Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Cross-Atlantic Policy Divergence: A steadily tightening US labor market means that the Fed remains on track to formally announce tapering next month. Meanwhile, the ECB is signaling that they are in no hurry to do the same given scant evidence that surging energy prices are seeping into broader European inflation. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trade portfolio – taking profits on the 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widener; while switching out of the long December 2023 Euribor futures trade into a 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade. Surging Antipodean Inflation: Australia and New Zealand are both seeing higher realized inflation, but market-based inflation expectations are falling in the former and rising in the latter. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trades: taking profits on the Australia-US 10-year spread widener; entering a new 10-year Australia inflation breakeven spread widener; and closing the underwater 2-year/5-year New Zealand curve flattening trade. Feature This week, we present a review of the shorter-term recommendations currently in our list of Tactical Overlay trades. These are positions that are intended to complement our strategic Model Bond Portfolio, with shorter holding periods – our goal is no longer than six months - and sometimes in smaller markets that are outside our usual core bond market coverage. As can be seen in the table on page 17, we typically organize these ideas by the type of trade (i.e. yield curve flatteners or cross-country spread wideners). Yet for the purposes of this review, we see two interesting themes that better organize the current trades and help guide our decision to keep them or enter new ones. Playing A Hawkish Fed Versus A Dovish ECB Federal Reserve officials have spent the past few months signaling that a tapering of bond purchases was increasingly likely to begin before year-end given the steadily improving US labor market. The September payrolls report released last Friday, even with the headline employment growth number below expectations for the second consecutive month, does not change that trajectory. Chart of the WeekCyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures Cyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures Cyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures The US unemployment rate fell to 4.8% in September, continuing the uninterrupted decline from the April 2020 peak of 14.8% (Chart of the Week). The pace of that decline has accelerated in recent months, although the Delta variant surge in the US has created distortions in both the numerator and denominator of the unemployment rate. Now that the US Delta wave has crested and case numbers are falling, growth in both employment and the labor force should start to accelerate in the next few payrolls reports. This will result in a faster pace of US job growth, albeit with a slower decline in the unemployment rate, likely starting as soon as the October jobs report. The US Treasury curve has already been reshaping in preparation for a less accommodative Fed, with flattening seen beyond the 5-year point (middle panel). We have positioned for a more hawkish Fed, and a flatter Treasury curve, in our Tactical Overlay via a butterfly trade. Specifically, we are short a 5-year Treasury bullet versus a long position in a 2-year/10-year barbell, all using on-the-run cash Treasuries. That trade was initiated on June 22, 2021 and has so far generated a small profit of +0.27%. Our butterfly spread valuation model for that 2/5/10 Treasury butterfly shows that the 5-year bullet has not yet reached an undervalued extreme versus the 2/10 barbell (Chart 2). We are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay, as the current 2/5/10 butterfly spread of 23bps is still 6bps below the +1 standard deviation level implied by our model. Chart 2Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Moving across the Atlantic, our trades have been the mirror image of our Fed recommendations, positioning for a continued dovish, reflationary ECB policy bias. We have expressed that via two trades: long 10-year French inflation breakevens and long December 2021 Euribor futures. We continue to see no reason for the ECB to follow the Fed’s path towards imminent tapering and signaling future rate hikes. Growth momentum has cooled in the euro area, with both the Markit composite PMI and the ZEW growth expectations index having peaked in June (Chart 3). At the same time, inflation expectations have picked up. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate has risen to 1.8%, still below the ECB’s 2% inflation target but well above the 2020 low of 0.7% (middle panel). Markets are focusing on the higher inflation and not the slowing growth, with the EUR overnight index swap (OIS) curve now pricing in 12bps of rate hikes in 2022 (bottom panel). We see that as a highly improbable outcome. There is little evidence that the latest pickup in euro area realized inflation is broadening out beyond surging energy price inflation and supply-constrained goods inflation (Chart 4). Euro area headline CPI inflation hit a 13-year high of 3.0% in August, with the “flash” estimate for September showing a further acceleration to 3.4%. Yet core inflation only reached 1.6% in August - a month when the trimmed mean euro area CPI inflation rate calculated by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy was a scant 0.2%. Chart 3ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation Chart 4Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based While the September flash estimate of core inflation did perk up to 1.9%, the trimmed mean measure shows that the rise in euro area inflation to date has not been broad based. Like the Fed, ECB officials have indicated that they view this pick-up in inflation as “transitory”, fueled by soaring energy costs and base effect comparisons to low inflation in 2020. Signs that higher inflation was feeding into “second round” effects like rising wage growth might change the ECB’s thinking. From that perspective, the recent increase in labor strike activity in Germany is a potentially worrisome sign, but the starting point is one of low wage growth – the latest available data on euro area wage costs showed a -0.1% decline during Q2/2021. Chart 5Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade We have been trying to fade ECB rate hike expectations via our long December 2023 Euribor futures trade. That position, initiated on May 18, 2021 has generated a small loss of -0.11% (Chart 5). We still expect the ECB to keep rates on hold in 2022, and most likely 2023, so there is the potential for that trade to recover that underperformance. However, that position has now reached the six-month holding period “re-evaluation” limit that we have imposed on our Tactical Overlay trades. Thus, we are closing that trade this week. In its place, we are initiating a new tactical trade to position for not only persistent ECB dovishness but a more hawkish Fed – a US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade using 10-year bond futures. The specific details of the trade (futures contracts, duration-neutral weightings on each leg of the trade) can be found in the table on page 17. This new UST-Bund trade is attractive for three reasons: Our valuation model for the Treasury-Bund spread - which uses relative policy interest rates, relative unemployment, relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and ECB balance sheets as inputs – shows that the spread is currently undervalued by more than one full standard deviation, and fair value is rising (Chart 6). The technical backdrop for the Treasury-Bund spread has turned more favorable for wideners, with the spread having fallen back to its 200-day moving average and the 26-week change in the spread now down to levels that preceded past turning points in the spread (Chart 7). Chart 6Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Relative data surprises are pointing to relatively higher US yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread, with the Citigroup Data Surprise Index for the US now rising and the euro area equivalent measure falling (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening Chart 8Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread While we are entering a new trade to play for a relatively dovish ECB, we are also choosing to take the substantial profit in our tactical trade in French inflation breakevens. Specifically, we are closing our 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widening position – long a 10-year cash OATi bond, short 10-year French bond futures – with a solid gain of +6.3%. Chart 9Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade We have held this trade for nine months, a bit longer than our typical tactical trade holding period. We did so because French 10-year breakevens continued to look cheap on our valuation model. Now, the breakeven spread has risen to fair value (Chart 9), prompting us to take our gains and move on. Diverging Inflation Expectations In Australia & New Zealand Playing Fed/ECB policy