property developers. This is especially true for small and medium banks, trust companies, wealth management products and onshore and offshore bondholders. These lenders along with pre-sales account for the lion’s share of financing options for property developers. Chart 5 illustrates that diminishing funding for property developers weighs down on completion, i.e., less construction work and less demand for raw materials and machinery (Chart 5, bottom panel). Third, the property carry trade does not make sense when the rate of real estate asset price appreciation drops below property developers’ borrowing costs. A negative carry means incurring losses, necessitating the sale of assets, including land and completed properties. A rush to offload assets amid a buyer strike could prompt classic debt deflation. Chart 6Households’ House Buying Intentions Have Plummeted Households' House Buying Intentions Have Plummeted Households' House Buying Intentions Have Plummeted Finally, the upcoming pilot program for a real estate tax and a broader public campaign by Beijing against buying houses as an investment has discouraged individuals from purchasing properties. The proportion of households planning to buy a house has dropped to only 7.7% in Q3 2021 from 11.6% in Q4 2020 (Chart 6). House sales contracted by 16% in September from a year ago and initial reports point to further deterioration in October.     Bottom Line: Central authorities in China are attempting to tackle the property market because they reckon that an expensive and speculative property market could either create socio-political problems down the road or get out of control and crumble of its own accord. Beijing’s objective is to achieve a soft landing by acting preemptively and managing it.  The Role Of Policy Why is Beijing obsessed with taming the property market? We suspect the current hawkish stance is due to the following: Chart 7Housing Prices Correlate With Starts Housing Prices Correlate With Starts Housing Prices Correlate With Starts Housing is becoming unaffordable for low- and some middle-income residents in China. This may give rise to a sense of injustice/inequality and goes against president Xi’s common prosperity goals. This is also negatively affecting family formation and demographics and, ultimately, the nation’s potential growth rate. Beijing believes that the 2019 protests in Hong Kong were to a certain extent due to housing unaffordability. The latter fanned young people’s rage toward authorities and the political system. The Communist party leadership wants to avoid a similar uprising in the mainland. Anytime policymakers have stimulated in the past 12 years, property prices have surged widening the gap between the poor and the rich and making housing even more unaffordable. Presently, they are reluctant to do the same. Also, authorities are clamping down on property developers because historically there was a strong positive correlation between property starts and house prices (Chart 7). The basis for this positive correlation is that whenever property developers start new projects, they raise expectations of higher future prices via aggressive marketing. As a result, people become more inclined to buy houses. In fact, over the years more supply has not precluded property prices from surging and vice versa, as shown in Chart 7. Finally, the central government has learned from its own experience in 2015 and from the US case in 2008 that when a bubble bursts, it is difficult to stop it. Chinese economic policymakers prefer to be proactive than reactive. All of the above does not mean that authorities are planning to instigate a property market crash and will stand by and not stimulate. If and when broad economic conditions deteriorate to the point that income growth and employment are jeopardized, authorities will rachet up their stimulus. Presently, the unemployment rate for the 25-59 age group is very low and the urban labor market is tight (Chart 8). In addition, the nation’s exports are booming, so it is a good time to undertake some deleveraging. In brief, there is now no urgency to stimulate aggressively. Bottom Line: Considering the size of the real estate market and how dire its fundamentals are, we expect economic conditions to get much worse in China. That will ultimately force policymakers to stimulate more aggressively. The End Of The Property Carry Trade Conditions have fallen into place for the property carry trade by developers to unravel: Faced with limited access to funding, a diminished willingness on the part of creditors to rollover their debt as well as plummeting home sales, property developers have already dramatically cut back on land purchases (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8China's Labor Market Is Strong China's Labor Market Is Strong China's Labor Market Is Strong Chart 9China's Construction Cycle In Perspective China's Construction Cycle In Perspective China's Construction Cycle In Perspective   However, they have so far been completing and delivering pre-sold homes to buyers who had paid in advance. In the last couple of years 90% of homes have been pre-sold. Hence, these completions do not generate new cash inflows for real estate developers. Yet, this completion work has supported construction activity and demand for materials over the past 12 months (Chart 9, bottom panel). Looking forward, reduced funding entails shrinking completions