Global

Highlights Further fiscal easing is likely in the US now that the Democrats are set to take control of the US Senate following Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia. With the end of the pandemic in sight, a growing chorus of commentators, including none other than Larry Summers, are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In the short term, the risk that economies will overheat due to excessive fiscal support is low. There is still too much labor market slack, the bulk of any stimulus checks will be saved, and the short-run Phillips curve remains quite flat. Looking beyond the next two years, fiscal policy could indeed turn out to be inflationary. Political populism is rising. Central banks, fearful of the zero lower-bound constraint on interest rates, want higher inflation. Falling interest rates have also made it easier for governments to run larger budget deficits. We estimate that the US can run a primary budget deficit that is more than 2% of GDP larger than at the start of 2019, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The “fiscal envelope” has increased significantly in other major economies as well. Ironically, in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth in GDP, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio permits larger budget deficits. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit more from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years once inflation begins to accelerate. A Race Against Time The past few weeks have seen a race between the virus, which continues to infect people at an alarming rate, and efforts to vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society. So far, the virus has the upper hand. Chart 1Tracking The Progress In Global Vaccination Rates The “UK strain” has become more prevalent around the world.1 By some estimates it is 70% more contagious than the original virus that emerged in Wuhan, China. Another, potentially even more dangerous strain, has surfaced in South Africa and has spread to South America. The early evidence suggests that the recently approved vaccines will be effective in fighting the UK strain. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to judge whether this is also true for the South African strain. Right now, only 0.2% of the world’s population has been inoculated, but that number will rise rapidly over the coming months (Chart 1). Assuming that existing vaccines are effective against the myriad virus strains, the infection rate should fall precipitously by the middle of the year.   Georgia Runoffs Will Lead To Even More Stimulus Governments eased fiscal policy significantly last year in response to the unfolding crisis (Chart 2). At the worst point of the pandemic in April, US real disposable income was up 14% year-over-year (Chart 3). Transfers to households fell sharply following the expiration of the CARES Act, but are set to rise again thanks to the recently completed stimulus deal. Chart 2Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis   The victory by both Democratic candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff races on Tuesday moves the political configuration in Washington even further towards fiscal easing. Having gained control of the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to use the “reconciliation process” to pass a budget that boosts spending on health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment. Granted, reconciliation requires that any extra spending be offset by additional revenue measures over a 10-year budgetary horizon. Thus, corporate taxes will probably rise. Nevertheless, the combination of more spending and higher corporate taxes will still produce a net boost to aggregate demand. This is partly because any revenue measures are likely to be backloaded. It is also because raising corporate taxes will not reduce investment by very much. The experience from the Trump tax cuts revealed that the main consequence of lowering corporate tax rates was to lower corporate tax receipts. The touted boost to corporate investment from lower taxes never materialized. In fact, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 4). Chart 3Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic   Chart 4No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment   For stock market investors, the prospect of higher taxes will take some of the bloom off the rose from additional fiscal stimulus. That said, the impact will vary considerably across equity sectors. Cyclical stocks such as industrials and materials will benefit from stimulus-induced economic growth. Banks will also gain because stronger growth will suppress loan losses, while leading to steeper yield curves, thus raising net interest margins in the process. Value stocks have more exposure to banks and deep cyclicals, and hence we remain positive on them. Small caps also have more exposure to these sectors, but are starting to look increasingly pricey. Stimulus: How Much Is Enough? Chart 5Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Fiscal stimulus helped avert the cascade of business failures that normally accompany recessions. Despite a tick up in bankruptcies among large companies shortly after the pandemic began, 16% fewer companies filed for bankruptcy in the first 11 months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Overall bankruptcy filings, which include personal bankruptcies, have fallen to a 35-year low according to Epiq AACER. The pipeline for bankruptcies also looks fairly narrow. Junk bond prices have been rebounding and consumer loan delinquency rates have been trending down (Table 1). Table 1Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Generous fiscal transfers have allowed households to accumulate plenty of savings, which should help propel future spending. Chart 6 shows that accumulated US household savings are about $1.5 trillion above their pre-pandemic trend. We estimate that the combination of increased savings, rising home prices, and a surging stock market pushed up household net worth by $8 trillion in Q4 alone, leaving it 11% above Q4 2019 levels. In comparison, household net worth fell by over 15% during the Great Recession. Chart 6Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Little Risk Of Near-Term Fiscal Overheat With the prospect of a vaccine-led economic recovery in sight, a growing chorus of commentators are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Larry Summers contended that President Trump’s attempt to increase the size of stimulus checks from $600 per person to $2000 was “a serious mistake” that risked overheating the economy. Summers argued for a more streamlined approach that prioritized aid to state and local governments and increased funding for Covid testing and vaccine deployment. Despite Larry’s admonition, we see little risk that loose fiscal policy will cause any major economy to overheat in the near term, even if the Senate does enact more stimulus. For one thing, recent stimulus proposals have emphasized direct transfers to households. Unlike most other types of spending, across-the-board stimulus checks will go mainly into savings. The New York Fed has estimated that less than 30% of the direct stimulus payments in the CARES Act were used for consumption, with 36% saved and 35% used to pay down debt. Consistent with past experience, households expect to spend only about one-third of the forthcoming stimulus checks according to CivicScience, a market research firm (Chart 7). Chart 7How Will Americans Spend Their Second Stimulus Check? Chart 8Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Moreover, there is still plenty of labor market slack. Chart 8 shows the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers remains well below pre-pandemic levels across the OECD. In a best-case scenario, it will take a couple more years for employment levels to return to normal. Long-term inflation expectations are also well anchored, implying that the short-run Phillips curve is quite flat. In simple English, this means that a temporary burst of stimulus is unlikely to trigger an inflationary price-wage spiral. Some decline in budget deficits is also likely after the pandemic ends. The Hutchins Center at Brookings expects the fiscal package passed by the US Congress in December to boost GDP by 7% in the first quarter. However, it expects the four-quarter moving average in the fiscal contribution to growth to turn negative in the third quarter, and stay that way right through 2022 (Chart 9). Likewise, in its most recent forecasts, the IMF projected a negative fiscal impulse in the major advanced economies in 2021-22 (Chart 10). Chart 9Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part I)   Chart 10Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part II) Long-Term Fiscal Picture Is More Inflationary Granted, a negative fiscal impulse simply means that the structural budget deficit is declining over time. In absolute terms, the IMF expects budget deficits to remain quite large by historic standards, even if they do come down from their pandemic peak. Remember, it is the level of the budget deficit that helps determine the level of demand throughout the economy. Economies overheat when the level of aggregate demand exceeds the level of aggregate supply. If private-sector demand recovers more quickly than budget deficits come down, overall demand will rise. As such, it is certainly possible that excessively easy fiscal policy will contribute to an inflationary overshoot once labor market slack has been fully absorbed in two-to-three years. Politically, such an overshoot seems quite plausible. Populism is rising both on the left and the right. It is noteworthy that the Republican candidates in Tuesday’s runoff Senate races supported President Trump’s call for boosting the size of stimulus checks. The same goes for Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio is widely considered an early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Economically, the case for bigger budget deficits has also become more appealing. Real interest rates are negative across the major economies. Low interest rates allow governments to take on more debt without having to make large interest payments. Indeed, the Japanese government today receives more interest than it pays by virtue of the fact that more than half of its debt was issued at negative rates. Persistent worries about the zero lower-bound constraint also encourage central banks to pursue policies that could fuel inflation, such as refraining from tightening monetary policy in response to looser fiscal policy. The current level of policy rates gives central banks almost no scope to cut rates in response to an adverse economic shock. If inflation were to rise, central banks would be able to bring real rates even further into negative territory should economic conditions warrant it. The Paradox Of Debt Sustainability When  r  Is Less Than  g One might think that today’s high debt-to-GDP ratios would force governments to slash deficits to keep debt from spiraling out of control. However, things are not so straightforward in a world of ultra-low interest rates. As Appendix A shows, the primary budget balance that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as: Where p is the primary budget balance (the difference between tax receipts and non-interest spending, expressed as a share of GDP), r is the real interest rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy. Notice that when r is less than g, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio corresponds to a larger primary budget deficit (i.e., a more negative p). In other words, by taking on more debt, governments would not only be able to raise spending or cut taxes, but they would also have enough money left over to pay the additional interest on the debt. And they could do all this without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Chart 11More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... What sort of funky magic allows this to happen? The answer is that even a small percentage increase in debt will correspond to a large increase in the absolute stock of debt when debt levels are elevated to begin with. If interest rates are low, most of the additional debt can go into financing a larger primary deficit instead of higher interest payments. One can see this point with a simple example. Suppose that initially, debt is 50, GDP is 100, and hence the debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. Let us also assume that the primary deficit is 1% of GDP, the interest rate is 2%, and GDP grows at 4%. Next year, debt will be 50+50*0.02+1=52 while GDP will be 100*1.04=104. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain 52/104=50%. Now rerun the same example but assume that debt is initially equal to 100, implying an initial debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. In that case, it is simple to verify that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall to 103/104≈99% the following year if the primary deficit remained at 1% of GDP. The primary deficit would have to rise to 2% of GDP to keep the debt-to-GDP stable – double what it was in the first example. The level of the US primary budget deficit that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from 0.8% of GDP at the start of 2019 to 3.1% today if one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of trend growth and the 10-year TIPs yield as a proxy for the real interest rate (Chart 11). A similar trend is visible abroad (Chart 12).   Chart 12... As Well As In Other Major Economies Investment Conclusions Thanks to the drop in interest rates, governments today have more scope to run larger budget deficits than they did in the past. This suggests that the sort of fiscal tightening that impeded the recovery following the Great Recession is unlikely to reoccur. The combination of above-trend growth and continued low rates will buoy equities in 2021. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit both from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years as unemployment approaches pre-pandemic levels and central banks begin to contemplate raising interest rates. A higher debt burden allows for a larger budget deficit when r is less than g, but requires a bigger budget surplus when r rises above g. If debt-saddled governments are unable or unwilling to tighten fiscal policy, they may end up applying political pressure on central banks to keep rates artificially low in order to suppress interest payments. As such, excessively easy monetary policy could trigger a bout of inflation. With that in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios, favor inflation protected-securities over nominal bonds, and hold other inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. Cryptocurrencies could potentially serve as an inflation hedge, but given the recent run up in bitcoin prices, we would avoid this area of the market for the time being. Appendix AThe Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  A number of SARS-CoV-2 variants are circulating globally. The WHO reported this week that the UK variant of Covid-19 has spread to 40 other countries. Initial research suggests that the UK strain is more transmissible, but is characterized by unchanged disease severity compared to the original virus. The South African strain is also believed to be more contagious and was detected in six other countries. Some have raised concerns about the high number of mutations found in the South African variant. Research is ongoing to determine the potential consequences of the emerging variants on the speed of transmission, disease severity, ability to evade detection, and the efficacy of current treatments and vaccines. Please see Antony Sguazzin, “South Africa Virus Strain More Transmissible, Not More Severe,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2021;  Gabriele Steinhauser, “The New Covid-19 Strain in South Africa: What We Know,” The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2021; “Weekly epidemiological update - 5 January 2021,” World Health Organization; and “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated January 3, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights OPEC 2.0 output will fall 850k b/d, following a surprise production cut of 1mm b/d by Saudi Arabia announced after two days of OPEC 2.0 meetings.   Russia and Kazakhstan will be allowed to increase production by 75k b/d. More than 70% of producers in the Permian Basin are using an average WTI price of $44/bbl in capex planning, which, if maintained, will restrain US oil output. On the demand side, rising COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death rates are prompting lockdowns that will restrain oil consumption (Chart of the Week).  