divergence was the first main theme of this Tactical Overlay trade review. The second broad theme is also a divergence, between inflation expectations in New Zealand (which are rising) and Australia (which are falling). This trend leads us to close two existing trades and enter a new position. Chart 10An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves In New Zealand, we are closing out our 2-year/5-year government bond yield curve flattener trade, initiated on July 21, for a loss of -0.32%. While we were correct in our expectation of ramped-up hawkishness from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), we were caught offside by persistently sticky inflation which has become a headache for global central bankers. With supply squeezes and high commodity prices not going away anytime soon, sovereign curves have bear-steepened across developed markets, driven by rising long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 10). This global steepening pressure also hit the New Zealand curve, to the detriment of our domestic RBNZ-focused flattener trade. There was also a technical component to the steepening in the New Zealand 2-year/5-year curve (Chart 11). With the 2-year/5-year curve having dipped far below its 200-day moving average and the 26-week rate of change at stretched levels, the flattener was already “overbought” when we entered the trade. Despite a steady stream of hawkish messaging from the RBNZ, leading to an actual rate hike last week, technicals did win out in the short term as the 2-year/5-year spread steepened back up towards the 200-day moving average. Chart 11The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors On the positive side, our decision to implement this trade as a duration-neutral “butterfly”, selling a 2-year bond, and using the proceeds to buy a weighted combination of a 5-year bond and a 3-month treasury bill with an equivalent duration to the 2-year bond, worked as intended with the butterfly underperforming as the underlying 2-year/5-year curve steepened. Looking forward, technicals are still some distance from turning favorable and will remain a headwind for the flattener trade. Implied forward rates are also not in our favor, with markets already pricing in some flattening, making this a negative carry trade. Over a cyclical horizon – i.e. beyond our normal six-month holding period for tactical trades - we still expect the shorter-end of the New Zealand to flatten. The experience of past hiking cycles shows that the 2-year/5-year curve tends to continue flattening during policy tightening, usually leveling out at 0bps before re-steepening (Chart 12). Considering that we have already been in this trade for three months, however, we do not believe our initial curve flattening bias will play out successfully over the remainder of our six-month tactical horizon. While we are closing out our flattener trade, we will investigate ways to better express our bearish cyclical view on New Zealand sovereign debt in a future report. Turning to Australia, we are closing out our long Australia/short US spread trade, implemented using 10-year bond futures, taking a healthy profit of +2.1%. We have held this trade for longer than our typical six-month holding period (the trade was initiated on January 26, 2021) because our Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model has continued to flash that the spread was too wide to its fair value (Chart 13). The model has been signaling that the spread should be negative, yet Australian yields have been unable to trade below US yields for any sustained length of time in 2021. Furthermore, the model-implied fair value is now starting to bottom out, suggesting a diminishing tailwind from the relative fundamental drivers of the spread embedded in our model. Chart 12The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon Chart 13Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Chart 14Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model The inputs into our 10-year spread model are relative policy interest rates, core inflation, unemployment and the size of central bank balance sheets (to incorporate QE effects) for Australia and the US. Of these variables, the biggest drivers of the decline in the fair value since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020 have been relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) balance sheets as a percentage of GDP (Chart 14). Both of those trends are related. Persistently underwhelming Australian inflation – despite accelerating inflation in the US and other developed economies over the past year – has forced the RBA into a pace of asset purchases relative to GDP that exceeded even what the Fed has done since the pandemic started (bottom panel). However, Australian inflation finally began catching up to the rising trends seen elsewhere in the spring of this year, with headline CPI inflation jumping from 1.1% to 3.8% on a year-over-year basis during Q2. Australian bond yields have traded more in line with US yields since that mid-year pop in inflation, preventing the Australia-US spread from narrowing below zero and converging to our model-implied fair value. This is despite a severe COVID wave that forced much of Australia into the kind of severe lockdowns that the nation avoided during the worst of the global pandemic in 2020. With Australian inflation now moving higher and converging towards US levels, economic restrictions starting to be lifted thanks to a rapid vaccination campaign, and the RBA having already done some tapering of its asset purchases before the Fed, the fundamental rationale for holding our Australia-US trade is no longer valid, leading us to take profits. The convergence to fair value in our spread model is now more likely to come from fair value rising rather than the actual spread falling. The pickup in Australian inflation also leads us to enter a new trade Down Under. This week, we are initiating a new trade, going long 10-year Australia inflation breakevens, implemented by going long a 10-year cash inflation-linked bond and selling 10-year bond futures. The details of the new trade are shown in the table on page 17. Despite the uptick in realized Australian inflation, breakevens have actually been declining over the past several months, falling from a peak of 247bps on May 13 to the current 208bps. That move has accelerated more recently due to a rise in Australian real yields that has coincided with markets pricing in more future RBA rate hikes. Our 24-month Australia discounter, which measures the total amount of tightening over the next two years discounted in the AUD OIS curve, now shows that 104bps of rate hikes are expected by the fourth quarter of 2023 (Chart 15, bottom panel). This has occurred despite Australian wage growth remaining well below the 3-4% range that the RBA believes is consistent with underlying Australian inflation returning sustainably to the RBA’s 2-3% target band (top two panels). Chart 15Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Chart 16Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Australian real bond yields have begun to move higher in response to this more hawkish market policy expectation that seems overdone, helping push breakeven inflation even lower more recently. This has helped unwind some of the overvaluation of 10-year inflation breakevens from earlier in 2021. Our fundamental model for the 10-year Australian breakeven showed that the spread was over two standard deviations above fair value to start 2020 (Chart 16). The decline in the spread since that has largely eliminated that overvaluation, providing a better entry point for a new breakeven spread widening trade. With survey-based measures of inflation expectations rising even as breakevens fall back to fair value (bottom panel), we see a strong case for adding a new Australian inflation trade to our Tactical Overlay.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Thematic Update Of Our Tactical Trades A Thematic Update Of Our Tactical Trades Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Next week is the BCA Annual Conference, at which I will debate Professor Nouriel Roubini on ‘The Outlook For Cryptocurrencies’. I will make the passioned case for cryptos, and Nouriel will make the passioned case against. I do hope that many of you can join the debate, as well as the other insightful sessions at the conference. As such, there will be no report next week and we will be back on October 28. Highlights The anomaly of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The anomaly is that state intervention protected services prices from a massive (and continuing) negative demand shock. Absent the state intervention, there would not be the current ‘inflation crisis’. On a 6-12-month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Natural gas, plus industrial metals versus industrial metal equities. Feature Chart of the WeekServices Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Chart of the Week...