with negative ramifications for the economy (Chart 5 above). Real estate deflation, lack of new sales and restricted financing could turn property developers’ liquidity troubles into a solvency issue. This is how typical financial/credit crises develop – they start with liquidity strains and then turn into solvency problems as the value of collaterals drop, becoming insufficient to cover debt obligation. Defaults ensue. Property development is an extremely fragmented industry in China. There are officially around 100 000 property developers in China. Even the largest ones like Evergrande have a very small share of the market. Therefore, authorities cannot ensure that the sector will function properly by ring fencing or bailing out several large developers. In sum, authorities have very little control over real estate construction because it is quite spread out across the country and involves many private small- and medium-sized developers. We think that Beijing’s goal is to achieve flat property prices in the coming years. Authorities realize that property deflation could be devastating but are also less tolerant of growing excesses and imbalances in this area. Flat home prices and rising incomes will lead to a lower house price-to-income ratio, i.e., will make home ownership more affordable. In short, policymakers are attempting to fix property prices to achive a soft landing. Yet, there is a caveat: when authorities fix/control prices, they lose control of volumes/activity. This will likely be the case in China. Without meaningful drop in house prices, low-and middle-income first-time homebuyers will not become buyers right away and healthy property developers will be unwilling to snap up the assets of their troubled competitors. Hence, the market will not clear and the property sales and construction activity will hit an air pocket. Bottom Line: After more than a decade of speculative excesses, policymakers have embarked on the very difficult task of controlling house prices. They can control house prices via administrative measures. Yet, as expectations of rapidly rising property prices vanish, land sales, home purchases and property construction will likely shrink substantially for a period of time. Investment Recommendations A few market-relevant observations: Chinese non-TMT stocks and China-related plays globally are at risk from shrinking construction activity on the mainland. Critically, EM non-TMT stocks have not priced in the slowdown. Chart 10 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse is back to its previous low, but EM non-TMT stocks have not corrected much. In the past, Chinese onshore property stocks correlated with global material stocks (Chart 11). The basis is that China’s construction accounts for a considerable share of global raw materials consumption. Hence, the bear market in Chinese property stocks is raising a red flag for global material stocks. Chart 10EM Ex-TMT Stocks Are Not Pricing China's Slowdown EM Ex-TMT Stocks Are Not Pricing China's Slowdown EM Ex-TMT Stocks Are Not Pricing China's Slowdown Chart 11A Red Flag For Global Materials A Red Flag For Global Materials A Red Flag For Global Materials   EMs are most vulnerable, and the US is the least exposed to China’s construction and infrastructure investment segments. The basis is that the US is a closed economy and trades very little with China. That is why we believe that the US dollar has more upside and US equities will continue outperforming the global stock index as China’s slowdown persists. Putting it all together, we recommend the following strategies: Avoid EM stocks and underweight EM versus DM in a global equity portfolio. Continue shorting select EM currencies versus the US dollar. Avoid local currency bonds and favor US credit over EM credit markets. Avoid bottom fishing in Chinese offshore corporate bonds, including high-yield ones. As for Chinese equities, investors should stay with the long onshore A shares / short investable index strategy. We also reiterate a strategy we have been recommending for both onshore and offshore stocks since May 9, 2019: short property stocks relative to the benchmark. This has been a very profitable trade. Today, we recommend closing the long position in Chinese insurance stocks given that credit woes will worsen before they improve. One way for global investors to bet on China’s slowdown while hedging the risk of stronger growth in DM is via the following trade: short global materials / long global industrials. Our report from July 30 elaborated the bullish case for global industrials beyond China’s slowdown. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Kenneth S. Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang, "Peak China Housing," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2020. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Democrats are backing off from corporate tax hikes, a positive surprise for the earnings outlook. However, the reconciliation bill will be even more stimulating than expected at a time when the output gap is closed. Short-run inflation risks are high and Democratic bills will feed into that. Long-run inflation risks will need to be monitored. Compromises on legislation will help Democrats on the margin in the 2022 midterm elections but gridlock would freeze fiscal policy. Maintaining low corporate taxes while boosting government spending on infrastructure, R&D, renewables, and social safety should be good for productivity, potential growth, and the US dollar over the long run.   