However, fiscal support for households will keep consumer spending from collapsing. USD weakness will continue, in line with our expectations, and will support the rally in oil prices. We believe the balance of price risks remains to the upside:  Vaccination rates will increase.  Despite rising COVID-19-induced demand destruction in DM economies, consumption in Asia will continue to recover in 1H21.  OPEC 2.0 will continue to match output to consumption.  Our average Brent forecast for 2021 remains at $63/bbl. The average return on open and closed commodity recommendations at the end of 2020 was -48%, bringing our average return over the past five years to +32%.  Feature The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) surprised markets earlier this week with its announcement it will unilaterally cut 1mm b/d of its production in February and March, allowing Russia and Kazakhstan to lift output by 75k b/d in February and by another 75k b/d in March. This will take KSA’s production to ~ 8.1mm b/d, and reduce OPEC 2.0’s production by 850k b/d by March. Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, markets were concerned the inability of KSA and Russia, OPEC 2.0’s putative leaders, to quickly agree production levels against a backdrop of rising COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death rates signaled the coalition was once again fraying, as it did briefly last year. In March 2020, when the extent of the demand destruction the COVID-19 pandemic could cause was emerging, Russia announced it would not agree to an extension of production cuts then in place at an OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna. While the ultimate target of this strategy likely was US shale-oil producers, the declaration prompted KSA to flood oil markets by surging its production and drawing inventories. This exacerbated the COVID-19-induced price collapse in Brent and the KSA and Russian benchmark-crude differentials – Saudi Light and Urals –swelled inventories globally (Chart 2). Chart Of The WeekCOVID-19 Infections, Deaths Will Continue To Hamper Demand Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Unity Is Key To Our View OPEC 2.0 Fraying? Our maintained global oil-supply hypothesis is underpinned by the cohesion of OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. Challenges to OPEC 2.0’s shared sense of purpose in the form of disarray within the coalition undermine our supply assumptions, and, perforce, our price forecast. However, an ancillary feature of this hypothesis is supported by apparent disarray within OPEC 2.0: Reminding global oil markets member states are eager to monetize production being held in reserve – i.e., some 7mm b/d of spare capacity, and millions of barrels of low-cost reserves that can quickly be brought to market – serves the coalition’s interest in disincentivizing capital markets from funding production outside the borders of member states. In our view, OPEC 2.0 is targeting an oil-price level – $65/bbl for Brent on average over the next five years – to rebuild member states’ fiscal accounts, and to fund the diversification away from oil-export revenue dependence (Chart 3). It will use current production, spare capacity and inventories to meet increasing demand before producers outside the coalition – chiefly US shale producers – are able to, and keep prices in a range that meets its price target (Chart 4). Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Is Targeting Brent Above USD60 Per Barrel Over 2021-25 Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Production Will Respond Quickly To Demand Changes The ultimate goal is to maintain the rate of growth in production below that of consumption globally, producing physical deficits (Chart 5). This will force inventories to draw to cover these deficits (Chart 6), which, in turn, will backwardate forward oil-price curves (Chart 7). Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Will Keep Production Below Consumption... Chart 6...To Draw Down Inventories... Chart 7...And Backwardate Oil Forward Curves US Producers’ Capex Reflects Lower WTI Assumptions By backwardating forward curves, OPEC 2.0 member states will realize higher prices on oil sold into spot markets, while producers outside the coalition hedging production revenues forward will realize lower prices, which will limit the volumes they can bring to market. Ultimately, this will increase OPEC 2.0’s market share, and give it control of global oil-pricing dynamics. Chart 8US Shale Capex Decisions Reflect Lower WTI Price Assumptions US oil producers already are using a lower price deck than implied by the WTI forward curve – $44/bbl, according to the Dallas Fed’s year-end 2020 survey of producers and oil-service companies operating in its district, which includes the prolific Permian Basin (Chart 8). This may reflect the lower willingness of banks to fund their drilling operations, and the evolving backwardation in the WTI market, where the marginal shale-oil producer hedges. If this lower price deck is maintained, we would expect Exploration + Production activities to remain anemic in the US shales. Renewed Lockdowns Could Delay Demand Recovery Health officials in the US, UK, Germany and Japan are renewing lockdowns as COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and death soar, which likely will reduce oil demand in the short-term until vaccine distribution and inoculation rates increase. In our base case, we see EM oil demand, proxied by non-OECD consumption, recovering to pre-COVID-19 levels by the end of this year with DM demand remaining subdued (Chart 9). Continued USD weakness will continue to support commodity demand, particularly in EM economies (Chart 10). Chart 9Demand Recovery Could Be Delayed By Renewed Lockdowns Chart 10Weaker USD Will Support Demand We will be updating our demand and supply estimates in a couple of weeks, as new data becomes available from the leading energy statistics providers. It is important to note that OPEC 2.0 has been consistently reducing output as realized and anticipated demand has been lowered over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect this supply-side response to weakening demand to continue. Indeed, KSA’s surprise production cut supports our dominant-supplier hypothesis targeting a price level by adjusting output to meet demand. 2020 Recommendations Down 48% Our failure to close out oil positions in 1Q20 dependent on continued OPEC 2.0 production discipline and improving demand cost us dearly. Our crude oil backwardation trades, in particular, suffered from this and dragged returns on our overall recommendations sharply lower at the beginning of the year (see trade summaries on p.11). On the plus side, our open trades at the end of 2020 continue to perform well, and closed the year up 23%. This can be attributed to OPEC 2.0 production discipline, improving oil demand and the global economic recovery – particularly in Asia’s EM economies, led by China, which lifted oil and metals prices. Net, the average return of our closed and open positions at year-end was -48%. This brings the average five-year return to +32%. The key take-away from this experience is this: Stop-losses are critical on positions that are working, as is strict discipline to cut positions that are not working based on hard stop-losses. Bottom Line: We continue to expect Brent prices to average $63/bbl this year, as OPEC 2.0 continues to calibrate production to demand – both on the downside and the upside. We are expecting DM lockdowns to further reduce realized and expected demand over the short term, which will be countered by lower output from OPEC 2.0. We continue to expect US shale production to fall in 1H21, and to slowly recover. However, that recovery could be delayed if OPEC 2.0 is successful in disincentivizing investment in non-coalition production.   Robert P. Ryan  Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices reached a multi-month high on Tuesday following news Saudi Arabia pledged to reduce its production by an additional 1mm b/d in February and March while most other OPEC 2.0 producers keep producing at current quotas. KSA’s cuts come on the back of rapidly rising COVID-19 cases globally and intensifying lockdowns in various regions. OPEC 2.0 is reacting to changes in global oil demand and will continue performing a careful balancing act over 1Q21. We expect oil prices to move up going into 2H21 as wider vaccine distribution begins to slow the spread of the virus. The backwardation in oil market deepened following the announcement (Chart 11). Base Metals: Bullish Already-tight copper markets are getting tighter in the wake of a three-week roadblock in Peru, which has blocked the export of close to 190k MT of copper concentrate, according to mining.com. Production at the Las Bambas mine could halt production entirely, according to local officials. Should that occur, 2% of global mine production would be removed from the market. We are forecasting a physical deficit in 2021-22, on the back of inadequate mining capex and falling ore quality. We expect inventories will continue to draw as consumption increases amid stagnant output (Chart 12). Precious Metals: Bullish As we go to press, Democrats won one of the Senate elections in Georgia and appear likely to win the second. Winning both seats has important ramifications for gold prices over the next few years. This increases the odds of larger fiscal stimulus over the short- and medium-term and reduces the risk of premature fiscal tightening. Fiscal and monetary policy need to work in tandem to generate above-target inflation over the next 2-3 years. Larger fiscal spending is important for sustaining strong broad money growth until the private sector fully recovers. Ags/Softs:  Neutral  Argentina’s export ban and continued poor weather conditions are bolstering corn prices, pushing nearby CME corn futures prices to $5/bu earlier this week. A Farm Futures Survey released this week indicated falling yields in the US will accompany lower supplies in Latin America due to dry weather, according to farmfutures.com. Chart 11Backwardation Deepens Following Voluntary Saudi Oil Cuts Chart 12Copper Supply-Demand Balances Point To Growing Deficits Footnotes Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Trades Closed

Special Report

Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve 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. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.1” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,2 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework3 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above 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. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.4 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.5 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,6 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.7 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 2 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 3 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 4 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com