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? The great writers, artists, and musicians tell us that the most profound messages often come from what is not said, not painted, and not played. What does not happen is sometimes more significant than what does happen. In this vein, we believe that the real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. The real story is that while goods and commodity prices have reacted exactly as would be expected to a positive demand shock, services prices have not reacted as would be expected to the mirror-image negative demand shock. The Anomaly Is Not Goods Prices, It Is Services Prices The following analysis quantifies the impact of the pandemic on different parts of the economy by examining the deviations of current spending and prices from their pre-pandemic trends. The analysis uses US data simply because of its timeliness and granularity, but the broad patterns and conclusions apply equally to most other developed economies. Looking at the overall economy, we know that, thus far, we have experienced neither a lasting negative demand shock from the pandemic, nor a lasting positive demand shock from the ensuing stimulus. We know this, because current spending is not far short of its pre-pandemic trend. The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. Yet when we drill down to the components of spending, we see a different story. The pandemic and its policy response unleashed a massive and unprecedented displacement of spending from services to goods (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods By March 2021, while US spending on services was still below its pre-pandemic trend by $700 billion, or 8 percent, the displacement of those dollars of spending had boosted spending on the smaller durable goods component by 26 percent. Suffice to say, a 26 percent excess demand for durable goods cannot be satisfied by a modern manufacturing sector that utilises just-in-time supply chains and negligible spare capacity! As surging demand met relatively fixed supply, the price of durable goods skyrocketed to the current 11 percent above its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational It follows that the inflation in durables prices is the perfectly rational outcome of a classic positive demand shock – meaning, surging demand in the face of limited supply. What is much less rational is that a massive negative demand shock for services has had almost no negative impact on services prices. This is the untold story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ which requires further explanation. Government Intervention Prevented A Collapse In Services Prices If the pandemic had unleashed a classic negative demand shock for services, then services prices would have collapsed. We know this because in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC), services prices fell below their pre-GFC trend exactly in line with the decline in services demand. But in the aftermath of the pandemic’s massive negative shock for services spending, services prices have remained on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart of the Week). The question is, how? The answer is that this was not a classic negative demand shock. The reason that service spending collapsed was that a large swathe of services – such as leisure and hospitality – became unavailable because of mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. In this case, there was no point in reducing prices to reattract demand from durable goods because nobody could buy these services anyway! In effect, while the goods sector remained subject to market forces, a large swathe of the service sector came under state intervention, and was no longer subject to market forces. Meanwhile, statisticians continued to record the seemingly unaffected price of eating out or going to the theatre, even though most restaurants and entertainment venues were shuttered, making their prices meaningless. Absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. Absent state intervention, these service providers would have had to reduce their prices to attract wary consumers amid a pandemic. This we know from Sweden, the one major economy that did not have any mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. While leisure and hospitality have remained largely open, Sweden’s services prices have declined markedly from their pre-pandemic trend – in sharp contrast to the unchanged trend in the US (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Hence, while inflation now stands at a sedate 2 percent in Sweden, it stands at a hot 5 percent in the US. If the US (and other country) governments had not intervened in the services sector, then the evidence from the GFC in 2008 and Sweden today strongly suggests that services prices would be below their pre-pandemic trend, offsetting goods prices that are above their pre-pandemic trend. The result would be that the overall price level would be on, or close to, its pre-pandemic trend. Just as overall spending is on its pre-pandemic trend. To repeat the key message of this analysis, the anomaly in most economies is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The price surge is the perfectly rational response to a positive demand shock. The anomaly is that services prices did not react negatively to a negative demand shock (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6), as they did post-GFC and post-pandemic in non-interventionist Sweden. Chart I-5The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices ##br##Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... Chart I-6...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall The untold story is that, absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. What Happens Next? The surging demand for durables is correcting. Since March, it is already down by 15 percent but requires a further 7 percent decline to reach its pre-pandemic trend, which we fully expect to happen. After all, there are only so many smartphones and used cars that you can own! Meanwhile, as manufacturers respond with a lag to recent high prices, expect a tsunami of durables supply to hit in 6-12 months just as demand has fallen off a cliff. The result will be a major threat to any durable good or commodity price that has not already corrected. As a salutary warning of what lies ahead, witness the recent 75 percent crash in lumber prices. The same principle applies to non-durables such as food and energy. Non-durables spending is likely to fall back to its pre-pandemic trend, and non-durables prices are likely to follow. Again, outside a short-lived surge in demand from, say, a very cold winter, there is only so much energy and food that you can consume. For services, there are two opposing forces. The inflationary force is that the recent inflation in goods will transmit into wages and therefore into services prices. Against this, the deflationary force is that structural changes, such as hybrid home/office working, mean that services spending will struggle to make the near 6 percent increase to reach its pre-pandemic trend. Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Pulling these effects together, we reiterate three investment recommendations on a 6-12 month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market (Chart I-7). Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Chart I-7As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme The surge in natural gas prices in both Europe and the US has reached a point of extreme fragility on its 130-day fractal structure. Hence, if the tight fundamentals show the slightest signs of abating, natural gas prices would be vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Elsewhere, we see an arbitrage opportunity between industrial metal prices, which are still close to highs, and industrial metal equities, which have plunged by 20 percent since May. The relationship between the underlying metal prices and the metals equities sector is now stretched versus its history, and on its composite 65/130-day fractal structure (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched Hence, the recommended trade is to go short the LMEX Index/ long nonferrous metals equities. One way to implement the long side of the pair is through the ETF PICK. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Spread Product: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market & Fed: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome is priced in. Duration: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration with an expectation that the 10-year Treasury yield will reach a range of 2%-2.25% by the time of Fed liftoff in December 2022. Feature Chart 1A December Debt Ceiling Debate A December Debt Ceiling Debate A December Debt Ceiling Debate The creditors of the United States government can breathe a little easier, at least for a couple of months, as Congress reached an agreement last week to punt debt ceiling negotiations until December. T-bills maturing this month reacted sharply to price-out the risk of technical default, though December bill yields have already started to push higher in anticipation of more turmoil (Chart 1). Of course, the political incentives to lift the debt ceiling will be the same in December as they are today, and Congress will ultimately act to avert economic disaster.1 Financial markets seem to realize this, and Treasury note and bond yields have been unphased by the drama. Instead, Treasury yields have moved higher in recent weeks alongside other indicators of optimism surrounding economic reflation and re-opening (Chart 2). However, there is one troubling signal from financial markets that warrants further investigation. Corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) have underperformed duration-matched Treasuries so far in October, even as Treasury yields have moved higher (Chart 3). Typically, Treasury yields and corporate bond spreads are negatively correlated – spreads tighten as Treasury yields rise, and vice-versa – so it is notable when the correlation flips. Chart 2The Reflation Trade Is Back The Reflation Trade Is Back The Reflation Trade Is Back Chart 3Bad Times For Bonds Bad Times For Bonds Bad Times For Bonds   The next section of this report explores the economic drivers of the yield/spread correlation and considers whether the flip to a positive yield/spread correlation signals anything about future corporate bond performance. An Examination Of The Yield/Spread Correlation The simple economic explanation for the negative yield/spread correlation is that an improved economic outlook leads to both a better environment for credit risk (i.e. tighter corporate bond spreads) and the expectation that higher interest rates will be needed to cool the economy in the future (i.e. higher Treasury yields). With that in mind, when spreads and yields both rise at the same time it usually means that the Fed is “over-tightening”. That is, tightening monetary policy so much that the near-term credit environment is deteriorating. This could be because the Fed is making a policy mistake – tightening into an economic slowdown – or because inflation is high enough that the Fed is deliberately slowing growth in an effort to bring down prices. A Technical Examination Looking at the history of monthly changes in Treasury index yields and High-Yield index spreads since 1994, we see that it is quite unusual for yields and spreads to both rise in the same month (Chart 4). In fact, monthly yield and spread changes are negatively correlated 65% of the time and have only risen together in 15% of the months since 1994. Chart 4Monthly Junk Spread Changes Versus Monthly Treasury Yield Changes Since 1994 An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Second, we observe in Chart 4 that almost all months of large spread widening or tightening occur against the back-drop of a negative yield/spread correlation. This shouldn’t be too surprising. The worst months for corporate bond performance occur during economic recessions when the Fed is cutting interest rates. Conversely, the best months for corporate bond performance occur just after the recession-peak in spreads when the Fed has finished cutting rates and the economic recovery is starting up. Tables 1A and 1B delve deeper into the return numbers. Table 1A shows average High-Yield excess returns over different investment horizons following a signal from the yield/spread correlation. For example, the second row shows that after a month when both Treasury yields and junk spreads rise, high-yield bonds deliver average excess returns of 24 bps during the following 3 months, 116 bps during the following 6 months and 75 bps during the following 12 months. Table 1B provides even more detail by showing 90% confidence intervals for each number. Table 1AAverage High-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table 1BHigh-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation: 90% Confidence Intervals An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads We draw two conclusions from this analysis. First, a month when spreads widen and yields fall sends the worst signal for near-term (3-month) corporate bond performance, though a month where both yields and spreads rise is a close second. Second, and most relevant for the current market, a month when yields and spreads rise together sends the worst signal for junk bond performance over the following 12 months. In fact, it is the only signal where the 90% confidence interval shows the chance of negative excess returns during the following 12 months. This second conclusion aligns with our intuition. A period of both rising Treasury yields and junk spreads likely signals that the market is pricing-in some move toward a tighter monetary policy stance, though not a severe enough move to send long-maturity Treasury yields down. This is most likely to occur in the very early stages of a monetary tightening cycle, when monetary conditions are still accommodative but recent shifts in Fed policy suggest that they will become more restrictive down the road. A Historical Examination A look back through history confirms our analysis of when yields and spreads tend to rise concurrently. The solid line in the third panel of Chart 5 shows the number of months when both junk spreads and Treasury yields rose out of the most recent trailing 12-month period. The dashed line shows the same measure over the trailing 3-month period, multiplied by 4 to put it on the same scale as the solid line. A spike in these lines indicates that Treasury yields and junk spreads were rising at the same time. Chart 5Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening We identify four relevant historical periods. First, yields and spreads rose concurrently during the 1999/2000 Fed tightening cycle. Specifically, yields and spreads rose together in the early stages of the tightening cycle, then spreads continued to widen as yields fell during the 2001 recession. Second, our indicator showed a couple blips higher during the 2004/06 tightening cycle, though corporate bond returns were solid during this period, at least until after the tightening cycle ended and the recession began. Third, the 2013 taper tantrum coincided with a temporary increase in both yields and spreads as investors worried that the Fed was moving too quickly toward rate hikes. Fourth, yields and spreads both moved higher in 2015 as the Fed was heading toward a December 2015 rate hike against a back-drop of slowing economic growth. Turning to today, we view the recent jump in our indicator as similar to the jump seen during the 2013 taper tantrum. Not only is the Fed once again about to taper asset purchases, but the tapering of asset purchases suggests that the Fed’s next move will be a rate hike at some point down the road. We view this as an early warning sign for corporate bond spreads. While the monetary environment remains supportive for positive corporate bond returns for now, this may not be true by this time next year when the Fed is that much closer to liftoff. Bottom Line: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market Update: Still On Track For November Taper And December 2022 Liftoff Chart 6Employment Growth Slowed in September Employment Growth Slowed in September Employment Growth Slowed in September September’s employment report delivered a disappointing headline number, with nonfarm payrolls growing only 194 thousand on the month compared to a consensus estimate of 500k (Chart 6). The details of the report were slightly better: August’s nonfarm payroll growth number was revised higher, our measure of the unemployment rate adjusted for distortions in the number of people employed but absent from work fell from 5.5% to 4.9% (Chart A1) and average hourly earnings rose at an annualized monthly rate of 7.7% (Chart 6, bottom panel). Expect A November Taper For bond investors, the most pressing question is whether the report is bad enough to delay the Fed’s tapering announcement past November. We doubt it. The Fed’s test for when to taper asset purchases, that it gave itself last December, is “substantial further progress” back to pre-COVID levels of employment. Since December 2020, total nonfarm payroll employment is 50% of the way back to its February 2020 level (Chart 7) and there are several good reasons to believe that employment growth will be much stronger in October and November. First, the delta wave of COVID cases clearly weighed on employment growth in September, much like it did in August. The Leisure & Hospitality sector only added 74 thousand jobs in September, compared to an average monthly pace of 349 thousand jobs between February and July of this year before the delta wave struck. With a shortfall of almost 1.6 million Leisure & Hospitality jobs compared to pre-COVID levels (Table 2), job growth in this sector will bounce back sharply during the next few months now that new COVID cases are receding (Chart 8). Chart 7"Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made "Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made "Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made Chart 8Delta Wave Has Crested Delta Wave Has Crested Delta Wave Has Crested   Second, the last column of Table 2 shows that the government sector accounted for net job loss of 123 thousand in September. This negative number was driven by state & local government education jobs and is almost certainly a statistical artifact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ release notes: Recent employment changes [in state & local government education] are challenging to interpret, as pandemic-related staffing fluctuations in public and private education have distorted the normal seasonal hiring and layoff patterns. Table 2Employment By Industry An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Expect December 2022 Liftoff As for what this labor market report means for when the Fed will start lifting rates, we believe that we are still on track for liftoff in December 2022. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios that show the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and labor force participation rates by specific future dates. If we use the median assumption from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants that the Fed will lift rates when the unemployment rate is 3.5% and the participation rate is 63%, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k is required to reach those targets by the end of 2022. We see that threshold as eminently achievable.2 Bottom Line: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and hold Treasury curve flatteners in anticipation of that outcome. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 62.8%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Footnotes 1 For more details on the politics of the debt ceiling please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “The House Ways And Means Tax Plan”, dated September 15, 2021. 2 For a discussion about what unemployment and participation rate targets to use in this analysis please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades     Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights Q3/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +8bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +4bps, led by the timely downgrade of UK Gilts to underweight in early August. Spread product allocations outperformed by +4bps, coming entirely from the overweights to high-yield in the US and Europe. Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries. Feature Global bond markets have had a lot of sources of uncertainty to digest over the past few months. Renewed COVID fears due to the spread of the Delta variant, slowing global growth momentum, supply chain disruptions leading to surging realized inflation, the ongoing US fiscal policy debate in D.C., concerns over Chinese corporate debt and the increasingly hawkish monetary policy signals sent by global central banks, most notably the Fed. The net result of these narratives has been some major swings in government bond market performance during the third quarter of 2021. The benchmark 10-year government bond yield in the US started the quarter at 1.48%, fell to an intraday low of 1.12% on August 4, then soared higher to end the quarter back at 1.50%. Even bigger moves were seen in other countries, with the 10-year UK Gilt yield doubling from its Q3 low of 0.48% on August 4 while the 10-year German bund yield is now 30bps above its low for the quarter. Despite this yield volatility, however, spreads for riskier credit market assets like US high-yield have remained generally well behaved. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during Q3/2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. We anticipate that bond investor uncertainty will switch from concerns about global growth to worries that stubbornly elevated inflation will elicit bond-bearish monetary policy responses from central banks. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Positive Returns In An Uncertain Environment Chart 1Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was +0.21%, slightly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +8bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +4bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter also outperformed by +4bps. Those small positive excess returns should be considered a victory, given the huge yield swings within the quarter, particularly for government bonds. We maintained a significant underweight position to US Treasuries in the portfolio during Q3, given our view that markets were underestimating the risks that the US economy would weather the summer Delta storm. As Treasury yields declined steadily during July and August, so did the relative performance of our model bond portfolio. The government bond portion of the portfolio was underperforming the benchmark by as much as -30bps before global bond yields bottomed out in early August. In the end, there was only a slight underperformance (-2bps) from the US Treasury portion of the portfolio during the quarter (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Our biggest government bond overweights have been concentrated in the euro area. There, the sum of active returns during Q3 from our government bond allocations was +3bps, although that came entirely from above-benchmark allocations to inflation-linked bonds in Germany, France and Italy. We did make one major shift in our government bond allocations during the quarter, and it was both timely and successful. We downgraded our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight on August 11.2 We observed that the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to prepare the markets for less accommodative monetary policy, with the UK economy holding up well as its Delta variant surge was losing momentum. The BoE rhetoric has proven to be even more hawkish than we anticipated, hinting at a possible rate hike before the end of 2021, leading Gilts to be the worst performing government bond market in our model portfolio universe during the quarter. The result: our UK underweight contributed +4bps to the portfolio performance during the quarter. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful positions were our overweight tilts on high-yield in the US (+3bps) and euro area (+1bps). All other exposures contributed little to returns, an unsurprising development given our neutral allocations to investment grade corporates in the US, UK and euro area, as well as for USD-denominated EM corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Biggest Outperformers: Overweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10-years (+4bps) Overweight Italian inflation-linked bonds (+2bps) Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+2bps) and B-rated (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10-years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese Government Bonds in longer maturity buckets: 7-10 years (-1bps) and greater than 10-years (-1bps) Overweight UK inflation-linked bonds (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q3/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. As can be seen in the chart, the bars look very close to that ideal for Q3/2021. Among the markets that represent our overweights, the most notably positive returns came from all euro area government bonds (a combined +136bps) and euro area corporates (a combined +20bps from investment grade and high-yield). Returns within our recommended underweight positions were even more notable: UK Gilts (-302bps), New Zealand government bonds (-103bps), EM USD-denominated sovereigns (-85bps), and Canadian government bonds (-45bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +8bps – a moderately positive result coming equally from underweight positions in government bonds and overweight allocations to spread product. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by our below-benchmark overall duration tilt – focused on our underweight stance on US Treasuries – and our overweight stance on high-yield corporates. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). While our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, has peaked, the overall level of 10-year bond yields within the major developed markets remains well below levels implied by the Indicator (top panel). That is most clearly evident when looking at the large gap between deeply negative real bond yields and the still-elevated level of the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads real yields by around six months (second panel). We continue to view this gap between real yields and growth as the biggest mispricing in global bond markets – one that will eventually be rectified by the incremental reduction in monetary accommodation that is signaled by our Global Central Bank Monitor (bottom panel). The combined message from our Central Bank Monitor, Duration Indicator and the manufacturing PMI is that global bond yields are still too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US, UK and Canada). We have the highest conviction on the US and UK underweights, with a curve-flattening bias for both markets relative to the rest of the major developed markets (Chart 6). The bond-friendly (and risk asset-friendly) impact of global quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the annual growth rate of central bank balance sheets having already slowed sharply (Chart 7). The pace of tapering, and any subsequent rate hikes, will differ by country and support our government bond country allocations in the model portfolio. Chart 6Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Chart 7The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun   Chart 8Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens We expect the Fed to taper its pace of bond purchases over the first half of 2022, setting up a first Fed rate hike late next year. The Bank of Canada and the BoE will be the other developed market central banks that will both end QE and lift rates before the Fed does the same. On the other hand, the ECB, Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank of Australia will maintain a more relatively dovish stance in 2022, with very modest tapering (at worst) and no rate hikes. Turning to inflation-linked bonds, we are maintaining an overall neutral allocation given the competing forces of rising global inflation and rich valuations. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are Italy, France, Canada and Japan (Chart 8). On the back of this, we are maintaining our overweight allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area and Japan in our model portfolio, while staying neutral on US TIPS. Chart 9Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates (focused on high-yield) versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets is flashing a warning sign for the future performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator (by about twelve months) of the annual excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates during the “QE Era” since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 9). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond outperformance around February 2022, particularly for high-yield versus government bonds and investment grade (top two panels). At the same time, our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads - the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads – shows that lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer spreads that are relatively high versus their own history compared to other credit sectors in our model bond portfolio universe (Chart 10). Using this metric, investment grade corporate spreads look much more fully valued, particularly in the US. Chart 10Lower-Rated High-Yield & EM Sovereigns Offer Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Given sharply reduced default risks in the US and Europe, with strong nominal growth supporting corporate revenues alongside low borrowing rates, the fundamental backdrop for riskier high-yield corporates is still positive. Thus, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area, while sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce that exposure in the model portfolio sometime in early months of 2022, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that means about the future path for global monetary policy and risk asset performance. Within the euro area, we are maintaining overweights to Italian and Spanish government bonds given the likelihood that the monetary policy backdrop will remain supportive (Chart 11). We expect the ECB to be one of the most accommodative central banks within our model portfolio universe in 2022. At worst, the ECB could deliver a modest reduction of total asset purchases, but with no rate hikes. Chart 11A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit Chart 12EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Finally, we are sticking with a cautious stance on emerging market (EM) spread product in our model bond portfolio. Slowing Chinese economic growth, a firming US dollar, rate hikes across EM in response to high inflation, and the coming turn in the Fed policy cycle are all headwinds to the relative performance of EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns (Chart 12). We are sticking with our overall modestly underweight stance on EM USD-denominated credit. However, rebounding global growth and some potential policy stimulus in China could prompt us to consider an upgrade in the coming months.   Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q4/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to -0.75 years versus the custom index (Chart 13). A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 14). This overweight comes almost entirely from allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporates. The tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is relatively low at 55bps (Chart 15). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of absolute portfolio risk, while focusing exposures more on relative tilts between countries and credit sectors. Chart 13Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Chart 14Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry” of 16bps (Chart 16).   Chart 15Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 16Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts We now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare We see global growth momentum, the stickiness of supply-driven inflation pressures and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the three most important factors for fixed income markets over the next six months, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Base case Global growth rebounds from the dip seen during July and August as fears over the spread of the Delta variant subside. Unemployment rates across the developed economies continue to decline on the back of ongoing demand/supply imbalances in labor markets. China is a relative growth laggard, but this will trigger fresh macro stimulus measures (credit, monetary, perhaps fiscal) from policymakers concerned about missing growth targets. Global supply chain disruptions will remain stubbornly persistent, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation rates in most countries even as commodity price momentum cools a bit on a rate of change basis. Most developed market central banks will move to dial back pandemic monetary policy stimulus to varying degrees, most notably the Fed and the Bank of England. The Fed will begin tapering its asset purchases around the turn of the year, to be completed during Q4/2021 thus setting the stage for a Fed rate hike in December. In this scenario, we expect the US Treasury curve to see some initial mild bear-steepening alongside moderately wider longer-term TIPS breakevens, before entering a more typical cyclical bear-flattening as the Fed begins tapering and rate hike expectations get pulled forward. The net result over the next six months: the entire US Treasury curve shifts higher in roughly parallel fashion, with the 10-year reaching 1.70% by next March. The VIX drifts a bit lower from the current 21 to 18, the US dollar is flattish (faster global growth offsets more USD-favorable real yield differentials versus other developed markets), the Brent oil price goes up +5% on the back of stronger global demand, and the fed funds target rate is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Upside growth & inflation surprise Global growth accelerates amid sharply diminished COVID risks and rallying stock and credit markets that loosen financial conditions. Consumer & business confidence recover smartly, as do hiring and capex. Global inflation rates accelerate from current elevated levels, but less from supply squeezes and more from fundamental pressures and faster wage growth. China loosens macro policies, but developed market central banks shift in an even more hawkish direction. The Fed signals a rapid 2022 taper and a funds rate liftoff well before year-end. In this scenario, real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve shifts much higher than in our base case, led by the 5-year maturity with bear-flattening beyond that point. The 10-year US Treasury yield climbs to 1.90% by the end of Q1/2022. The VIX moves higher to 25, the US dollar falls -3% (faster global growth offsetting a relatively modest increase in US/non-US real yield differentials), the Brent oil price goes up +10% and the fed funds target range is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Downside growth & inflation surprise Global growth loses additional momentum as consumer and business confidence stay muted. Supply/demand mismatches in labor markets remain unresolved, leading to a slower pace of employment growth. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration implements a much smaller-than-expected US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed market central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to slower growth. The Fed chooses a slower drawn-out taper with liftoff delayed to 2023. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds target range stays at 0-0.25%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 17 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 18. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 17Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 18US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +60bps in the base case scenario and +57bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -26bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/ European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -17 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 17 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story October 2021 October 2021 Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021 Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021 The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021 Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021 Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021 Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021 Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021 Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. 