We still give 65% odds for the reconciliation bill to pass. Reconciliation is the critical means of avoiding a national debt default after the December 3 deadline. This assumes that bipartisan infrastructure passes (80% odds). With the market already pricing the impending Democratic agreement, we are closing our long renewable energy trade for a gain of 30% and our long infrastructure basket for a gain of 8%. Feature A major plot twist in Congress occurred over the past two weeks: corporate and individual tax cuts are on the chopping block as the December 3 deadline approaches for the Biden administration’s signature piece of legislation. This development is uncertain but not unlikely. It would fit with our annual theme of bipartisan structural reform in the sense that it would mark a further Democratic cooptation of the previous Republican administration’s policies for the sake of popular opinion. Investors should not bet on zero tax hikes but they should prepare for positive surprises relative to the 5.5%-7% corporate tax hike that was previously envisioned. Rotation from low-tax to high-tax sectors was already underway prior to this news, which favors that trend (Chart 1). Chart 1Democrats Scrap Corporate Tax Hike? Democrats Scrap Corporate Tax Hike? Democrats Scrap Corporate Tax Hike? In this report we update investors with the status of negotiations: what is in the bill, what is not, what remains undecided, what will be the net effect, and how will Wall Street respond? Details are subject to change up to the very moment before Congress votes. Here is what we know right now.   What’s Essential To The Bill? Before the reconciliation bill, the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill still has a subjective 80% chance of passage. The Senate already approved it on August 10, with 19 Republicans in favor. It stalled in the House of Representatives because the left wing refused to vote for it until party leaders reached a framework agreement on the larger social spending bill. The latter can only pass via the partisan reconciliation process. That framework could be agreed any day now but even if it suffers a surprise delay the House can push through the infrastructure bill fairly quickly. Infrastructure stocks still have some room to rise in the lead-up to President Biden’s signature but their ability to outperform the market going forward will depend on a range of factors outside politics and policy (Chart 2). Chart 2Infrastructure Bill Already Priced Infrastructure Bill Already Priced Infrastructure Bill Already Priced As for the main reconciliation bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that “more than 90 percent of everything is agreed to” in the framework agreement – but critical provisions are still in flux. The headline price tag has fallen from $3.5 trillion to $1.5-$2 trillion, leaving $1.75 trillion as the happy medium. The root of the disagreement is that the Democrats are a “big tent” party with two major factions of relatively equal strength. Moderates and conservatives have the upper hand on economics, whereas liberals have the upper hand on social issues (Chart 3). On the spending side, progressives have insisted on five policy priorities: the “care” economy (child care, elderly care), affordable housing, climate change, immigration, and health care. They say they can negotiate on the size and duration of the relevant programs but not on whether they are included.1 The Senate parliamentarian has already ruled out immigration so the other four priorities will be included, albeit watered down.  Chart 3 West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s initial demands to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are highlighted in Table 1. Manchin’s demands for a lower price tag are being met by the progressives’ willingness to pass smaller or short-lived programs with “sunset clauses.” The idea is that Republicans will suffer for allowing them to expire. History shows that it is very difficult to remove an entitlement once it is established. Table 1West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s Initial Demands For Biden’s Reconciliation Bill Chopping Block Chopping Block The following items look to be included but pared back in size: The Child Tax Credit (from $450 billion to ~$100 billion). This benefit was enhanced by COVID-19 stimulus and is likely to be kept in place, albeit for one year instead of five years. This sets up a “cliff” in December 2022.   Paid family and medical leave (from $225 billion to ~$100 billion). This benefit looks likely to be lowered from 12 weeks to four weeks and targeted toward low-income groups for a duration of three-to-four years. Medicare benefits expansion to include dental, vision, and hearing aid (from $358 billion to ~$200 billion or less). This provision is under pressure due to costs but Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont insists that it will be included to some extent. Dental is likely to be slashed. This part of the bill was supposed to be paid for by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which is still being discussed. The Hill reports that the government may be given the power to negotiate prices for Medicare Part B but not Part D.2  On the revenue side, Pelosi says the deal will include a harmonization of overseas