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 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, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. 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 The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Monetary Policy: Last week’s numerous central bank meetings across the world confirmed that the overall direction for global monetary policy is shifting in a more hawkish direction. The main reason: growing fears that elevated inflation will persist for much longer than expected, even with global growth having lost some momentum. Country Allocation: The relative degrees of central banker hawkishness support our current government bond country allocation strategy. Stay underweight the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway where markets are discounting a path for future policy rates over the next two years that is too flat. Remain overweight countries where there is less need for a more aggressive tightening response: the euro area (both the core and periphery), Australia, Sweden and Japan. Still The Only Game In Town Last week was a busy one for global bond markets, with no fewer than 14 central banks within both the developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) holding policy meetings. The results were eventful: Within EM, Brazil and Hungary lifted policy rates. Norway followed suit to become the first G-10 central bank to hike during the COVID era. The Fed teed up a formal announcement on tapering asset purchases at the next FOMC meeting in November. The Bank of England (BoE) gave strong hints that rate hikes could come sooner than expected, perhaps even before year-end. Chart of the WeekMonetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Global bond yields in the developed markets took notice of the change in central bank guidance, especially from the Fed and BoE. The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield rose from a pre-FOMC low of 1.30% to an intraday high of 1.57% yesterday – a level last seen late June. Longer-dated yields in the UK also rose significantly, with the 30-year Gilt yield rising from a pre-BoE meeting low of 1.11% to an intraday high of 1.40% yesterday – also the highest level since June. The pull on yields extended to other countries, as well, with 10-year yields in Germany, Canada and Australia climbing to three-month highs. The overall message from all of those policy meetings was one of an incremental shift toward less accommodative policies, even as the pace of global economic growth has slowed in recent months. Policymakers are growing more concerned that higher inflation could linger for longer (Chart of the Week). At the same time, loose policy settings have fueled a boom in asset markets that supports growth through easy financial conditions, but also raises future stability risks that worry the central banks. The number of countries seeing actual rate hikes is growing. Our Global Monetary Policy Tightening Indicator shows that just over one-quarter of G-10 and EM central banks have lifted rates over the past three months (Chart 2). All but one (Norway) are in EM, where policymakers have had to act more mechanistically in response to high inflation, even with softening economic growth momentum. While the slower pace of growth is more visible in EM relative to DM, when looking at cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs, inflation rates are simply too high around the world for inflation-targeting central banks to ignore (Chart 3). Chart 2Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Chart 3Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Within the major DM countries, there has been a notable shift in interest rate expectations in a more hawkish direction. Interest rate markets are, for the most part, still underestimating the potential for tighter monetary policies over the next couple of years. This is the main reason why we continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark strategic stance on global duration exposure. However, the relative expected pace of rate hikes also informs our views on country allocation. In Table 1, we show expectations for the timing of the next rate hike, as well as the cumulative amount of rate increases to the end of 2024, that are currently discounted in DM overnight index swap (OIS) curves. We present the latest level for both, as well as the reading from earlier this month to see how expectations have changed. Table 1Markets Still Pricing Very Modest Tightening Cycles Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The so-called “liftoff date” for the first rate hike has been most notably pulled forward in the UK from January 2023 to May 2022, while other countries have seen more modest shifts in the timing of the next rate increase. More importantly, the discounted pace of rate hikes to end-2024 for all countries shown in the table has increased since early September (including Norway, factoring in last week’s tightening move by the Norges Bank). In our view, the biggest driver of relative government bond market yield movements and returns over the next 6-12 months will be the relative adjustments in the expected pace of rate hikes. On that front, the biggest shift higher in cumulative tightening has occurred in countries where we are more pessimistic on government bond performance on a relative basis to the global benchmark: the US, Canada, the UK and Norway. The smaller increases in the pace of hikes have occurred in our more preferred markets – Australia, Sweden, the euro area, and Japan. Assessing Our Two Biggest Government Bond Underweights: The US & UK For last week’s Fed meeting, a new set of economic and interest rate projections from the FOMC members (“the dots”) were presented (Chart 4). Compared to the forecasts from the June meeting, US real GDP growth expectations for 2021 were revised down (5.9% vs 7.6%) but were boosted for 2022 (3.8% vs 3.3%) and 2023 (2.5% vs 2.4%). A new forecast for 2024 was added, coming in at 2.0%. Importantly, none of those growth forecasts was below the median FOMC estimate of the longer-run real GDP growth rate of 1.8% (top panel). In other words, the Fed is not anticipating below-trend growth anytime in the next three years. Chart 4The Fed’s Rate Projections Look Too Low Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The same conclusion goes for the US unemployment rate (second panel), with the median FOMC projection for 2022 (3.8%), 2023 (3.5%) and 2024 (3.5%) all below the median longer-run “full employment” estimate of 4.0%. The forecasts for US inflation (third panel) reflect that persistent low level of unemployment. Headline PCE inflation is expected to end 2021 at 4.2%, to be followed by a somewhat slower pace – but still above the 2% Fed inflation target – in 2022 (2.2%), 2023 (2.2%) and 2024 (2.1%). Yet despite these forecasts that show US growth and inflation exceeding its longer-run estimates for the next few years, the FOMC is projecting a relatively slow upward path for interest rates. The median dot now calls for the Fed to hike the funds rate once in 2022 and three more times in both 2023 and 2024. This would bring the funds rate to 1.75% by the end of 2024 – still 75bps below the Fed’s estimate of the longer-run “neutral” funds rate of 2.5% (bottom panel). That projected path for the funds rate is higher than the June dots, which only called for 75bps of cumulative hikes to the end of 2023. There is a wide divergence of opinions on the future path of rates within the FOMC, but the hawks appear to be winning the internal battle (Chart 5). There is now a 9-9 split of FOMC members who are calling for a rate hike in 2022, compared to a 7-11 split back in June, while the number of those projecting a funds rate above 1% in 2023 rose from 5 to 9. Chart 5A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 One area where there does appear to be a consensus is on the timing and pace of tapering. Fed Chair Powell noted at his post-FOMC press conference that an announcement on the reduction of Fed asset purchases could come as soon as the next FOMC meeting on November 6. Powell also signaled that there was general agreement on the FOMC that the taper should end by mid-2022, barring any economic setbacks. That would likely open the door to a rate hike in the latter half of next year, given the Fed’s longstanding view that lifting the funds rate should only occur after tapering is complete, to avoid sending conflicting signals about the Fed’s policy bias. It is clear that the Fed’s policy guidance has shifted incrementally in a more hawkish direction, and confirms our long-held expectation that tapering would be announced by year-end, with rate hikes to begin in late 2022. This dovetails with our recommended investment positioning in the US Treasury market for the next 12-18 months. Maintain a