taxes. This would include a minimum 15% corporate tax rate on book earnings in keeping with the international agreement the Biden administration has negotiated. An estimated ~$400 billion in new revenue would be raised. Senators Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona agree. Pelosi also claims agreement on tougher tax enforcement and a bulked-up Internal Revenue Service – a measure that is said to bring in $135 billion in revenue but which can be exaggerated to help cover the cost of new spending, at least on paper. What’s Already Been Chopped? Pelosi claims that the climate change disagreements are resolved. Manchin hails from a coal state where every single county favored President Trump for reelection. He  has nixed the Clean Energy Performance Program (CEPP) as well as any tax on carbon emissions.3 However, the $150 billion from CEPP will not be saved but redirected toward various other green energy projects. This solution confirms our view this year that Democrats would provide green subsidies but not punitive green measures. The US and global policy setting is favorable for renewable stocks, though the energy crunch in China and Europe is a sign that this trade is not a one-way trade since popular backlash against green policies is possible in future (Chart 4). Manchin is opposing the expansion of Medicaid to 12 states that have refused to expand it. The other 38 states had to pay 10% of the cost; a federal expansion would give it to the 12 laggards for free. Eliminating the provision entirely would put the onus back on the 12 states (useful for local Democrats) while cutting $141 billion from the overall cost of the reconciliation bill.4 Democrats have also agreed to cut the $88 billion proposal to make two years of community college tuition-free.   Chart 4Renewable Stocks Brush Off Energy Realism (For Now) Renewable Stocks Brush Off Energy Realism (For Now) Renewable Stocks Brush Off Energy Realism (For Now) Universal preschool (pre-kindergarten), which would cost $450 billion, is popular but now under fire. It is not in the list of progressive priorities and could be slashed. Housing aid at $300 billion is expected to be cut by half or more. Elderly care could fall from $400 billion to half or one-third of that. Immigration provisions are unlikely to appear in the final reconciliation bill, as noted above. The Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that immigration is not germane to direct fiscal matters, which are the focus of the reconciliation process.5 The Democrats have a vested interest in immigration and are not acting with any urgency on the border in the meantime, setting up an immigration crisis in 2022 and beyond (Chart 5). Table 2 shows the original Democratic spending plan with annotations for the latest developments, which are all subject to change in the very near term. Chart 5Looming Crisis On Southern Border Looming Crisis On Southern Border Looming Crisis On Southern Border Table 2Senate Democratic Spending Plan Up For Negotiation Chopping Block Chopping Block What’s Next On The Chopping Block? On the revenue side, the following provisions are being debated: Corporate and Individual Tax Hikes: Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona – who won her seat by a 2.4% margin in a state that President Biden carried by only 0.3% of the vote – has ostensibly succeeded in scrapping the corporate tax hike and individual income tax hike from the reconciliation package. Our guess is that these tax hikes will still somehow make it into the bill in a weaker form but if Sinema prevails then $710 billion in new revenue will be forgone.  Billionaire Tax: Democrats are also looking at a “billionaire tax,” although it would more accurately be called a hundred-millionaire tax based on what is known. It would be a yearly tax levied on the unrealized capital gains of those who own $1 billion in assets or who make $100 million in income over three consecutive years. Non-publicly traded assets would be taxed upon sale. This mark-to-market proposal is said to raise $250 billion in revenue, although nobody knows since tax evasion would be rife.6 It would be a popular tax but it is complex to administer, its constitutionality is uncertain, and it is being introduced in the eleventh hour. House negotiators would prefer straightforward corporate and high-income tax hikes.  Tax On Stock Buybacks: There is also a proposal to levy a 2% tax on stock buybacks, which would be popular and not so hard to implement as a wealth tax. But it is also being introduced late in the game. SALT Deduction Cap: Democrats from high tax states have relentlessly pushed to remove the cap on their deductions passed by Republicans. A temporary repeal for 2022-23 is being discussed but would be a handout to the upper and upper-middle class. Total repeal could deprive the overall package of $85 billion per year in revenue. Tobacco and E-Cigarettes: This tax is estimated to raise $97 billion but is regressive. Table 3 highlights the tax provisions according to the original Democratic plan along with annotations for recent developments. Table 3Democratic Tax Plan Up For Negotiation Chopping Block Chopping Block The Hyde amendment is lurking under the radar and could torpedo the entire bill – but we bet it will not. This provision has been included in legislation for half a century to prevent taxpayer money from directly funding abortion. President Biden, a Catholic, supported it until his 2020 presidential campaign when he caved to pressure from the progressives to remove it. However, Manchin insists on it.7 Since abortion is a moral dilemma, Manchin cannot compromise on it. Yet his “nay” would sink the entire reconciliation bill. So this is a mini-crisis waiting to happen and Hyde will most likely be included to save the bill. What’s The Time Frame? There are three soft deadlines and one hard deadline for these bills to pass. The soft deadlines are the following: October 31 – Transportation Funding Expires: House members want to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill by October 31, along with a renewal of transport funds. This is a good plan because it separates bipartisan infrastructure from partisan reconciliation. But a short-term extension is also an option for transportation funding. It may be necessary if reconciliation is further delayed and House progressives refuse to support an infrastructure vote. November 1-2 – World Leaders Summit and UN Climate Change Conference: Democrats want a climate deal before Biden arrives in Glasgow, Scotland for the COP26 climate talks. It looks as if this will be achieved as we go to press. If not, Biden can offer vague promises instead. There will be no shortage of promises at Glasgow. November 9 – US Special Elections: If Democrats passed something before the various off-year elections are held then they would give their candidates a badly needed boost. Biden’s collapsing approval rating has been an albatross for Democratic candidates, including in the Virginia gubernatorial race (Chart 6). A signing ceremony at the White House would help take it off their necks. But lawmakers cannot speed up complex and controversial legislation just to save Terry McAuliffe’s bacon. The hard deadline is December 3, the new deadline for funding the federal government and raising the national debt limit. Chart 6 Republicans are unlikely to vote to raise the debt ceiling a second time this year so Democrats will most likely be forced to include it in the reconciliation bill. Importantly, the debt ceiling will help to ensure the reconciliation bill’s passage. Any Democratic senator or lawmaker who votes against the bill will bear unique responsibility for a default on the national debt and financial turmoil, not to mention the doom of his or her party in the midterm elections.  If anything this extreme cost suggests that our 65% subjectively probability for the bill’s passage is too low. What Are The Investment Implications? Democrats are likely to produce a $1.75-$2 trillion spending bill that raises around $1 trillion in new tax revenue. Our previous estimates of a net deficit impact of $1.2-$1.6 trillion for both the infrastructure and reconciliation bills will be updated when the framework reconciliation bill is put into writing but so far does not look far off the mark. Estimates for fiscal multipliers range widely (Table 4). The bipartisan infrastructure bill, with traditional or “hard” public investments, could have a multiplier of 0.4 to 2.2, based on the CBO’s retrospective 2015 estimates for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus passed during the Great Recession). The partisan reconciliation bill, with “human infrastructure” and social welfare spending, could have a fiscal multiplier ranging from 0.6x (the average of the COVID-19 relief in 2020) to 1.2 or 1.4 (Moody’s estimates of the impact of expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2010).  Table 4Range Of Fiscal Multipliers For Government Spending Chopping Block Chopping Block However, the US output gap is virtually closed and stands at a positive 1.5% of GDP, according to Bloomberg consensus estimates (Chart 7). Thus additional deficit spending is inflationary on the margin. Core inflation is elevated and there is no immediate prospect for commodity prices to fall drastically in the next few months given tight global supplies, the approach of winter weather, and the looming conflict over Iran’s nuclear program in the Persian Gulf. A future political liability is thus taking shape. American consumers and small businesses are becoming increasingly concerned about inflation, much more so than taxes and regulation (Chart 8). By the time of the midterm election in fall 2022, inflation may have subsided. But if it has not then the Democrats will take the blame. Chart 7The Vanishing Output Gap The Vanishing Output Gap The Vanishing Output Gap Chart 8The Inflation Threat The Inflation Threat The Inflation Threat The equity sectors that stood to suffer the most from any repeal of President Trump’s Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017 were real estate, technology, health care, and utilities. The sectors that stood to suffer least were energy, industrials, consumer staples, and materials. If Democrats maintain Trump’s corporate rate then the former sectors will see a relief rally. However, Big Tech will suffer marginally from the imposition of a minimum global corporate tax. The global macro context favors cyclical sectors and value stocks over defensive sectors and growth stocks as long as bond yields and inflation expectations continue to rise. Chart 9 shows that companies that were formerly high tax companies rallied tremendously in the wake of Trump’s tax cuts, while those with high foreign tax risk underperformed. That process will likely be reaffirmed if Trump’s headline corporate rate is preserved while the minimum rate is imposed on companies with high foreign tax risk. Over the long run, inflation may or may not prove to be as big of a problem. The Biden bills should boost productivity, on top of the productivity improvement that has already occurred as a result of COVID-19 digitization efforts. US corporates would maintain a high degree of competitiveness if the corporate rate were to stay put. The original Biden plan would have put the US back at the highest level of integrated corporate income taxes out of all the OECD countries. Keeping corporate rates low, combined with public investments in infrastructure, the digital economy, renewable energy, and the social safety net should boost productivity, potential growth, and the US dollar. Chart 9High-Tax Basket Stands To Benefit - Along With Value Stocks High-Tax Basket Stands To Benefit - Along With Value Stocks High-Tax Basket Stands To Benefit - Along With Value Stocks If Congress returns to gridlock after the 2022 midterm elections as expected, then the fiscal splurge may be on pause at least until 2025. In that case the inflation risk in coming years will depend more on global rather than domestic developments. We have long argued that inflation risks are rising due to populism and fiscal extravagance in the United States. The Biden administration’s legislation marks a return of Big Government and a net increase in the budget deficit over the coming decade. However, the latest developments suggest it will not be the extravagant democratic-socialist blowout originally envisioned. If that proves true, then its long-run impact will be beneficial for the US economy and politics.  On a deeper level, the most important takeaway from the above analysis is that the Democrats remain limited by checks and balances. Beneath all the partisan acrimony, a new consensus is emerging in the US in favor of proactive fiscal policy (infrastructure, social safety net) and more hawkish trade policy (supply chain resilience, onshoring). The drivers of this new consensus are powerful: the elites do not want rebellion, the masses want a more favorable domestic economy, and both want greater strategic security relative to foreign competitors. The likely passage of the Strategic Competition Act by the end of the year, or at least the semiconductor portion of it, and the passage of a bulked up annual defense bill despite Democrats’ allegedly dovish bias, will further emphasize this point.  By compromising the plan to come closer to moderate senators’ demands, the Democrats are courting the median US voter and likely to minimize their losses in the midterm elections. Even assuming they still lose the House of Representatives at least, the new policy consensus will continue to develop because it shares core elements with the Republican agenda.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image   Footnotes 1     See Congressional Progressive Caucus, “CPC Calls For 5 Key Priorities To Be Included In The American Jobs Plan,” April 9, 2021, progressives.house.gov. See also Tyler Stone, “Rep. Ilhan Omar: If Our Progressive Priorities Aren’t Met, No Legislation Will Pass,” July 30, 2021, realclearpolitics.com. 2     See Jennifer Scholtes, Marianne Levine, and Alice Miranda, “What’s Still In The Dem Megabill? Cheat Sheet On 12 Big Topics,” Politico, October 25, 2021, politico.com; Jordain Carney, “Sanders draws red lines on Medicare expansion, drug pricing plan in spending bill,” The Hill, October 26, 2021, thehill.com.  3    Benjamin J. Hulac, “Manchin Tries To Slow Clean Energy Shift As West Virginia Clings To Coal,” Roll Call, October 26, 2021, rollcall.com. 4    Jordain Carney, “Manchin Says Framework ‘Should’ Be Possible This Week,” The Hill, October 25, 2021, thehill.com. 5    Lisa Desjardins, “Read the Senate rules decision that blocks Democrats from putting immigration reform in the budget,” PBS, September 20, 2021, pbs.org.  6    See Naomi Jagoda, “Billonaire Tax Gains Momentum,” The Hill, October 26, 2021, thehill.com; Steven M. Rosenthal, “Wyden’s Billionaire Income Tax Is Ambitious But Problematic,” Tax Policy Center, October 25, 2021, taxpolicycenter.org; Scott A. Hodge, “The Rich Are Not Monolithic and Taxing Their Wealth Invites Tax Collection Volatility,” Tax Foundation, October 26, 2021, taxfoundation.org. 7     Sam Dorman, “Biden says he’d sign reconciliation package including Hyde Amendment,” Fox News, October 6, 2021, foxnews.com.   

Highlights Contrary to popular belief, the correlation between changes in interest rates and equity returns is not fixed: Stock prices have generally risen as yields have fallen over the last four decades, but there is no rule that states equity returns and bond yields will be inversely related. Tech stocks’ tight recent inverse correlation with interest rates is a new phenomenon and we expect it will be temporary: Relative differences in earnings have driven relative returns since the global financial crisis and their mirror image correlation with interest rates was a pandemic anomaly that has already withered. Rising interest rates are not a good reason for equity investors to reduce their Tech exposures: The conventional wisdom is not always wrong, but it almost never generates alpha. In this case, we believe the crowd has fallen for a fleeting illusion that will not persist. Feature Table 1Lapping The Field Tech Stocks And Interest Rates: Less Than Meets The Eye Tech Stocks And Interest Rates: Less Than Meets The Eye Perhaps nothing has lately generated more consensus agreement among equity strategists and other top-down observers than the claim that Tech stocks are particularly vulnerable to rising interest rates. Thanks to the Tech sector’s track record of generating outsized growth (Table 1), its future earnings streams are expected to be larger for longer than other sectors’, making them somewhat akin to long-maturity bonds from a duration perspective. Go-go growth stocks and Treasuries make for strange bedfellows, no matter how logical the earnings-stream reasoning may appear to be at first glance, and we view the application of duration concepts to equities as a stretch in any event. In this Special Report, we make the case that the recently observed tight inverse correlation between relative Tech sector performance and the 10-year Treasury yield is anomalous and should not be expected to persist. Right Church, Wrong Pew Duration is the weighted-average term to maturity of a bond’s cash flows and describes its price sensitivity to changes in interest rates. It is an essential feature of fixed income markets but attempts to extend the concept to equities necessarily fall flat. Bondholders receive interest and principal payments subject to a contractually fixed schedule that makes valuing a bond, especially one with negligible credit risk, a simple exercise in arithmetic. The present value of any bond (PV) is equal to the sum of its discounted series of cash flows, as in the equation Chart , where x = one of a series of n semi-annual payments, r = the discount rate and t = the time in years when the next payment will be received. Chart 1 Assuming that all the interest payments and the principal payment will be received on time, the only variable term in the bond present value equation is the discount rate, r. As r appears solely in the denominator, a bond’s present value is inversely related to its moves. The cash streams accruing to stockholders are inherently unpredictable, however, and the present value of an equity interest is subject to fluctuations in the realized and estimated future values of x as well as changes in discount rate r. Forces that move r may or may not also move x and it is uncertain whether the numerator or denominator will exert a greater impact if they move together, as they might be expected to do in the case of the high-growth Tech sector. The explanatory power of changes in interest rates weakens as cash flow uncertainty increases. Month-over-month changes in the 10-year Treasury note yield1 explain virtually all the variation in one-month Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index total returns (Chart 1, top panel). As cash flows become more uncertain with the introduction of modest credit risk, the correlation slips to -40% (Chart 1, middle panel). It weakens even further and flips its sign with equities, which have done better since the financial crisis when the 10-year yield rises than when it falls (Chart 1, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Duration is a metric for measuring bonds’ price sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Because of the uncertain nature of a company’s future cash flows and the multitude of independent variables that influence them, duration is an ill fit with equities. The Post-Crisis Experience The empirical record poses several challenges to the conventional wisdom about Tech stocks and interest rates, beginning with their desultory relationship in the first ten years following the financial crisis. From 2009 through 2018, changes in the 10-year yield are unable to explain any of the variability in relative Tech returns, though they exhibit a tight correlation beginning in 2019 (Chart 2). Tech stocks were utterly indifferent to the yield spikes of 2009 and 2010-11, as well as the sharp intervening decline in 2010, and only began to separate themselves from the field following the Brexit vote, outperforming the overall S&P 500 by 30 percentage points in just two years while the 10-year yield rose from 1.5% to 3%. They then proceeded to blow away the index as yields fell from 2.75% at the end of 2018 to 0.5% at the mid-2020 COVID bottom and have since fought the index to a draw despite a 100-basis point backup above 1.6%. Chart 2Nothing More Than A Lockdown Fling Nothing More Than A Lockdown Fling Nothing More Than A Lockdown Fling In contrast to their all-over-the-map relationship with the level of interest rates, Tech stocks have exhibited a consistently tight fit with relative trailing earnings. A quantitatively inclined visitor from outer space viewing Chart 3 might reasonably conclude that relative Tech stock performance is fully explained by earnings, and all other variables are noise. The series have moved nearly in lockstep with each other and show that Tech’s relative trailing P/E multiple has been quite stable since the crisis. Until relative prices and relative earnings began heading in separate ways as the latter began to slip this Spring, Tech’s relative post-crisis outperformance had entirely been earned, not given. Chart 3Case Closed? Case Closed? Case Closed? Multiples provide an opportunity for interest rate changes to re-enter the discussion. In a direct sense, Tech earnings are comparatively immune to moves in interest rates (the sector’s biggest constituents have immaterial amounts of debt and do not sell big-ticket items that have to be financed), though one might expect the price investors are willing to pay to claim a share of their comparatively backloaded future cash flows may well fluctuate with them. Chart 4, however, shows that the Tech sector’s relative forward multiple has not exhibited a consistent relationship with rates – the correlation between multiples and rates was positive and fairly strong from 2009 through 2018 but weakened and turned negative beginning in 2019. From 1995, when the forward multiple series began, through 2008 (not shown in the chart) the relationship was very weak and negative, generating an r-squared of just 1.4%. Chart 4Defying The Duration Intuition Defying The Duration Intuition Defying The Duration Intuition The relationship between relative four-quarter forward earnings expectations and the 10-year yield sheds some light on how so many observers have been hoodwinked into mistaking correlation for causation. Excepting stretches at the beginning and the end of the 2009-2018 period, when relative forward estimates paid no heed to swings in interest rates, they exhibited a modest negative correlation with the 10-year yield (Chart 5). They moved together with one mind across all of 2020, but that solidarity appears anomalous when viewed against the entire post-crisis record generally and the years that bracket it specifically. In 2018-19, the two years preceding peak pandemic conditions, and 2021, the year following them, Tech’s relative forward earnings expectations have been flatly indifferent to the rate backdrop. Chart 5One-Off One-Off One-Off We submit that the recently observed tight correlation between the 10-year yield and relative forward earnings expectations is an isolated pandemic phenomenon. As bond yields plunged in 2020 due to extraordinary monetary accommodation and fears of a worst-case economic outcome, Tech’s heavy concentration of pandemic winners shot the lights out in terms of actual and projected earnings. Away from the narrow 2020 sample, however, the other twelve years of post-crisis data suggest that there’s no relationship between forward earnings expectations and interest rates. Tech outearned the broader market at a steady rate for the ten years preceding the pandemic without regard for the rates market’s gyrations. Investment Implications Interest rates are a red herring for explaining variations in relative Tech stock performance. The ubiquity of the view that Tech stocks’ relative performance will be heavily influenced by changes in interest rates turns out to be another instance in which something everybody knows turns out not to be true. This finding does not make us Tech bulls; we think the big-picture backdrop is sufficiently mixed to justify our US Equity Strategy and Global Asset Allocation services’ neutral recommendations. We simply wanted to call out the flaws in a popular notion before it becomes even more entrenched. Changes in interest rates do not solely effect equity prices via a denominator effect. They impact the numerator as well. The numerator impacts are multifaceted and vary based on which factor comes to the fore in a given instance. They are much harder to anticipate and therefore hold much more promise for investors who can suss them out in advance. The denominator effect is immediately apparent to any undergraduate who has been introduced to the time value of money and therefore isn’t likely to generate alpha. What’s more, as Tech stocks’ relative performance history illustrates, the relationship between equities and rates is not fixed. The rise of globalization and the Fed’s post-Volcker inflation vigilance ushered in a multi-decade disinflationary trend that ultimately culminated in rampant deflation fears following the global financial crisis. Now that concerns about stagflation have shunted aside concerns about secular stagnation, investors are much less likely to cheer rate backups while wringing their hands over rate declines. As Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s Chief Emerging Markets strategist, has written, the about-face in market perceptions of interest rates could flip the correlations between equity prices and interest rates from positive (stocks advance as rising interest rates are perceived as evidence of economic improvement) to negative (stocks fall when rates rise and rise when rates fall). Our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, managing editor of the Bank Credit Analyst, has noted that extended valuations increase growth stocks’ vulnerability to rising interest rates. We do not disagree, but they do not have all that much to fear if the backup in Treasury yields is in line with our US Bond Strategy service’s year-end 2021 and 2022 targets of 1.75% and 2-2.25%, respectively. Tech’s outperformance may well have run its course – relative performance is extended, the law of large numbers makes it increasingly difficult to sustain historic growth rates, the legal and regulatory outlook is darkening and a shift from pandemic winners to pandemic losers may be in train – but rising rates alone are not a good basis for trimming Tech exposures.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Duration measures a bond’s sensitivity to a parallel shift in the yield curve, but we use the 10-year Treasury yield as a proxy for the entire curve in our simple regressions of asset class returns against price changes.