below-benchmark US duration exposure, with a curve-flattening bias, while staying underweight US Treasuries in global (USD-hedged) fixed income portfolios (Chart 6). Our other high-conviction underweight government bond call is in the UK. The BoE’s recent messaging has turned more hawkish in a very short period of time, justifying our decision to downgrade our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight last month.1 The BoE Monetary Policy Committee had already sharply upgraded its inflation forecast for the end of 2021 to just above 4% at the last policy meeting in August. That was categorized as just a temporary surge due to rising energy prices and goods prices elevated by shorter-term global supply chain bottlenecks. At last week’s meeting, however, the MPC noted that +4% UK inflation could persist into Q2 2022 because of the current surge in wholesale natural gas prices that has driven many UK gas suppliers out of business (Chart 7). Chart 6Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Chart 7BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation Chart 8Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts The official view of the BoE has been like that of other central banks, that much of the current high inflation is supply driven and, hence, will not last. Yet within the MPC, there is clearly some growing nervousness about high realized inflation becoming more embedded in longer-term inflation expectations, which are moving higher. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has noted in recent speeches that there was a growing case for interest rate hikes because of stubbornly higher inflation. Two members of the MPC even voted last week to reduce the size of the BoE’s QE program that is already set to end in just three months. The markets have begun to heed the more hawkish signals from the BoE. Our 24-month UK discounter, measuring the amount of rate hikes priced into the UK OIS curve, has jumped 24bps since September 7 (Chart 8). Over that same period, UK Gilts have underperformed the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 108bps (on a USD-hedged and duration-matched basis). We are sticking with our underweight recommendation on UK Gilts, as there are still too few rate hikes priced into the UK curve relative to the BoE’s guidance and upside inflation risks. What About The BoJ? Same Old, Same Old Chart 9Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Lost amid the hawkish din from the Fed and BoE meetings last week was the Bank of Japan (BoJ) meeting. The message from policymakers in Tokyo was predictably dovish, as Japan has not seen anything resembling the high inflation that has pushed central bankers elsewhere in a more hawkish direction. Japanese growth has also not seen the same magnitude of recovery from the pandemic shock as the other major developed markets, despite suffering comparable losses during the 2020 recession (Chart 9). One of the main reasons has been that Japan’s vaccine rollouts were much slower than those of other major countries. This forced an extension of emergency lockdowns and other economic restrictions that depressed domestic demand and delayed a return to normal economic activity (second panel). COVID outbreaks even cost Japan the one-time economic windfall from hosting an Olympics, with the Tokyo Games first delayed by a year and then taking place with no fans. Japan has also not suffered any of the higher inflation rates witnessed elsewhere over the past year, despite presumably facing many of the same inflationary forces from global supply chain disruption (third panel). Both headline and core CPI inflation are now in deflation. Governor Haruhiko Kuroda stated last week that it will take longer for Japan to see inflation return back to its 2% target than other developed countries, with the official BoJ forecast calling for that level to be reached by 2023 – a forecast that appears too optimistic. We continue to view Japanese government bonds (JGBs) as a relative safe haven during the period of rising global bond yields that we expect over the next 6-12 months. The BoJ is nowhere close to seeing the conditions necessary to begin exiting its Yield Curve Control and negative interest rate policies, both of which have crushed JGB volatility and kept longer-term bond yields hovering near 0%. We continue to recommend a moderate overweight stance on Japan in global government bond portfolios, particularly on a USD-hedged basis to make the yields more attractive. The Scandinavian Policy Divergence Last week, the Norges Bank raised its benchmark interest rate from 0% to 0.25% (Chart 10), stating that a normalizing economy requires a gradual normalization in monetary policy. The bank’s decision reflects idiosyncratic factors unique to the Norwegian economy, but also some of the same broader themes that are forcing other central banks in a more hawkish direction.   As a small economy driven heavily by oil exports, both the Norwegian krone and the price of oil weigh heavily on the policy decisions of the Norges Bank. On that front, the rise in energy prices since the crisis has outpaced the appreciation in the krone (Chart 10, top panel). With this relative weakness in the krone comes higher import price inflation and increased export competitiveness, both of which mean that the Norges Bank must pull forward its path of rate hikes to compensate. As opposed to other G10 central banks, the Norges Bank clearly believes a pre-emptive move on rates is necessary to nip future inflation risk in the bud. The bank expects that increased capacity utilization and wage growth will help push up underlying inflation to approximately 1.9% by the end of 2024, with the ongoing supply chain disruptions creating additional upside risk to that forecast. Like other G10 banks, however, the Norges Bank is concerned about increasing financial imbalances. The Norwegian house price-to-disposable income ratio is now at all-time highs and the Norges Bank expects it to remain elevated to the end of its forecast horizon (Chart 10, bottom panel). With the growth in house prices substantially outpacing income growth during the pandemic, housing market vulnerabilities have increased as households have taken on greater leverage to enter the market. In contrast to the Norges Bank, the other major Scandinavian central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, has hewed more closely to the prevailing global monetary policy orthodoxy – avoiding pre-emptive policy tightening in order to boost inflation. The central bank chose to hold its repo rate at 0% at last week’s policy meeting, even with a Swedish economy that has recovered the 2020 pandemic losses and is projected to return to pre-COVID growth rates in 2022 (Chart 11). In its decision, the Riksbank mirrored rhetoric from the Fed and ECB, citing that high inflation was driven by rising energy prices and supply logjams, both factors which are expected to subside over the coming year (Chart 11, middle panel). Both headline and core versions of the bank’s favored CPI-F (CPI with Fixed Interest Rate) measure are projected by the Riksbank to remain below target in 2022, reaching 2% only in 2024. Chart 10The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... Chart 11...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient Chart 12The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Riksbank is less willing than the Norges Bank to respond to temporarily higher inflation because of the former’s growing reluctance to return to negative nominal interest rates in response to an economic shock. The Riksbank would likely be more comfortable in lifting nominal rates only when real rates were significantly lower than current levels, which requires higher inflation. In contrast to the neighboring Norges Bank, the Riksbank has an additional tool which it can use to express shifts in monetary policy—the size of its balance sheet. The bank forecasts that holdings of securities will remain unchanged in 2022 (Chart 11, bottom panel), implying that purchases, net of redemptions, will be drawn down roughly to zero. However, the bank does believe that the existing stock of purchases will continue to support financial conditions. Chart 12 shows the impact of the Norges Bank’s relatively hawkish reaction function. Despite relatively similar underlying growth and inflation profiles, sovereign debt from Norway has markedly underperformed Swedish counterparts, a dynamic that has been even more obvious since the pandemic. On the currency side, the NOK/SEK cross has recovered much of the losses from 2020, and will likely rally further as Norway-Sweden rate differentials will turn even more favorable for the NOK. Relative to the global benchmark on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, Norwegian government debt has underperformed much more than Sweden following the pandemic. We see these tends continuing over the next 6-12 months, with the Norges Bank likely to remain far more hawkish than the Riksbank. Our bias is to favor Swedish sovereign debt over Norwegian government bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/European Investment Strategy Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns