Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Fed: The Fed is preparing markets for a taper announcement in Q4 of this year. But we don’t see asset purchase tapering as a catalyst for higher bond yields. Rather, bond yields will move higher as the employment data continue to come in hot. Job growth will be strong enough to reach the Fed’s definition of maximum employment by the end of 2022, and the fed funds rate will rise more quickly than is implied by current market expectations. Duration: The 10-year Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% to 2.25% by the time the Fed is ready to lift rates, near the end of 2022. Strong employment data will catalyze the next significant jump in bond yields, but this may not happen until Q4 of this year. The spread of the delta COVID variant could limit the pace of hiring during the next month or two, and bond market positioning may need to turn more bullish before yields can rise. Labor Market: After July’s strong employment report, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 431k is required to reach the Fed’s “maximum employment” liftoff criteria by the end of 2022. Feature Chart 1A Tapering Announcement Is Coming A Tapering Announcement Is Coming A Tapering Announcement Is Coming It’s finally time to talk about tapering. Several Fed governors and regional presidents made media appearances last week, each one presenting a timeline that sets up a tapering announcement before the end of this year. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller: I think you could be ready to do an announcement by September. That depends on what the next two jobs reports do. If they come in as strong as the last one, then I think you have made the progress you need. If they don’t, then I think you are probably going to have to push things back a couple of months.1 St Louis Fed President James Bullard: I don’t think that we need to continue with these purchases now that we’ve got new risks on the horizon and possibly inflation risks on the horizon. […] What I think we should do here is start sooner and go faster and get finished by the end of the first quarter of next year. We don’t really need the purchases anymore.2 Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan: As long as we continue to make progress in July (jobs) numbers and in August jobs numbers, I think we’d be better off to start adjusting these purchases soon. Doing so gradually, over a time frame of plus or minus about eight months, will help give ourselves as much flexibility as possible to be patient and be flexible on the fed funds rate.3 Fed Governor Lael Brainard presented the most detailed description of what it will take for the Fed to start paring its asset purchases.4 Since December, the Fed’s criteria for tapering has been “substantial further progress” toward its employment and price stability goals. In December, nonfarm payrolls were about 10 million below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2A). In her speech, which was given prior to the release of July’s jobs report, Brainard noted that if employment grows at the same rate in Q3 as it did in Q2, then “about two-thirds of the outstanding job losses as of December 2020” would be made up by the end of 2021. That figure rose to 71% after July’s strong jobs number (Chart 2B). Chart 2AConditions For Tapering Conditions For Tapering Conditions For Tapering Chart 2BDefining "Substantial Further Progress" Defining "Substantial Further Progress" Defining "Substantial Further Progress" In other words, as long as employment growth stays solid – in the 500k/month range – then the Fed will be well over 50% of the way toward its maximum employment goal by the end of this year. This would certainly count as “substantial further progress”. Our expectation is that Q3 jobs growth will be strong enough for the Fed to make an official taper announcement in Q4, with the actual tapering starting in January 2022.5 There is an outside chance that the Fed will rush to start tapering earlier, but only if long-dated inflation expectations rise to well above the Fed’s target range (Chart 2A, bottom panel). As for market impact, we don’t expect the tapering announcement to move markets all that much. First, we mainly care about asset purchase tapering because it could signal that the Fed intends to move more quickly toward rate hikes (Chart 1). This is the concern that prompted the 2013 taper tantrum. This time around, however, the Fed has tied liftoff to explicit employment and inflation criteria. This forward guidance significantly weakens the signaling power of any tapering announcement. Second, surveys indicate that market participants already anticipate that tapering will start in early-2022 (Tables 1A & 1B). In other words, a Q4 taper announcement shouldn’t be that much of a shock to expectations. Table 1ASurvey Of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering Table 1BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering Interestingly, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida did manage to shock markets with his speech last week, but only because he went further than just a discussion of tapering. Specifically, Clarida articulated his expected timeline for lifting interest rates: Chart 3Median FOMC Forecasts Median FOMC Forecasts Median FOMC Forecasts While, as Chair Powell indicated last week, we are clearly a ways away from considering raising interest rates and this is certainly not something on the radar screen right now, if the outlook for inflation and outlook for unemployment I summarized earlier turn out to be the actual outcomes for inflation and unemployment realized over the forecast horizon, then I believe that these three necessary conditions for raising the target range for the federal funds rate will have been met by year-end 2022.6 What are the economic forecasts that Clarida says would meet the conditions for liftoff by the end of 2022? It turns out that they are very close to the FOMC’s median projections (Chart 3). The Fed’s forecast calls for 3% core PCE inflation in 2021, falling to 2.1% in 2022 and 2023. The Fed also sees the unemployment rate falling to 4.5% by the end of this year, 3.8% by the end of 2022 and 3.5% by the end of 2023. Clarida said that he views this forecast as consistent with overall employment returning to its pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022. We think Clarida’s expected timeline is reasonable. The Appendix at the end of this report presents different scenarios for when the Fed’s “maximum employment” liftoff condition might be met. We estimate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 431k will get us to maximum employment by the end of 2022, in time for early-2023 liftoff. At least so far, monthly nonfarm payroll growth is tracking well above the 431k threshold. If we compare our (and Clarida’s) forecast to market prices, we conclude that market rate expectations are too low. The overnight index swap curve is priced for Fed liftoff in January 2023 but for not even three 25 basis point rate hikes in total by the end of 2023 (Chart 4). This seems too low if the Fed’s liftoff criteria are in fact met by the end of 2022, as is our expectation. Chart 4Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Bottom Line: The Fed is preparing markets for a taper announcement in Q4 of this year. But we don’t see asset purchase tapering as a catalyst for higher bond yields. Rather, bond yields will move higher as the employment data continue to come in hot. Job growth will be strong enough to reach the Fed’s definition of maximum employment by the end of 2022, and the fed funds rate will rise more quickly than is implied by current market expectations. Timing The Move Higher In Yields Our expectation for a return to maximum employment by the end of 2022 implies that bond yields will be significantly higher by then. Specifically, we expect that both the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and the 10-year Treasury yield will be in a range between 2% and 2.25% by the time of the first rate hike (Chart 5). The 2% to 2.25% range is consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. But a big question remains over the timing of the next move higher in yields. Are bond yields poised to jump higher immediately? Or will they remain low for the next few months and move up only in 2022? Our sense is that the catalyst for the next significant jump in bond yields will be surprisingly strong employment data. There is widespread consensus that inflation will be close to the Fed’s target (if not higher) by the end of 2022, but recent concerns about labor supply have increased the uncertainty around employment projections. Ultimately, we think that labor supply constraints will ease and that the unemployment rate will catch up to levels implied by different labor demand indicators (Chart 6). However, this may not happen during the next month or two. Chart 5A Target For Long-Dated Yields A Target For Long-Dated Yields A Target For Long-Dated Yields Chart 6Labor Demand Is Strong Labor Demand Is Strong Labor Demand Is Strong The spread of the Delta coronavirus variant has just started to ramp up in the United States (Chart 7). The UK’s experience with the variant shows that vaccination significantly limits the number of hospitalizations and suggests that economic lockdowns can be avoided. However, it took about one month for the UK’s new case count to peak once the variant started spreading. A similar roadmap could lead to hiring delays in the US during the next month or two, at least until the new case count starts to fall and concerns abate. From a market technical perspective, we also note that bond market positioning remains significantly net short and that bond market sentiment is less bullish than is often the case at major inflection points (Chart 8). This is not the ideal technical set-up for a large immediate jump in bond yields. Chart 7Delta Is A Near-Term Risk To Hiring Delta Is A Near-Term Risk To Hiring Delta Is A Near-Term Risk To Hiring Chart 8Positioning & Sentiment Positioning & Sentiment Positioning & Sentiment Bottom Line: The 10-year Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% to 2.25% by the time the Fed is ready to lift rates, near the end of 2022. Strong employment data will catalyze the next significant jump in bond yields, but this may not happen until Q4 of this year. The spread of the delta COVID variant could limit the pace of hiring during the next month or two, and bond market positioning may need to turn more bullish before yields can rise. 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 more or less complete recovery of the labor force participation rate back to February 2020 levels (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 3.7% and a participation rate of 63%. 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 +431k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents Talking About Tapering Talking About Tapering 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 continues to print at the same level as last month, then we could anticipate a Fed rate hike by June 2022. Table A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff 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. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-02/waller-says-strong-job-reports-may-warrant-september-taper-call?sref=Ij5V3tFi 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/video-appearances/2021/bullard-washington-post-inflation-tapering 3 https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/exclusive-feds-kaplan-wants-bond-buying-taper-start-soon-be-gradual-2021-08-04/ 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20210730a.htm 5 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021. 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1Still Close To Fair Value Still Close To Fair Value Still Close To Fair Value Treasury yields fell significantly in July, particularly at the long end of the curve. We continue to view this move as an overreaction to mediocre economic data that will be reversed this fall when labor supply constraints ease and employment surprises to the upside. It’s important to note, however, that despite the drop in long-dated yields the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield remains within the bounds of its 1.75% to 2.5% fair value range (Chart 1). That is, shorter-maturity Treasury yields have much more upside than long-dated yields on a 6-12 month investment horizon. We expect the next big move in bonds to be a bear-flattening of the yield curve as the market prices in a Fed rate hike cycle that we see starting near the end of 2022. Investors should position for that outcome today by keeping portfolio duration low and by entering yield curve flatteners. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +172 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 89 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 looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled about corporate bond excess returns.1 It shows that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend that investors shift into high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates. We also advise investors to favor long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2   Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +433 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 1.6% through the first six months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report looked at the incremental spread pick-up investors can earn by moving out of investment grade corporates and into junk.4 It concluded that the extra spread available in high-yield is worth grabbing and that B-rated bonds look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms.   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -64 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 8 bps in July. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 3 bps in July (panel 3), and it is now starting to look more competitive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 36 bps, below the 54 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 20 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 34 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 34 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +57 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 149 bps in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -113 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +35 bps. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 19 bps in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +372 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 2 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +28 bps. Supranationals performed in line with Treasuries in July, year-to-date excess returns held flat at +26 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds continue to offer an attractive spread pick-up versus investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. A recent report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.6 It found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. It also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +271 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop is 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 GO munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a 10% breakeven tax rate versus corporates with the same credit rating and duration. The breakeven tax rate for Revenue munis is just 2% (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 bull-flattened in July. Bond yields were down across the curve, but by much more at the long end. The 2-year/10-year slope flattened 15 bps to end the month at 105 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope steepened 1 bp to end the month at 120 bps. While we expect the recent decline in bond yields to reverse during the next 6-12 months, we do not think this reversal will coincide with a re-steepening of the 2/10 yield curve. We noted on the first page of this report that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield remains close to its fair value range. Last week’s report 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 0.17% in one year’s time and 1.36% in five years (Chart 7). While the latter rate has 157 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, this pales in comparison to the 269 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 112 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +578 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose by 9 bps and 8 bps, respectively, on the month. At 2.43%, 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 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 investment 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 some modest steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). While the inflation curve has some room to steepen, we don’t see it returning to positive territory. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one. This is because the Fed’s new framework calls for it to attack its inflation target from above rather than from below.  ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +37 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 3 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +28 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +88 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, pushing the savings rate higher yet again (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 3 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +187 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS performed in-line with Treasuries in July, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at +82 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 16 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +539 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 underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +87 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 5 bps on the month and it currently sits at 34 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. 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 July 30TH, 2021) It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners 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 July 30TH, 2021) It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners 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 26 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 26 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) It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners 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 July 30TH, 2021) It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners It’s Time For Bear-Flatteners Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 For ideas on how to increase the average spread of a US bond portfolio 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, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 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.

Highlights The countertrend yield rally is near its end. Despite the deteriorating Chinese credit impulse, the outlook for global growth remains robust. An ample global liquidity backdrop, an inventory restocking cycle, and an upbeat capex outlook will increase aggregate demand and global capacity utilization. In this context, safe-haven bonds have sufficiently rallied. German yields will rise too, because the European yield curve will steepen. European banks will benefit from this trend. Investors should buy European momentum stocks and sell growth stocks. Investors should favor industrial equities and Sweden. Feature On April 12 of this year, we warned that a countertrend rally in bonds was increasingly likely. The decline in the Chinese credit impulse and the increasingly oversold state of Treasuries created the perfect conditions to generate disappointments in a lopsided market. As a corollary, we grew worried about our equity positioning, which calls for a large exposure to pro-cyclical stocks. Consequently, we recommended investors hedge this portfolio bias with some defensive bets. On July 20, Treasury yields fell to as low as 1.13%. Did this level mark the end of the Treasury rally? The bulk of the decline is behind us, and investors with a 12- to 18-month investment horizon should resume shortening portfolio duration. In Europe too, German yields are likely to trend higher. As a result, European financials and momentum stocks should generate significant outperformance in the coming quarters. Industrial equities are also set to shine, which will benefit the Swedish market, our favorite. Should I Stay Or Should I Go? The near-term outlook for Treasuries is currently more complex than it was in April, when forces lined up neatly to warn of an imminent pullback in yields. Technical indicators show that the oversold conditions that prevailed this spring have mostly cleared up. In April, the BCA Composite Technical Indicator for Treasuries reached its most oversold level in more than 20 years, which provided a very reliable buy signal (Chart 1). Now that the 10-year yield has reclaimed its 40-week moving average, the technical indicator is back to neutral. Normally, when bonds are in a cyclical bear market, which is BCA’s House View, the indicator rarely dips significantly into overbought territory. Meanwhile, the Marketvane Bullish Sentiment survey stands at 60%, which indicates that bonds are once again favored by many newsletters, traders, and investors. Chinese credit growth continues to send a bond-bullish signal (Chart 2). Slowing credit growth could hurt Chinese capex, which in turn has the potential to slow the demand for capital at the global level. This risk could still decrease global yields. Chart 1Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Bonds Are Not Oversold Anymore... Chart 2...But China Still Consistutes A Risk ...But China Still Consistutes A Risk ...But China Still Consistutes A Risk Chart 3A Synchronous Global Upswing A Synchronous Global Upswing A Synchronous Global Upswing The global economic recovery remains sufficiently broad-based to compensate for the risk of a Chinese slowdown. Our Global Synchronicity Indicator shows that manufacturing PMIs among the world’s major economies are all expanding (Chart 3), which usually elevates yields. This is especially important today, because the far-reaching and generalized nature of the current recovery gives more scope to the global economy to withstand a Chinese economic deceleration. Bottom Line: The variables that called for lower yields in early April are currently sending a mixed message. “Go!” The Global Business Cycle Responds Outside of China’s TSF impulse, most economic variables point toward higher yields. Chart 4Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Financial Liquidity Lifts The Business Cycle Global liquidity conditions remain consistent with higher growth and thus also with rising global interest rates. BCA’s US Financial Liquidity Index still stands near record highs and confirms that the Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) will remain at elevated levels (Chart 4). As a result, we expect the current fall in the Global LEI Diffusion Index to be short lived. Any softening in global growth, therefore, will prove to be transitory. Markets are forward looking. The recent decline in yields anticipated the deceleration in the Global LEI. Long-term rates will also increase before the LEI firms anew.  Excess money growth tells a similar story. Historically, an expansion of the global money supply in excess of the demand for credit sends a strong signal that global economic activity is well supported by reflationary policies. It forecasts above-trend industrial production growth, robust international trade and rising global export prices. Currently, excess money growth in the US, Eurozone and Japan has overtaken its post-GFC high and is consistent with higher US and German yields (Chart 5). Global capacity utilization also points toward higher yields. Our US Composite Capacity Utilization indicator is back in the neutral zone after a steep decline in 2020. Furthermore, US industrial capacity utilization is currently back above its structural trend. Most importantly, capacity utilization should be evaluated at the global level. Even when slower-growing economies such as the Euro Area and Japan are included, global capacity utilization is improving enough to be consistent with rising yields (Chart 6). Chart 5Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Excess Money Points To Higher Yields Chart 6Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Rising CAPU Lifts Yields Capacity utilization should climb higher in the coming quarters as the world experiences an inventory re-stocking cycle. The US, with its rich data, provides a good example. The sales-to-inventory ratio is at an extremely elevated level and is climbing very rapidly (Chart 7). Meanwhile, the level of inventories is still 1% below its pre-pandemic peak, while GDP overtook it previous high in the second quarter, and business sales are 11% above their 2018 high. The recent rise in inflation highlights the inability of companies to fulfil demand for their goods and services and, consequently, the need to restock. Hence, we expect companies to increase their inventory spending, which will add to demand and to capacity utilization as the adjustment process takes place. Capex will also lift capacity utilization and put upward pressure on yields. US capex intentions are rising swiftly as firms are unable to meet demand (Chart 8, top panel). Our Japanese Capex Indicator reiterates this message, while the European Commission’s Investment Surveys are also recovering (Chart 8 bottom panels). Historically, capex intentions are an excellent, leading indicator of actual investments, hence, the recent poor capex numbers will not last. Chart 7Restocking Ahead! Restocking Ahead! Restocking Ahead! Chart 8Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Climbing Capex Intentions Everywhere Greater global cash flow growth is also consistent with higher capex. The growth in EBITDA among global companies has bottomed, and it is currently around 14%. Incidentally, this suggests that capex among quoted firms around the world should expand in the second half of the year by a similar amount (Chart 9). Ultimately, robust cash flows finance expansion plans and also send a strong signal to corporate boards that the environment is ripe for investment spending. Already, capital goods orders are strengthening, which confirms the signal from both the capex surveys and profits. This strength portends very strong private capex numbers in the coming quarters and thus, a greater level of demand in the economy (Chart 10). Chart 9Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Rising Cash Flows Lead To Higher Capex Chart 10Strong Global Orders Strong Global Orders Strong Global Orders Public infrastructure plans will create the final boost to global capex. $550 billion of the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan is getting close to bipartisan approval, and the budget reconciliation process might still result in an even bigger package before yearend. In Europe, the EUR800 billion NGEU plan that has been approved by all the EU’s national parliaments also includes large infrastructure spending envelopes to deploy over the coming five years. This context suggests that yields are unlikely to decline much further from current levels, since the oversold conditions that prevailed in March have been purged. Chart 11 shows that specific events are needed to prompt a greater 90-trading day collapse in yields than the one just registered. In 2019 and 2020, the Fed was cutting rates. Today, it is gearing up to raise them. In 2010 and 2011, the European sovereign debt crisis was hurting global growth and creating massive deflationary risks. In 2015, China was mired in deep deflation and devalued the RMB, which exported these negative pressures around the world and lowered yields. By late 2018, the yield curve was moving toward an inversion, which signaled that monetary policy was too tight. Today, none of these conditions are present and, consequently, the odds of a greater decline in yields are low. Chart 11Yields Have Moved Enough Yields Have Moved Enough Yields Have Moved Enough Bottom Line: The broad-based nature of the global recovery will limit the decline in yields. Global liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative, global capacity utilization is improving, and inventories and capex spending will add to demand in the coming quarters. In this context, the recent decline in yields corrected this spring’s oversold condition in the bond market sufficiently. Investment Implications Bonds Investors with an investment horizon of more than six months should reduce their portfolio duration and remove hedges protecting against higher yields. The low in Treasury yields is likely to stay around 1.1%. The exact timing of the rebound is imprecise, and yields could churn for a brief period and retest their recent lows, but the balance of risks points toward a much greater probability of higher yields in the coming six to twelve months, and a limited probability of significantly lower yields from current levels. In fact, the CRB-to-gold ratio, often shown by BCA’s US bond strategists, clearly favors higher yields (Chart 12). Higher yields are not inconsistent with BCA’s view that the current inflation spike is transitory. TIPS yields are at a record low. As global growth recovers and the Fed moves closer to removing some accommodation, real yields will increase (Chart 13, top panel). Meanwhile, 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rates remain well below the 2.5%-to-3% zone that prevailed prior to 2014, when long-term inflation expectations were still well anchored (Chart 13, bottom panel). The Fed is actively aiming to push this inflation expectation measure higher. Chart 12The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields The CRB/Gold Ratio Points To Higher Yields Chart 13TIPS Yields Will Rise TIPS Yields Will Rise TIPS Yields Will Rise Chart 14The European Yield Curve Will Steepen The European Yield Curve Will Steepen The European Yield Curve Will Steepen German yields have some upside too, even if the ECB will lag well behind the Fed in terms of both ending its QE program and lifting interest rates. The ECB policy rate mostly anchors the short end of the curve, and the large European excess savings warrant lower Bund yields than those of T-Note. However, the nominal and real terminal rates embedded in the German curve remain lower than at the apex of the European sovereign debt crisis and are extremely low compared to the US. As a result, the European yield curve will steepen, which is confirmed by the comparative strength of the earnings revisions of Europe’s cyclical equity sectors (Chart 14). Equities An environment in which yields rise again should favor financials, industrials, and momentum stocks at the expense of growth stocks. In Europe, banks and financials will be the prime beneficiaries of higher yields. Historically, higher German Bund yields are associated with an outperformance of banks relative to the broad market, because a steeper yield curve boosts net interest margins (Chart 15). European banks also have scope for some re-rating. There is little case to significantly upgrade the sectors’ expected long-term profitability significantly, considering that the European economy remains replete with an excessively large capital stock. Nonetheless, at a price-to-book ratio of 0.6 or 55% below that of US banks and 67% below the European broad market, European banks are also priced as risky investments. However, European NPLs have declined significantly, and the public sector support during the pandemic will limit how high NPLs can rise (Chart 16, top panel). Moreover, European banks are much better capitalized than they once were, which further decreases their riskiness (Chart 16). Additionally, the ECB has allowed banks to pay dividends again. Finally, the fiscal risk sharing created by the NGEU funds and continued bond purchases by the ECB will cap the upside for peripheral yield spreads, which will limit the odds of the emergence of the kind of doom-loop that once plagued the European banking system. UK bank stocks look particularly attractive.   Chart 15European Banks Have Upside European Banks Have Upside European Banks Have Upside Chart 16Less Risky Less Risky Less Risky The massive underperformance of European momentum stocks relative to growth stocks is also likely to reverse (Chart 17). As Chart 18 shows, momentum stocks currently trade at an exceptionally large discount to both growth stocks and the European broad market. Most importantly, momentum equities tend to outperform growth stocks in the wake of a rise in German yields (Chart 19). This sensitivity to yields is currently accentuated by the sector bias of momentum stocks. Relative to growth stocks, momentum equities greatest overweights are financials, industrials and materials (Table 1), three sectors that thrive on higher interest rates. Meanwhile, their largest relative underweights are consumer staples and healthcare, two sectors with strong defensive characteristics that benefit from lower yields.  Chart 17Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Bomned Out Momentum Stocks... Chart 18...Have Become Very Cheap ...Have Become Very Cheap ...Have Become Very Cheap Chart 19Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Momentum Stocks Outperform When Yields Rise Table 1Sector Biases: Momentum Vs Growth Stocks The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Chart 20The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials The Capex Outlook Favors Industrials Finally, we recommend investors move more aggressively into industrial equities. Industrials are the best-placed sector to benefit from the rise in global capex and the excess money supply growth. As Chart 20 highlights, even if the rate of growth of global capital goods orders decelerates, industrials should outperform the European broad market as long as the rate of growth remains positive. Nonetheless, the sector’s outperformance could moderate because it has become more expensive than the broad market. However, a stronger profitability compensates for this negative. As a corollary, we continue to favor Swedish equities because of their 38% weight in industrials and 27% allocation to financials. Moreover, their superior return on equity and profit margins, as well as the EUR/SEK’s downside potential, add to Sweden’s allure. The largest risk for industrials remains the slowdown in the Chinese credit impulse. However, the upbeat picture for DM capex and inventory growth counters this negative side. We continue to recommend some hedges against this risk. When it comes to our Sweden overweight, we still advise selling Norway, a position that has worked out well. We also still like selling consumer discretionary equities / long European telecoms to protect portfolios against a greater-than-anticipated global slowdown. Bottom Line: Global safe-haven yields are unlikely to decline significantly from current levels. Instead, they will rise meaningfully in the coming quarters, even in Germany. Consequently, investors with an investment horizon greater than six months should curtail their portfolio duration once again. Higher yields will also benefit European bank equities. We also recommend investors buy European momentum stocks and sell growth stocks. Finally, European industrials are set to shine compared to the rest of the European market, which will give a fillip to Swedish stocks, our favored European market.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Currency Performance Currency Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Corporate Bonds The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Equity Performance Major Stock Indices The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Geographic Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally Sector Performance The Ageing Bond Rally The Ageing Bond Rally

Highlights Recent progress on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions has been mixed. The share of vaccinated individuals continues to rise globally, and the number of confirmed UK cases has recently peaked. However, vaccine penetration remains comparatively low in the US, and there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination. Given the emergence of the delta variant as well as vaccine hesitancy in some countries, policymakers currently face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the Mundell-Fleming Impossible Trinity. The pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity suggests that policymakers cannot simultaneously prevent the reintroduction of pandemic control measures while maintaining a functioning medical system and the complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. Were they to occur, the imposition of renewed pandemic control measures or a dangerous rise in hospitalizations this fall would likely weigh on earnings expectations, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming 3-6 months. 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. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. Feature Since we published our last report, progress made on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions have been mixed. Encouragingly, Chart I-1 highlights that the share of people who have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine continues to rise outside of Africa, which continues to be impacted by India’s ban on vaccine exports. By the end of September, at least a quarter of the world’s population will have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and many more will have received at least one dose. Pfizer’s plan to request emergency authorization for its vaccine for children aged 5-11 by October also stands to raise total vaccination rates in advanced economies even further by the end of the year. In addition, Chart I-2 presents further evidence that the relationship between new cases of COVID-19 and hospitalization has truly been altered. The chart shows that the number of patients in UK hospitals is much lower than what would be implied by the number of new cases, which itself now appears to have peaked at a lower level than that of January. Given that the strain on the medical system is the dominant constraint facing policymakers, a modest rise in hospitalizations implies a durable end to pandemic restrictions and a return to economic normality. Chart I-1Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Chart I-2Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations   However, the risk from the delta variant appears to be higher in the US than in the UK, due to a lower level of vaccine penetration. Only 56% of the US population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 67% in Israel, 69% in the UK, and 71% in Canada. And thus far, there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination in the US in response to the threat from the delta variant, despite recent exhortations from politicians and media personalities from both sides of the political spectrum. The Impossible Trinity: Pandemic Edition Last year, most investors would have said that the existence of a safe and effective vaccine would likely be enough to durably end the pandemic. But given the development of more dangerous variants of the disease, and the existence of vaccine hesitancy in many countries, policymakers now face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the concept of the “Impossible Trinity” as described by Mundell and Fleming. The upper portion of Chart I-3 illustrates the standard view of the Impossible Trinity, which posits that policymakers must choose one side of the triangle, while foregoing the opposite economic attribute. For example, most modern economies have chosen “B,” gaining the free flow of capital and independent monetary policy by giving up a fixed exchange rate regime (and allowing currency volatility). By contrast, Hong Kong has chosen side “A,” meaning that its monetary policy is driven by the Federal Reserve in exchange for a pegged currency and an open capital account. The lower portion of Chart I-3 presents the pandemic version of the trilemma, which sees policymakers having to choose two of these three outcomes: No economically-damaging pandemic control restrictions placed on society A functioning medical system The complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated Chart I-3Variants And Vaccine Hesitancy Have Created A Difficult Choice For Policymakers August 2021 August 2021 In reality, the pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity is likely to be resolved in a fashion similar to how China views the original trilemma,1 which is to distribute a 200% “adoption rate” among the three competing choices. In essence, this means that policymakers will likely partially adopt all three measures with a degree of intensity that will change over time in response to the prevailing circumstances. Chart I-4No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates But Chart I-4 is a clear example of the differences in approach adopted by the US in response to vaccine hesitancy compared to other. So far, attempts to convince vaccine-hesitant Americans to get their shot have relied mostly on “carrot” approaches in an attempt to preserve individual freedom of choice, i.e. side “B” in Chart I-3. As noted above, these measures, so far, have failed, as there has been no noticeable uptick in the pace of vaccine doses administered in the US over the past month. By contrast, France, like several other countries, has begun to use “stick” approaches that push it more toward side “A” of the trilemma. In mid-July, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that French citizens who want to visit cafes, bars or shopping centers must show proof of vaccination or a negative test result. The policy also mandated that French health care and nursing home workers must be vaccinated. The result was a sharp, and thus far sustained, uptick in the pace of doses administered. For equity investors, the risk is that the politically contentious nature of vaccine mandates in the US will cause policymakers to acquiesce to renewed pandemic control measures this fall if the delta variant continues to spread widely over the coming few months (as seems likely). Alternatively, policymakers may allow a dangerous increase in hospitalizations, but this would merely postpone the imposition of control measures – and they would be more severe once reintroduced. Thus, there is a legitimate risk that the spread of the delta variant in the US does weigh on earnings expectations, especially for consumer-oriented services companies, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. Bond Yields, Delta, And Slowing Growth Momentum Chart I-5Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Of course, many investors would point to the significant decline in US 10-year bond yields since mid-March as having already acted in response to waning growth momentum. For example, the peak in US bond yields coincided with the March peak in the ISM manufacturing PMI, as well as a meaningful shift lower in the US economic surprise index (Chart I-5). Without a soaring inflation surprise index, the overall economic surprise index for the US would likely already be negative. The takeaway for some investors has been that a decline in yields has been normal given that the economy has passed its point of maximum strength. But there are two aspects of this narrative that do not accord with the data. First, Chart I-6 highlights that growth is peaking from an extremely strong pace, making it difficult to justify the magnitude of the decline in long-term yields over the past few months. And second, Chart I-7 highlights that the decline in the US 10-year yield closely corresponds to delta variant developments in the US. The chart shows that the 10-year yield broke below 1.5% shortly after the effective US COVID-19 reproduction rate (“R0”) began to rise, and the significant decline in yields over the past month began once R0 rose above 1. Chart I-7 does suggest that yields have reacted in response to the growth outlook, but in a different way than the “maximum strength” narrative suggests. Chart I-6…But Growth Itself Remains Quite Strong August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-7The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta Chart I-810-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed While we can identify the apparent trigger for the decline in bond yields since mid-March, we do not agree that the decline is fundamentally justified. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. For example, Chart I-8 highlights that the 10-year yield is now 60 basis points below its fair value level in a scenario in which the Fed only begins to raise interest rates in mid-2023, underscoring that the recent decline in yields is overdone. And, although it is also true that market-based measures of inflation compensation have eased from their May highs, we have noted in previous reports that the Fed’s reaction function is almost exclusively driven by progress in the labor market back toward “maximum employment” levels – not inflation. Chart I-9 highlights that US real output per worker has grown at a much faster pace since the onset of the pandemic than what occurred on average over the past four economic recoveries, reflecting the success that US fiscal policy has had in supporting aggregate demand as well as constraints on labor supply in services industries. These factors will wane in intensity over the coming year, suggesting that real output per worker is unlikely to rise meaningfully further over that time horizon. Based on consensus market expectations for growth as well as the Fed’s most recent forecasts, a flat trend in real output per worker over the coming year would imply that the employment gap will be closed by Q2 of next year. This would be consistent with the recent trend in high frequency mobility data, such as US air traveler throughput and public transportation use in New York City (Chart I-10), the epicenter of the negative impact on urban core services employment stemming from the pandemic “work from home” effect. Chart I-9Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022   A closed employment gap by the middle of next year would imply that the Fed will begin to raise rates sometime in 2H 2022. Even if this were delayed by several months due to delta, Chart I-8 illustrated that 10-year Treasury yields are still too low. No Help From China If the spread of the delta variant over the coming few months does temporarily weigh on developed market economic activity via renewed pandemic control measures, investors should note that the lack of a countervailing growth impulse from China may act as an aggravating factor. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s PMI remains persistently below its 12-month trend, as it has tended to do following a decline in China’s credit impulse. And while some investors were hoping that the PBOC’s recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio represented a pivot in Chinese monetary policy towards sustained easing, Chart I-12 highlights that the 3-month repo rate remains well off its low from last year – and is only modestly lower than it was on average during most of the 2018/2019 period. Chart I-11China Is Slowing, And Policy Has Not Yet Reversed Course August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-12The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift   The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming three to six months. Investment Conclusions Chart I-13Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term The unprecedented nature of the pandemic, as well as the unclear impact the delta variant will have given prevailing rates of vaccination in advanced economies, has clouded the near-term economic outlook. It is unlikely that the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 will have a long-lasting impact on economic activity in advanced economies, but it does have the potential to cause the temporary reintroduction of some pandemic restrictions and, thus, modestly delay the transition to a post-pandemic state. While long-term government bond yields are set to rise on a 12-month time horizon, financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-term bond yields could remain well-bid over the next few months. Chart I-13 highlights that cyclical equity sectors have underperformed defensive equity sectors over the past month, and banks have underperformed the overall index. The correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the relative performance of value and growth stocks has also held up, with growth stocks outperforming since the end of March. Global ex-US equities have also underperformed US stocks, and the dollar has modestly risen. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for a reversal of all these recent moves. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. This underscores that cyclical investment strategy will be even more data dependent than usual throughout the second half of the calendar year. The pace of nonfarm payrolls growth in the US remains the single most important data release driving US monetary policy, and investors should especially focus on whether jobs growth this fall is consistent with the Fed’s maximum employment objective, as the impact of the delta variant becomes clearer, as constraints to labor supply are removed, and as employees progressively return to work. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 29, 2021 Next Report: August 26, 2021 II. The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts II-1 and II-2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Chart II-1Facebook: Monthly Active Users August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide August 2021 August 2021   Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart II-3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart II-4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart II-3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart II-4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News August 2021 August 2021 As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart II-5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart II-6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table II-1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart II-6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table II-1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media August 2021 August 2021   And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.2 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart II-7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart II-7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart II-7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake Chart II-8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart II-9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart II-9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart II-10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Chart II-10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart II-11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart II-12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart II-11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism August 2021 August 2021 Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart II-13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart II-14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart II-15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart II-13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart II-14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings   Chart II-15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart II-15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. Chart II-16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty But Chart II-16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Chart II-17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart II-17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Chart II-18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart II-18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,3 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart II-19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart II-20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart II-19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth August 2021 August 2021   This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.4 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart II-21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart II-22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart II-21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years August 2021 August 2021 The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart II-23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart II-22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart II-22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart II-24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart II-21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,5 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.6 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Chart II-25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart II-25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart II-25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart II-25. Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. 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. But investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has fallen sharply since mid-March. This decline was initially caused by waning growth momentum, but has since morphed into concern about the impact of the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 and the implications for US monetary policy. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have normalized, whereas industrial metals have moved mostly sideways since late-April and agricultural prices remain 13% below their early-May high. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines in some commodity prices as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain very elevated, but are starting 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 China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?” dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 5 Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 6 “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights Portfolio Duration: The decline in US bond yields is overdone. We anticipate that strong US employment data will catalyze a jump in bond yields this fall and that the 10-year US Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% - 2.25% by the time that the Fed is ready to lift rates, likely by the end of 2022. Maintain below-benchmark duration in bond portfolios. US Yield Curve: Investors should position for a rebound in bond yields but not a reversal of recent US Treasury curve flattening. In fact, we advocate owning 2/10 flatteners on the US Treasury curve as we see ample room for further curve flattening as Fed rate hikes approach in late-2022. ECB: The ECB’s new forward interest rate guidance has moved it that much closer to the Fed’s ultra-accommodative stance. This reinforces the defensive nature of the European bond market. Investors should overweight European bonds within global fixed income portfolios with a particular emphasis on peripheral European bond markets like Italy and Spain. Feature Chart 1Can The Bond Rally Continue? Can The Bond Rally Continue? Can The Bond Rally Continue? The bond rally continues to rip. The selloff that started last August when Jay Powell officially announced the Federal Reserve’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target ended on March 31st 2021. Since then, the 10-year US Treasury yield has retraced from 1.74% to 1.29% and the Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury index has clawed back 285 bps of excess return versus cash, partially offsetting the 465 bps that were lost between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 1). The US Bond Strategy Weekly Report from two weeks ago and last week’s Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report both discuss the reasons for recent bond market strength.1 We won’t re-hash those arguments this week except to reiterate our conclusion that the decline in US bond yields is overdone. We anticipate that strong US employment data will catalyze a jump in bond yields this fall and that the 10-year US Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% - 2.25% by the time that the Fed is ready to lift rates, likely by the end of 2022. The first section of this week’s report looks at whether correlations between different asset classes have held up during the recent bond rally, with a focus on whether those relationships give us any information about the near-term direction for bond yields. The second section considers the outlook for the slope of the US Treasury curve and the third section discusses the recently released results of the European Central Bank’s strategy review. Cross-Market Correlations During The Bond Rally The bond rally has been just as intense as the prior sell-off. The US Treasury index has outperformed a position in cash by an annualized 9% since March 31st, matching the annualized losses of 9% seen between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 2). An important question to answer is whether this bond market performance is consistent with other asset classes. If it is, then it may suggest that the economy is experiencing a deflationary episode and that bond yields have further downside. If it isn’t, then it is more likely that the drop in bond yields will be temporary. Chart 2Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Equities And Corporate Credit Chart 3Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Looking first at corporate bonds, we find that – consistent with stronger Treasury performance – excess US corporate bond returns have slowed since March 31st. Baa-rated corporates have been outperforming at an annualized rate of 3% since March 31st compared to an annualized rate of 12% between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 2, panel 2). Equities, on the other hand, have maintained their strong performance. The S&P 500 returned an annualized 30% between August 2020 and March 2021 and has returned an even greater 42% (annualized) since the end of March (Chart 2, panel 3). Extremely tight spreads are the most likely explanation for lower corporate bond excess returns. Meanwhile, the fact that equities continue to perform well is an indication that the drop in bond yields may be overdone. Interestingly, while overall equity returns haven’t dropped in line with bond yields, the relative performance of equity sectors has been totally consistent with the movement in yields (Chart 3). Cyclical equity sectors (Industrials, Energy and Materials) have underperformed defensive equity sectors (Healthcare, Telecoms, Consumer Staples and Utilities) and Banks have underperformed the overall index. The correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the relative performance of value and growth stocks has also held up, with growth stocks outperforming since the end of March (Chart 3, bottom panel). Bonds Versus Commodities Chart 4Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged We see the biggest divergence in relative performance between bond yields and commodities. Historically, the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index and Gold is tightly correlated with the 10-year US Treasury yield. However, the CRB/Gold ratio has increased since the end of March while bond yields have fallen (Chart 4). In our view, this is the strongest piece of evidence suggesting that bond yields have overshot to the downside. Bonds Versus Currencies Chart 5Bonds Versus Currencies Bonds Versus Currencies Bonds Versus Currencies Finally, we observe that the US dollar has strengthened as bond yields have dropped. This is not that unusual. There are other periods when significant declines in US bond yields have coincided with dollar strength, 2019 and 2014/15 immediately come to mind (Chart 5). The common theme of those prior episodes is that the global economy was experiencing a deflationary shock. Commodity prices also fell during those periods and Emerging Market (EM) currencies depreciated versus the dollar. However, so far this year, EM currencies have held firm versus the dollar (Chart 5, bottom panel) and commodity prices continue to rise. On balance, financial markets don’t appear to be pricing-in a deflationary economic shock. In summary, since US Treasury yields peaked on March 31st, we have observed a sector rotation within US equities, but overall stock market performance has been strong. Corporate bonds continue to outperform Treasuries, though gains are limited by tight valuations. Commodity prices have held up and while the US dollar has firmed, dollar strength has not bled into EM currency weakness. All in all, we don’t view financial market performance as consistent with a deflationary economic episode. This suggests that bond yields are an outlier within the financial landscape and that the recent drop in yields won’t persist. A Quick Word On Sentiment And Positioning Chart 6A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment One possible reason why bond performance has been inconsistent with some other markets is that there had simply been too much consensus around the “bond-bearish trade”. It’s certainly true that portfolio managers have been running large net-short positions and that the MarketVane survey of bond bullish sentiment is much less bullish than it was last year (Chart 6). We suspect that we may need to see bond market positioning and sentiment get more bullish before yields move meaningfully higher. Chart 6 shows that major troughs in the 30-year US Treasury yield often occur when portfolio manager positioning is “net long” bonds and when bond bullish sentiment is significantly higher than current levels. For this reason, we don’t anticipate an immediate rebound in bond yields. Rather, we suspect that yields will remain near current levels for the next month or two before strong employment data in the fall sets off the next phase of bearish bond action.   Position For A Rebound In Bond Yields, But Don’t Expect Much Curve Steepening Chart 7The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target We see bond yields re-gaining their March 2021 highs, and then some, on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we don’t think this rebound in yields will coincide with a significant re-steepening of the US Treasury curve. For context, the 2/10 US Treasury slope peaked at 159 bps near the end of March. It is currently 51 bps lower, at 108 bps. We can categorize periods of yield curve steepening as falling into two categories. Bull-steepening: The curve steepens as yields fall. This tends to occur when the Fed is cutting interest rates. Bear-steepening: The curve steepens as yields rise. We can identify these periods as being when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rises from low levels toward its fair value range. Since 2012, we can identify a fair value range for the 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield using survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. At present, the fair value range from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is from 2.06% to 2.50%, with a median of 2.31%. The fair value range from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is from 1.75% to 2.50%, with a median of 2.00%. The 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield is currently 1.93% (Chart 7). We identify seven significant periods of 2/10 Treasury curve steepening since 2009 (Table 1). Six of those episodes were bear-steepening episodes that coincided with an increase in the 5-year/5-year yield, the other was a bull-steepening episode that coincided with Fed rate cuts in 2019/20. If we assume that our fair value ranges provide a reasonable target for how high the 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield can rise during the next bear-steepening move, it means that – at most – we could see an increase of 57 bps in the 5-year/5-year yield as it moves all the way up to the 2.50% top-end of our target ranges. A linear regression of changes in the 2/10 slope versus changes in the 5-year/5-year forward yield during the six bear-steepening episodes we identified suggests that a 57 bps increase in the 5-year/5-year yield would lead to 12 bps of 2/10 curve steepening (Chart 8). In fact, we can see in both Table 1 and Chart 8 that it would take about 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year yield to bring the 2/10 slope back to its March highs. This is extremely unlikely. Table 1Periods Of US Treasury Curve Steepening In The Zero-Lower-Bound Era A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Chart 8Bear-Steepening Episodes Since 2009 A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery   In fact, if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield only rises back to the middle of its fair value range – somewhere between 2% and 2.31% - then our regression suggests that the yield curve slope will probably stay close to its current level. The bottom line is that while investors should position for a rebound in bond yields by keeping portfolio duration low, they should avoid US Treasury curve steepeners. In fact, we advocate owning 2/10 flatteners on the US Treasury curve as we see ample room for further curve flattening as Fed rate hikes approach in late-2022. The ECB’s New Guidance Solidifies The Defensive Nature Of European Bonds Last week, the European Central Bank (ECB) revised its forward rate guidance in light of its recently concluded Strategy Review.2 The ECB’s new rate guidance is as follows: In support of its symmetric two per cent inflation target and in line with its monetary policy strategy, the Governing Council expects the key ECB interest rates to remain at their present or lower levels until it sees inflation reaching two per cent well ahead of the end of its projection horizon and durably for the rest of the projection horizon, and it judges that realised progress in underlying inflation is sufficiently advanced to be consistent with inflation stabilising at two per cent over the medium term. This may also imply a transitory period in which inflation is moderately above target.3   This may sound familiar, and it should. Though not explicitly an Average Inflation Target, the ECB has moved a long way toward the Federal Reserve’s new dovish reaction function. Specifically, both the ECB and Federal Reserve now acknowledge that a temporary period of above-2% inflation will be tolerated, if not explicitly sought. Also, both central banks have linked the timing of the first rate increase to some form of outcome-based forward guidance. The Federal Reserve has explicitly said that it will not lift rates until inflation is above 2% and the economy has reached “maximum employment”. The ECB now claims that interest rates won’t rise until inflation is seen reaching 2% “well ahead of its projection horizon”, a criterion that Christine Lagarde described as having an element of outcome-based guidance.4 The ECB’s new forward guidance may not be as explicitly dovish as the Fed’s. The ECB has no “maximum employment” target and its inflation trigger for lifting rates still relies on the Governing Council’s forecasts. But for investors, the big signal is that the ECB has recognized that the risk of tightening policy prematurely is greater than the risk of remaining on hold for too long. This gives us even more confidence that there will be no ECB tightening on the horizon, and we should continue to view European bond markets as being highly defensive. This is hardly news. European bond markets performed relatively well during the bearish bond episode that lasted from August 2020 to March 2021, they have then gained less than cyclical bond markets (like US and Canada) since March (Table 2). The ECB’s new reaction function ensures that this relationship will remain place for many years to come. Table 27-10 Year Government Bond Returns (In USD, %) A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery The new reaction function is also a boon for peripheral European bond markets (like Italy and Spain) where yields trade at a spread above German bunds. The ECB’s commitment to staying dovish will only reinforce the downward pressure on peripheral European bond spreads versus Germany (Chart 9). Chart 9Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds The bottom line is that investors should continue to overweight European bonds within global fixed income portfolios, with a particular emphasis on peripheral European bond markets like Italy and Spain. The defensive nature of European bonds will protect investors from losses during the next move higher in global yields. Italian and Spanish bond markets may not perform quite as well during the next bond bear market as they did between August 2020 and March 2021, as spreads have already compressed a lot. But ultra-accommodative ECB policy will limit the amount of spread widening that can occur, making any additional spread worth grabbing.  Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overreaction”, dated July 13, 2021 and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Message From Falling US Bond Yields”, dated July 21, 2021. 2 The results of the Strategy Review itself are discussed in Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place”, dated July 14, 2021. 3 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2021/html/ecb.mp210722~48dc3b436b.en.html 4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2021/html/ecb.is210722~13e7f5e795.en.html Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Treasury Index Returns A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Spread Product Returns A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery

Highlights The decline in US Treasury yields has once again reduced the appeal of US paper, relative to foreign developed and emerging market bonds. Historically, lower US bond yields relative to other markets has been dollar bearish. The caveat is that if declining yields are due to a flight to safety, the dollar initially benefits due to US bond inflows. The academic research on which yields matter for currencies is mixed. Historically, short rates have mattered more. But with short-term interest rates anchored at zero, there is evidence investors are moving out the curve. Our bias is that looking across the yield curve will provide a more accurate picture of the countries that will benefit from bond inflows. More importantly, it is the sum of portfolio flows that drive a currency. This means equity flows will be important as well. Feature Global bond yields have rolled over, driven by the long end of the curve. The US 10-year yield has fallen from a high of 1.74% at the end of March to 1.29% today. While other bond yields have rolled over, the move has been more pronounced in the US. For example, the spread between the US 10-year Treasury and the 10-year German bund has narrowed from 200bps to 175bps. Given the correlation between relative interest rates – especially in real terms – and the dollar, a rare divergence has opened up in favor of short dollar positions (Chart I-1). A fall in yields can be driven by prospects of either slowing growth, lower inflation expectations, or a combination of the two. In the case of the US and to a certain extent the eurozone, the culprit behind lower yields has been a drop in both the real and the nominal component. This suggests that the markets are worried about central banks becoming too hawkish at the exact moment global growth is set to slow. Across maturities, the US yield curve has thus flattened (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Real Yields And Currencies Have Diverged Real Yields And Currencies Have Diverged Real Yields And Currencies Have Diverged Chart I-2Flattening Yield Curves Flattening Yield Curves Flattening Yield Curves A few questions arise from the setup above. How do you trade the dollar in the current environment? What is the future path for yields, especially relative yields? Should investors focus on a specific maturity as a signal for future currency moves? Finally, are yields the key driver of currencies in the current environment or should investors focus on other factors as well? Explaining Recent Dollar Strength Chart I-3Rising Demand For Hedges Rising Demand For Hedges Rising Demand For Hedges If the decline in rates globally has been led by the US, then why has the dollar remained strong? The first reason is rising safe-haven demand, especially as global growth peaks. Usually, as a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar benefits in a risk-off environment. The latest Treasury International Capital (TIC) data show that foreign inflows into US bonds have been part of the reason for the decline in Treasury yields since March. A reset in equity markets has also been a driver. The DXY index has been very closely correlated with the put-call ratio in the US, and increased demand for hedges, including long dollar positions, have benefited the greenback (Chart I-3). This has been consistent with the outperformance of the more defensive US equity market. The third reason has been a slowdown in relative economic momentum between the G10 and the US. Chart I-4 shows that the Citigroup economic surprise index for the euro area relative to the US remains strong but has rolled over. The story is similar using relative PMIs between the US and the rest of the G10. Relative economic performance has usually tended to dictate currency movements in the near term. Chart I-4Relative Economic Momentum Is Slowing Relative Economic Momentum Is Slowing Relative Economic Momentum Is Slowing Finally, as we highlighted a fortnight ago, the dollar was oversold and due for a tactical bounce. Leveraged funds have been covering their short positions in recent weeks, while speculators are now long the dollar (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Speculators Are Now Long The Dollar Speculators Are Now Long The Dollar Speculators Are Now Long The Dollar Going forward, most of these trends should reverse. While the Delta variant of COVID-19 is raging across countries, hospitalizations are low, and thus the case for renewed lockdowns is weak. Meanwhile, non-US growth should regain the upper hand, especially in countries like Japan where vaccinations are ramping up quite fast. Global yields should also rise, as output gaps close and inflation remains well anchored.             The Dollar And Interest Rates: Real Versus Nominal? As Chart 1 highlights, it is important to think about relative rates when looking for the next move in the dollar. The historical evidence is that there is little correlation between the dollar and the absolute level or direction of bond yields. Over the last few decades, global bond yields have collapsed while the dollar has undergone rolling bull and bear markets. Currencies react more to the path of relative real rates than nominal rates. By definition, a currency is the mechanism by which prices are equalized across borders. Rising inflation lowers the purchasing power of a currency, which in turn forces the currency to adjust lower in a globally competitive pricing system. Across the G10, there has been a longstanding relationship between real interest rate differentials and the path of the currency (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Negative Real Rates In The US Across The Curve Negative Real Rates In The US Across The Curve Negative Real Rates In The US Across The Curve Chart I-7The US Sports A Very Negative ##br##Real Yield Which Rates Matter For Currencies? Which Rates Matter For Currencies? Importantly, US real rates, especially at the short end of the curve, are very depressed. In fact, compared to other G10 countries, the US sports one of the worst 2-year real yields (Chart I-7). Based on the historical precedent illustrated in Chart I-6, a significant increase in US real rates is required to allow the dollar to rise on a structural basis. What About Hedged Yields? It is true that hedged yields in the US are positive for foreign investors. For example, hedged 10-year US yields for German bond investors provide 97 bps of pickup. For a Japanese investor, the yield pickup in the US is 96 bps, and for a British investor, it is 73 bps (Chart I-8A, Chart I-8B, Chart I-8C). Chart I-8BUS Hedged Yields For Japanese Investors US Hedged Yields For Japanese Investors US Hedged Yields For Japanese Investors Chart I-8AUS Hedged Yields For Euro Investors US Hedged Yields For Euro Investors US Hedged Yields For Euro Investors Chart I-8CUS Hedged Yields For British Investors US Hedged Yields For British Investors US Hedged Yields For British Investors   However, there is little correlation between the hedged yields and currency performance, and for good reason: Under covered interest rate parity, a hedged yield will be an arbitrage opportunity, which should be duly uncovered by efficient markets. This arbitrage window for hedged yields disappears if you extend the maturity of your hedging, as economic theory suggests. For example, hedging a 10-year bond with a 3-month currency forward can lead to massive losses as you roll over these contracts. This is because the cost of hedging in the short term tends to have wild fluctuations. For example, hedging in euros for a German investor buying Treasurys was over 300bps at the end of 2018. This wiped out the positive spread between the two bonds.  Many investors do not hedge currency exposure. In fact, the “least regrets” approach of hedging 50% of currency exposure has been quite popular.1 Therefore, focusing on the real yield, rather than the hedged or nominal yield (Chart I-9), has been a far more robust solution in gauging the direction of currencies. By definition, a hedged yield means buying a currency at spot and selling it forward. This should be currency neutral, and especially, arbitrage away the yield differential. Chart I-9Hedged Yields And Currencies: No Correlation Hedged Yields And Currencies: No Correlation Hedged Yields And Currencies: No Correlation Which Bond Yields Matter? The academic evidence suggests that short-term interest rates matter more for currencies, especially when policy is close to the zero bound. According to a BIS paper,2  not only has the FX impact of monetary policy grown significantly in the last few years, but short maturity bonds have had the strongest impact. Moreover, at a lower level of interest rates, the foreign-exchange impact is greater as the adjustment burden falls onto the exchange rate. Looking purely through the lens of the US dollar, our view is more nuanced. Foreign inflows into US long-term Treasurys have been improving tremendously, while flows into T-bills are relapsing (Chart I-10). This suggests longer-term rates have been a bigger driver of inflows into the US, and, more recently, the dollar rally. It is similar to what occurred at beginning of the dollar bull market last decade. Admittedly, the picture shifted over time, with shorter term flows becoming increasingly important as the Fed began to hike interest rates. Taking a step back, bond investors tend to span the duration spectrum, with pension funds investing in bonds many years out. As 1-year and 2-year yield differentials are not meaningfully different across countries (Chart I-11), this curtails the appeal of short-term paper. If inflation differentials are considered, it reduces the appeal of US paper even further. Chart I-10Long-Term Versus Short-Term Flows Long-Term Versus Short-Term Flows Long-Term Versus Short-Term Flows Chart I-11Narrow Gap In Short Term Yields Narrow Gap In Short Term Yields Narrow Gap In Short Term Yields Let’s not forget quantitative easing. If a central bank explicitly targets a bond yield near zero, like in Japan or Australia, that makes it difficult for that same yield tenor to generate positive inflows or send a reliable signal about the economy. This suggests a better method is looking at a spectrum of indicators, including yields at various maturities. Charts I-12 plots the yield differentials across maturities and countries. It shows that currencies have been correlated across the relative yield maturity spectrum. As such, we recommend investors monitor both short- and long-term yields in evaluating currency decisions. Chart I-12AYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12BYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12CYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12DYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12EYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12FYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12GYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12HYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Chart I-12IYield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities Yield Differentials Across Different Maturities    Other Asset Classes There are multiple drivers of exchange rates. Bond yields are just one of them. Equity and other flows also matter. It is the sum of portfolio flows that drive a currency. In fact, inflows into US equities and agency bonds have been the bigger drivers of the US dollar this year (Chart I-13). Outside the US, the correlation between interest rates and the currency can be very weak. The Canadian dollar is much more correlated with terms of trade than with real interest rate differentials. Rising oil prices attract inflows into Canadian corporate bonds and equities, which are positive for the currency. The key point is that flows tend to gravitate to capital markets with the highest expected returns. As such, monitoring flows other than government bond purchases is important. We expect that yields will be higher on a cyclical horizon. This will be beneficial for cyclical stocks, especially banks. This will also be beneficial for flows into non-US bourses, that have a higher weighting of cyclical stocks..  In short, the US equity market has become very tech heavy. Rising interest rates will hurt higher duration sectors such as technology and health care. At the margin, this hurts the relative performance of US equities (Chart I-14). Given that equity inflows have been a key driver of the US dollar, this will also hurt at the margin Chart I-13Agency Bonds And Equity Purchases Have Driven US Inflows Agency Bonds And Equity Purchases Have Driven US Inflows Agency Bonds And Equity Purchases Have Driven US Inflows Chart I-14US Valuations Benefit From ##br##Lower Rates US Valuations Benefit From Lower Rates US Valuations Benefit From Lower Rates   Concluding Thoughts US real interest rates have deteriorated relative to the rest of the world. As such, it will require a significant rise in US real rates to seriously question a dollar bearish view. Meanwhile, a modest rise in global rates will also be bearish for US stocks compared to non-US bourses. US rates are usually high beta, and so could rise more in an improving growth environment. But relative rates are correlated to relative growth. As such, if non-US growth picks up relative to the US, like the IMF expects, this will provide a modest fillip to non-US yields (Chart I-15). US real rates are also very negative, so the bar to create a genuine dollar rally is very high. Finally, the market still expects the Federal Reserve to lead the hiking cycle. This means that there is still potential for an upside surprise in interest rates outside the US, compared to within (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Relative Bond Yields And Relative Economic Momentum Relative Bond Yields And Relative Economic Momentum Relative Bond Yields And Relative Economic Momentum Chart I-16The Market Is Still Relatively Hawkish On The Fed The Market Is Still Relatively Hawkish On The Fed The Market Is Still Relatively Hawkish On The Fed   Housekeeping Our long Scandinavian basket was triggered at our buy point of a -2% pullback from July 9th levels. As such, we are now short EUR/NOK, USD/NOK, EUR/SEK, and USD/SEK. We were also stopped out of our long silver/short gold position for a small loss. We will be looking to reopen this trade in the coming weeks.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Michenaud, S., and  Solnik, B., , “Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions,” Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 2008, 677-694. 2 Ferrari, Massimo, Kearns, Jonathan and Schrimpf, Andreas, “Monetary policy’s rising FX impact in the era of ultra-low rates,” Bank of International Settlements, April 2017. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Data out of the US this week was mixed: June retail sales came in better than expected. The control group rose 1.1% month on month, versus a -1.4% decline in May. For July, the University of Michigan survey showed inflation expectations continue to edge higher, but the sentiment of current conditions and expectations was well below consensus. Inflows into US assets reversed in May, with net outflows of $30.2bn. Existing home sales rose by 1.4% month on month in June to 5.9 million units. The US dollar DXY index rose modestly this week. Technically, the dollar is now approaching overbought territory. Our intermediate-term indicator has broken above 60, speculators are now long the dollar and sentiment on the greenback has turned up at a time when real rates remain negative in the US. This suggests much optimism is in the price. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Data out of the eurozone this week was robust: The trade balance came it at €9.4bn for May. Final June CPI was in line with expectations – 1.9% for headline and 0.9% for core. The ECB kept rates unchanged in their July 22 meeting, but added to their framework of forward guidance. The euro fell by 40bps this week. Following Christine Lagarde’s Bloomberg interview last week, the ECB made some policy changes. First, they will allow for an inflation overshoot should this be consistent with longer-term inflation at 2%. They will also likely extend the PEPP beyond the March deadline, so no tapering before then. Finally, interest rates are expected to remain negative as far as the eye can see. This is nudging the euro towards becoming a low-beta currency. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 The Euro Dance: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward - April 2, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 There was some positive news out of Japan this week: Exports rose 48.6% year on year in June. Imports also expanded at a 32.7% year-on-year pace, signaling rising domestic demand momentum. National CPI for June was in line with expectations. The core measure was at 0.2%. Supermarket sales continued to improve in June. The yen was down 0.3% against the dollar this week. The yen is the most shorted developed-market currency, and our intermediate-term indicator is at bombed-out levels. This is occurring at a time when domestic data is on the mend. This is bullish from a contrarian perspective. Report Links: The Case For Japan - June 11, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 There was some mixed data out of the UK this week: Rightmove house prices rose 5.7% year on year in July. The CBI survey was softer than expected in July. Total orders fell from 19 to 17, while the component of selling prices and business optimism fell 4 and 5 points respectively. The pound fell by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. Momentum on the pound continues to suggest near-term downside. Our intermediate term indicator is still blasting downward, and speculators are cutting their long positions from very aggressive levels. This suggests continued near-term downside in cable. Report Links: Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? - March 10, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Thoughts On The British Pound - December 18, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week: NAB business confidence for Q2 fell from 19 to 17. The RBA minutes confirmed that the central bank will stay dovish in the near term. The AUD fell by 0.7% this week against the USD, the worst performing G10 currency. COVID-19 will continue to dictate near-term developments in Australia, with the latest lockdowns having slowed economic activity. Speculators have started shorting the AUD on this basis (in addition to the risk of a decline in metal prices). In the end, if the COVID-19 crisis proves transient, it will create a coiled spring response for the AUD. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 The was scant data out of New Zealand this week: Credit card spending rose 6.3% year on year in June. The performance services index rose from 56.1 to 58.6 in June. The NZD was down 23bps versus the US dollar this week. Last week’s rally in the NZD, following the signal that the RBNZ will end QE this week, is fizzling. From a technical standpoint, speculators are neutral the NZD, but our intermediate-term indicator has not yet bottomed out. We are long CHF/NZD, as a reset in global asset prices could increase currency volatility and benefit the pair. Report Links: How High Can The Kiwi Rise? - April 30, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Data out of Canada this week has been robust: June housing starts came in at 282.1K versus expectations of 270K. Foreigners continued to accumulate Canadian securities in June, to the tune of C$20bn. House prices remain on fire. The Teranet/National Bank index rose 16% year on year in June. The Bloomberg Nanos Confidence index held steady at 66.3. The CAD rose by 0.2% this week, performing better than other G10 currencies. The longer-term outlook for the loonie is clearly positive as the BoC will hike interest rates ahead of the Federal Reserve. Near term, USD/CAD could retest the 1.28 level as our intermediate-term indicator continues to work off overbought conditions. Ultimately, we will be selling this pair between 1.28 and 1.30. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 The Outlook For The Canadian Dollar - October 9, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: Exports fell 3% month on month in June. However, watches continued to sell well, with exports rising 71% year on year. Total sight deposits were unchanged at CHF 712 bn for the week of July 16. The Swiss franc was down 0.2% this week. A rebound in global bond yields is a threat to franc long positions. However, we believe the period of volatility in both economic data and equity markets is not over. As such, the franc will benefit from safe-haven inflows. We are long the CHF/NZD cross on this basis. Report Links: An Update On The Swiss Franc - April 9, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Data out of Norway is improving: Industrial confidence came in at 11.3 for Q2, from 8.6 the previous quarter. The NOK was down by 0.5% this week against the dollar. This triggered our limit-buy on Scandinavian currencies at the -2% trigger level we had originally been targeting. As such, we are now short EUR/NOK and USD/NOK. With real yields in Norway much higher than in the US or Europe, portfolio flows should benefit the NOK. Report Links: The Norwegian Method - June 4, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden have been somewhat mixed: There is a slight upward revision to the Bloomberg economic forecasts. GDP growth is now expected to be 4% year on year in 2021, from a previous estimate of 3.5%. However, CPI was revised down 10bps to 1.7% this year, and 1.4% next year, considering the disappointing CPI print last week. The SEK was down 20bps this week. The SEK remains one of our most potent plays on a global growth recovery. Historically, the SEK has correlated very well with global growth variables and relative economic growth between Sweden and the rest of the world. This week, our limit-buy on Scandinavian currencies was triggered. As such, we are now short EUR/SEK and USD/SEK. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Sweden Beyond The Pandemic: Poised To Re-leverage - March 19, 2020 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights US Treasuries: Peaking global growth expectations and the growing spread of the Delta variant are challenging the “reflation and reopening” narrative that drove bond yields higher in Q1 of this year. Underlying growth, however, is likely to stay above-trend in most developed economies over the next 1-2 years, leading to tighter labor markets, increased domestic inflation pressures, and less dovish central banks - especially in the US. We continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark duration position in global bond portfolios, with an underweight stance on US Treasuries, on a strategic (6-24 month) basis. New Zealand: House prices, inflation, and the overall economic backdrop justify the RBNZ’s recent hawkish shift. However, government bond and interest rate swap markets have not fully priced in how quickly, and how far, the RBNZ can hike during the upcoming tightening cycle. As a play on further RBNZ hawkishness, we are entering a new recommended tactical trade: a 2-year/5-year yield curve flattener in New Zealand government bonds. Feature Dear Client, We will be taking a summer break over the next two weeks to recharge our batteries for what is shaping up to be an eventful time for global financial markets over the remaining months of 2021. Next week, you will be receiving a report written by our Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift. The following week, there will be no Global Fixed Income Strategy report published. We will return to our normal publishing schedule on Tuesday, August 10. Best Regards, -Rob Robis The World’s Most Important Asset Price We spent much of last week talking with clients (still virtually, sadly) in the US and Europe. In all the meetings, the first - and in some cases, only - topic of discussion was how to interpret the fall in longer-maturity US Treasury yields over the past few months. With the benchmark 10-year US yield hitting the lowest level since February earlier this week, breaching the 1.20% level, the message from the Treasury market will remain very much top of mind for investors - and for us, too - especially with bond yields in other countries also following US yields lower. Chart 1 bca.gfis_wr_2021_07_21_c1 bca.gfis_wr_2021_07_21_c1 The falling trend in US yields can be attributed to a number of factors, some of which are more legitimately bond bullish than others. Investors are increasingly convinced that global growth momentum has peaked, including in the US. While the global manufacturing PMI is still at the highest levels seen over the past decade, our global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rolling over from a very high level (Chart 1). The plunge in the global LEI diffusion index suggests that the dip in the global LEI is broad based across all the countries in the LEI (Chart 1, middle panel). This is not a sign that growth is slowing now, though, given the long lags between the swings in the diffusion index and the LEI, and between the LEI and actual economic growth. Importantly, US leading indicators like the Conference Board LEI are not rolling over and continue to signal that US growth will remain solid over the next 6-12 months. US consumer and business confidence are still upbeat, labor demand remains robust and corporate profits are growing smartly in the Q2 earnings data available so far. US growth will inevitably decelerate from the overheated pace of Q2 that was boosted by the rapid reopening from pandemic restrictions. Yet the US economy will continue to expand at an above-trend pace into 2022 – especially with an extra boost from fiscal stimulus - that is likely to tighten US labor markets and keep the Fed on the path towards bond-bearish tapering and, eventually, rate hikes by the end of next year. The renewed pickup in COVID-19 cases in the US could damage that positive narrative on US economic confidence. The uptick in the Delta variant raises the risk of a new wave of economic restrictions, even with nearly half the US population now fully vaccinated (Chart 2). To date, the latest surge in cases has not resulted in significant surges in hospitalizations and deaths in the US and, more importantly, the UK where the Delta variant has spread far more rapidly. If the hospitalization figures were to accelerate, investors would likely interpret that as a sign that a) vaccine efficacy against the variants is not as robust as for the original strain of the virus; and/or b) the next wave of COVID has arrived before the US could achieve herd immunity. At the moment, there is little political will to impose a new wave of growth-crushing - and bond bullish – economic restrictions in the US, especially with case numbers still low compared to previous waves of the virus amid ample vaccine supplies. Even in New York City, the epicenter of the first wave of the pandemic in the US in 2020 and one of the last major cities to reopen, the mayor said this week that a return to a mask-wearing mandate was not on the table (the city’s preference is to push for more of the unvaccinated to get their jabs to fight the variant). Lower US bond yields also reflect a growing belief that the rise in US inflation will prove to be transitory, as the Fed expects. Headline CPI inflation in the US reached 5.4% in June on a year-over-year basis, but was an even faster 8.8% on a 6-month annualized basis (Chart 3). Soaring US inflation rates have been dismissed by many as simply a function of temporary supply squeezes and favorable base effect comparisons versus the pandemic-fueled price collapses in Q2/2020. Yet the longer the inflation acceleration continues, the more the narrative will shift from “transitory” to “persistent” inflation, especially if inflation also keeps moving higher outside the US as well. Chart 2Delta Variant: Highly Contagious, But Not Lethal Delta Variant: Highly Contagious, But Not Lethal Delta Variant: Highly Contagious, But Not Lethal Investors, and the Fed, will not be able to assess if the US inflation surge is truly a short-lived phenomenon until at least 2-3 more inflation data prints are available. Chart 3Is This 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This 'Transitory' Inflation? This means the “transitory or not” question will linger until the September inflation data is available in mid-October. What will be critical is the mix of US inflation. If more domestically generated inflation rates – rents, wages, etc. – accelerate, that would result in overall US inflation being driven more by stickier core inflation rather than surging non-core inflation fueled by rising commodity prices. That implies a higher floor for headline inflation, and a more bond-bearish challenge to the “transitory” narrative as the Fed would be even more emboldened to begin dialing back monetary accommodation sooner, or faster, than the current forward guidance. Beyond the fundamentals, the Treasury market continues to work off the technically oversold condition that developed in the first quarter of 2021, leading to short-covering that is pushing yields lower. The 10-year Treasury yield became extremely stretched versus the underlying trend in yields, defined by the 200-day moving average, with survey and positioning data showing large short positioning and below-benchmark duration exposures among bond investors (Chart 4). As the factors underpinning the US “reflation trade” in Q1 have come into question in Q2, speculators have covered much of the huge short positioning that built up in the 30-year Treasury, according to the CFTC (bottom panel). However, the JP Morgan survey of client duration positioning still shows a large number of clients are running duration exposures below that of their benchmark, suggesting that real money investors have not yet capitulated even as Treasury yields have moved lower. In a report published back in June, we looked at previous episodes where the 10-year US yield became stretched versus its underlying trend over the past two decades.1 We concluded that it could take until at least August before the 10-year Treasury worked off its oversold condition, defined as the yield returning to its 200-day moving average using daily closing prices, based on the average length of those past episodes. The US 10-year yield is now below its 200-day moving average of 1.28%, but it is still too soon to declare this oversold episode over given the still large underweight duration position visible in the JP Morgan survey. Some reduction in that tilt will be necessary before longer-term Treasury yields can begin to climb again. Summing it all up, the uncertainty over global growth momentum, the Delta variant, and the underlying pace of US inflation will likely keep Treasury yields under some downward pressure, especially with short positioning not yet completely cleaned out. We suspect that it will take a reacceleration of US employment growth before US Treasury yields can begin to move higher once again. That would not begin to be visible until at least the September payrolls data – a month when extended US federal unemployment benefits expire and children return to in-person learning at school, freeing up some of the supply bottlenecks in US labor markets. Our base case scenario is that the current pickup in COVID-19 cases will not derail the US economic recovery from the pandemic. A tightening US labor market and stickier-than-expected US realized inflation will lead the Fed to announce in December a tapering of its asset purchases starting in January 2022. A shift to a less dovish Fed, and eventual rate hikes beginning at the end of 2022 after tapering is complete, will be the driver of the next upleg in US Treasury yields. Looking outside the US, our Central Bank Monitors continue to highlight that developed economy central banks are all under cyclical pressure to begin dialing back the massive monetary accommodation put in place to fight the temporary economic shock of COVID-19 (Chart 5). Yet pricing in Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets highlight the diverging messages from policymakers. Chart 4USTs Still Working Off Oversold Condition USTs Still Working Off Oversold Condition USTs Still Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 5A Clear Message From Our Central Bank Monitors The Message From Falling US Bond Yields The Message From Falling US Bond Yields A rate hike is now expected before year-end in New Zealand and by July 2022 in Canada (Table 1) “Liftoff” is now expected in January 2023 in the US, Australia and the UK; while rates are expected to remain unchanged until November 2023 in the euro area and February 2024 in Sweden. The bigger future issue for markets, however, is the pace of rate hikes given how little tightening is expected after liftoff. Table 1Bond Markets Are Vulnerable To Hawkish Monetary Policy Shifts The Message From Falling US Bond Yields The Message From Falling US Bond Yields OIS curves are only discounting a handful of rate hikes to occur by the end of 2024 in most countries. Beyond that, 5-year/5-year forward OIS rates – a good proxy for the so-called “terminal rate”, or how high rates will end up in the next tightening cycle – show that markets have downgraded their assessment of how high global interest rates can possibly go. With global growth likely to remain above trend over the next 1-2 years, the current surge in global inflation will likely not be as transitory as the Fed and other central banks expect, leading to a faster pace of monetary tightening than markets are discounting (outside of Europe and Japan) and a renewed move higher, on average, for global bond yields led by US Treasuries. Bottom Line: Peaking global growth expectations and the growing spread of the Delta variant are challenging the “reflation and reopening” narrative that drove bond yields higher in Q1 of this year. Underlying growth, however, is likely to stay above-trend in most developed economies over the next 1-2 years, leading to tighter labor markets, increased domestic inflation pressures, and less dovish central banks - especially in the US. We continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark duration position in global bond portfolios, with an underweight stance on US Treasuries, on a strategic (6-24 month) basis. New Zealand: Primed For Liftoff Recent news from New Zealand has confirmed the market pricing of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) as one of the most hawkish central banks within the developed economies. We have been of the view that the RBNZ would be among the first to withdraw the monetary accommodation put in place because of the pandemic, and recommended that investors avoid New Zealand sovereign debt in our Special Report on global house prices earlier this year.2 Increasingly, that view is being borne out, with the RBNZ delivering a hawkish surprise last week by announcing an end to the Large-Scale Asset Purchase (LSAP) program by July 23. On the surface, New Zealand’s situation does not appear that different from other higher-yielding bond markets in the developed world such as the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. However, there are a number of factors that make higher interest rates more appropriate for this economy: An unsustainable housing market If nothing else, the RBNZ’s hawkish turn can be attributed to the country’s wildly unsustainable housing market (Chart 6). Nominal house prices have been in an unimpeded accelerating trend since mid-2019, and are now growing at a whopping 28% year-over-year as of June. The anecdotal stories of housing market frothiness in New Zealand are at times unbelievable, like the recent sale of a run-down house in an Auckland suburb, with no bathroom or toilet, for a whopping two million dollars.3 The housing boom has undoubtedly been caused by accommodative monetary policy, with mortgage rates reaching all-time lows during the pandemic. While the RBNZ has implemented macroprudential measures such as increased loan-to-value restrictions on mortgages, it will take a significant pickup in mortgage rates to truly curb the acceleration in house prices. Housing affordability – or, more accurately, unaffordability - has reached a point where a 20% down payment on the median national house price is equal to 223% of the median disposable income, according to the RBNZ (Chart 6, middle panel). A similar measure, the OECD’s house price-to-income ratio, is most elevated in New Zealand among the developed economies. The overheating housing market also poses a major financial stability risk. New Zealand also leads the pack when it comes to the housing exposure of commercial bank balance sheets (Chart 6, bottom panel). With nearly half of commercial bank balance sheets composed of housing loans, New Zealand’s financial system is especially susceptible to a housing downturn. The takeaway is clear - even in the absence of other factors, the housing situation alone would be enough to force the RBNZ to act. Inflation accelerating above target The RBNZ tapering decision came a mere two days before the release of a very strong CPI print for Q2/2021, with consumer prices rising 1.3% during the quarter and 3.3% on a year-over-year basis – the fastest pace since 2011 (Chart 7). The central bank had been expecting some near-term spikes in headline inflation owing to temporary supply shortfalls and high oil prices. However, the RBNZ does not see all inflation as “transitory” and acknowledges that rising capacity pressures and labor shortages could continue to push up inflation going forward Chart 6The RBNZ's Housing Headache The RBNZ's Housing Headache The RBNZ's Housing Headache Chart 7A Broad-Based Spike In NZ Inflation A Broad-Based Spike In NZ Inflation A Broad-Based Spike In NZ Inflation Inflation has also been broad-based, with both tradables and non-tradables inflation running above the upper band of the RBNZ’s 1-3% inflation target. Although the bank does, on net, favor a lower New Zealand dollar (NZD) for the export-driven New Zealand economy, the depreciation in the NZD could push up tradeables inflation further, making urgent action from the RBNZ all the more necessary. Also important are the sources of inflation. The housing basket was responsible for more than a third of the rise in prices in Q2 (Chart 8). With housing affordability now a politically fraught issue creating major headaches for the RBNZ, expect the bank to be extra-sensitive to this sort of inflation. Accelerating food prices also create the risk that the “sticker shock” of rapidly rising costs for everyday spending items pushes up consumer inflation expectations past the RBNZ target range. Chart 8Prices Are Rising For 11 Out Of The 12 Groups In The NZ CPI Basket The Message From Falling US Bond Yields The Message From Falling US Bond Yields Chart 9The RBNZ Is Running Out Of Bonds To Buy The RBNZ Is Running Out Of Bonds To Buy The RBNZ Is Running Out Of Bonds To Buy An asymmetric monetary policy backdrop The monetary policy backdrop in New Zealand also favors a withdrawal of stimulus, on the margin. After only sixteen months of quantitative easing, the RBNZ now owns nearly half of all the sovereign debt outstanding in the country. That is a level of ownership on par with the ECB, which has had a long-running asset purchase program, and far exceeds the shares held by peers such as the Fed and Bank of Canada (Chart 9). Had they not terminated purchases, the RBNZ would have been limited by the simple fact that there is not enough government bond issuance for it to buy up without starting to impair the liquidity of the bond market Looking beyond the end of the LSAP, the central bank may have to push policy rates considerably higher to contain inflation. At only 0.25%, the official cash rate is 165bps below the mean estimate of the neutral rate —the rate at which monetary policy would be neither restrictive or stimulative – derived from the RBNZ’s suite of quantitative models (Chart 10). There is also some uncertainty around this number, with the upper end of the range of estimates as high as 4.5%. This signals that the RBNZ could hike rates quite a bit without choking off the economy. Chart 10The Market Is Pricing In An Extremely Slow RBNZ Hiking Cycle The Market Is Pricing In An Extremely Slow RBNZ Hiking Cycle The Market Is Pricing In An Extremely Slow RBNZ Hiking Cycle In this context, market pricing in the New Zealand OIS curve, which discounts a very slow hiking cycle with the policy rate not expected to reach the median RBNZ neutral rate estimate until 2028, appears overly dovish. A buoyant economic backdrop Lastly, the RBNZ has arguably already satisfied its mandate to support the economic recovery coming out of the pandemic (Chart 11). Real GDP and aggregate employment are both above pre-COVID levels, while business and consumer confidence are continuing the recovery started last year. Yields have picked up across the New Zealand government bond curve, reflecting this improvement in growth and sentiment. Even though some pandemic restrictions remain in place, the vaccination program has shown steady progress and is likely to ramp up further as the government has just acquired a large shipment of the Pfizer vaccine. Looking at the broader picture, there appears to be little remaining justification for the RBNZ to remain as accommodative as it is right now. The economic recovery from the pandemic is largely complete and the upside inflation and financial stability risks are too important to ignore. After such an abrupt end to the RBNZ’s LSAP program, rate hikes are likely just around the corner. Yet with the OIS curve now discounting a full rate hike by October of this year, markets have adjusted to a sooner than expected RBNZ liftoff date. However, we believe that the New Zealand sovereign yield curve has not fully priced in how much the RBNZ - historically one of more active central banks that is not afraid to raise or lower interest rates aggressively - will need to tighten, and how flat the curve will get, once the rate hikes begin. Although the entire New Zealand government bond curve has already flattened somewhat, experience from previous hiking cycles shows that the curve usually continues to flatten well after rate hikes begin, usually reaching zero or inverting slightly by the time the RBNZ is done hiking rates. This is especially true for the yield curve between two and five years, which is the maturity range that is most sensitive to rate hike expectations (Chart 12). Chart 11The NZ Economy Has Recovered For The Most Part The NZ Economy Has Recovered For The Most Part The NZ Economy Has Recovered For The Most Part Chart 12Monetary Policy And The NZ Yield Curve Monetary Policy And The NZ Yield Curve Monetary Policy And The NZ Yield Curve Currently, the 2-year/5-year New Zealand yield curve is 22bps, leaving ample room for the curve the flatten further once the RBNZ begins to hike rates. Meanwhile, implied forward rates are currently priced for a re-steepening of the curve in the short term, making a 2-year/5-year flattener an especially attractive trade in New Zealand with the RBNZ set to tighten. This is also a “cleaner” play on monetary policy expectations over a cyclical horizon than, for example, a 2s/10s flattener where the longer-maturity yield could be boosted by higher inflation expectations (and where some flattening is already discounted in the forwards). Today, we are initiating a new recommended 2-year/5-year curve flattener trade in New Zealand using cash government bonds. This trade involves selling a 2-year bond, and using the proceeds to buy a combination of a 5-year bond and a 3-month treasury bill that has the same duration as the 2-year bond. This makes the trade both duration-neutral and “proceeds-neutral” by fully investing the cash from the sale of the 2-year bond. Details of the trade, including the duration weightings and specific bonds used, can be found in our Tactical Trade Overlay table on page 17. Bottom Line: House prices, inflation, and the overall economic backdrop justify the RBNZ’s hawkish shift. However, government bond and interest rate swap markets have not fully priced in how quickly, and how far, the RBNZ can hike during the upcoming tightening cycle. As a play on further RBNZ hawkishness, we are entering a new recommended tactical trade – a 2-year/5-year yield curve flattener in New Zealand government bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 28, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/house-with-no-toilet-sells-for-2m-as-new-zealand-property-market-soars Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Message From Falling US Bond Yields The Message From Falling US Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Spread Product: The credit risk premium has shrunk considerably during the past 16 months. While we don’t foresee a period of significant spread widening any time soon, lower spreads mean lower excess corporate bond returns. We recommend three ways for investors to grab extra spread and increase their excess corporate bond returns: (i) move down in quality, (ii) extend maturity, (iii) favor high-DTS industry groups. Corporate Bond Sectors: High-DTS industry groups like Energy, Communications, Utilities and Basic Industry offer the best risk-adjusted spread pick-up within both investment grade and junk bonds. Consumer Noncyclicals and Transportation also look attractive within high-yield. Municipal Bonds: Investors can increase the average after-tax yield of their bond portfolios without taking greater credit or duration risk by favoring long-maturity tax-exempt municipal bonds (both GO and Revenue). EM Bonds: Investors can increase the average yield of their US bond portfolios by shifting out of investment grade US corporates and into USD-denominated EM Sovereign and Corporate bonds. Feature US bond yields have been on a wild ride since the pandemic struck in March 2020. The 10-year Treasury yield collapsed to 0.52% last year. It then rebounded to a high of 1.74% in March 2021 before falling back to its current 1.21%. But throughout all this volatility in rates markets, the steady outperformance of credit risk has been a constant. For the past 16 months, accommodative monetary policy has spurred a steady flow of investment into spread product, a trade that was amplified by the Fed’s extraordinary intervention in the corporate bond market. On March 23rd 2020, the Fed essentially announced a back-stop of the corporate bond market that gave investors the green light to pile into the sector. Since then, the investment grade corporate bond index has outperformed a duration-matched position in Treasury securities by 24% and the high-yield index has outperformed by 39%. Of course, the result of this consistent flow of funds into spread product has been a collapse in credit spreads. The average spread on the investment grade corporate bond index is only slightly below its post-1973 median, but it is at its tightest level since the mid-1990s (Chart 1). When we adjust for the fact that the index’s average duration has increased significantly since the 1970s, we find that the spread has only been tighter 13% of the time since 1973 (Chart 1, bottom panel). What’s more, this analysis doesn’t control for the fact that the average credit rating of the index has fallen significantly during the past few decades. In short, investment grade corporate bonds are extremely expensive and are quite possibly the most expensive they have ever been in risk-adjusted terms. Chart 1Investment Grade Corporate Bond Valuation Investment Grade Corporate Bond Valuation Investment Grade Corporate Bond Valuation How should bond investors proceed in this environment? Of course, tight credit spreads will cause us to exit our recommended spread product overweight earlier in the cycle than would otherwise be the case. But for the time being, we still see quite a bit of life left in credit markets. We showed in a recent report that corporate bond excess returns tend not to turn negative until the 3/10 Treasury slope is below 50 bps, even during periods when credit spreads are tight.1 At 88 bps, the slope still has a ways to go before breaching that threshold. In the meantime, we advise investors to run high levels of credit risk in their bond portfolios, grabbing attractive risk premiums where they can be found. As for what investors can do to find attractive risk premiums, we have a few suggestions. Move Down In Quality The most obvious way to add spread to a bond portfolio is to move down in quality. Charts 2A-2E show the extra spread that can be picked up by moving down one credit tier at a time. We show both the raw spread pick-up since 1995 and the spread pick-up after adjusting for duration risk (i.e. the 12-month breakeven spread). The additional spread on offer for moving out of Aa-rated bonds and into A-rated bonds is currently 17 bps, very low compared to history (Chart 2A). The extra compensation looks a little better after adjusting for duration risk (Chart 2A, bottom panel), but it is still well below its historical mean. Similarly, investors only earn an additional 38 bps by moving out of A-rated bonds and into Baa-rated bonds (Chart 2B). This is very low compared to history and it looks even worse in duration-adjusted terms (Chart 2B, bottom panel). A move down in quality within the investment grade space may still be worth it, even though the reward for doing so is meager in historical terms. However, investors can get much more bang for their buck by moving out of investment grade entirely and into junk bonds. The additional spread earned in Ba-rated bonds compared to Baa-rated bonds (130 bps) is below its historical average, but it has been much lower in the recent past (Chart 2C). This is also true in duration-adjusted terms (Chart 2C, bottom panel). A move out of Ba-rated bonds and into B-rated bonds looks even better (Chart 2D). Yes, the raw 116 bps spread pick-up in the B-rated index compared to the Ba-rated index is well below its historical mean, but after adjusting for the lower duration of the B-rated index we see that the duration-adjusted spread pick-up in B-rated bonds is above its average historical level (Chart 2D, bottom panel). Finally, we observe that investors earn an extra 159 bps by moving out of the B-rated sector and into the Caa-rated sector (Chart 2E). This is extremely low compared to history, but it looks considerably more appealing in duration-adjusted terms (Chart 2E, bottom panel). All in all, we think it makes sense for investors to grab extra spread by moving down the quality ladder. In particular, investors should favor high-yield bonds over investment grade and focus on the B-rated credit tier where the duration-adjusted spread is most attractive. Chart 2AA Versus Aa A Versus Aa A Versus Aa Chart 2BBaa Versus A Baa Versus A Baa Versus A Chart 2CBa Versus Baa Ba Versus Baa Ba Versus Baa Chart 2DB Versus Ba B Versus Ba B Versus Ba Chart 2ECaa Versus B Caa Versus B Caa Versus B Extend Maturity As an alternative to moving down in quality, investors can also increase the average spread of their credit portfolios by extending maturity within corporate bonds. Compared to history, we find that long maturity investment grade and junk bonds offer above-average compensation relative to their shorter-maturity counterparts (Chart 3A). Of course, implementing this trade means either taking more duration risk in your portfolio or offsetting the increased duration on the credit side by taking less duration risk within your government bond holdings. It’s also worth mentioning that extending maturity within corporate credit is rarely, if ever, an attractive proposition in risk-adjusted terms. The spread per unit of duration for long-maturity corporates is almost always below that of short-maturity corporates (Chart 3B). However, this risk-adjusted spread differential tends to be highest when overall corporate bond spreads are tight. In other words, it is during periods of expensive corporate bond valuations, like today, when it makes most sense to extend maturity within corporate bond portfolios. Chart 3ASpreads: Long Versus Short Spreads: Long Versus Short Spreads: Long Versus Short Chart 3BRisk-Adjusted Spreads: Long Versus Short Risk-Adjusted Spreads: Long Versus Short Risk-Adjusted Spreads: Long Versus Short Favor High-Beta Sectors Finally, investors can chase better returns within the corporate bond space by favoring those industry groups with the highest Duration-Times-Spread (DTS). DTS functions as a rough proxy for corporate bond excess return volatility. In other words, bonds with high (low) DTS tend to perform best during periods of spread tightening (widening) and worst during periods of spread widening (tightening). We can also look at the correlation between DTS and excess returns to get a sense of the excess return earned by taking an extra unit of DTS risk. For example, Chart 4A shows annualized excess returns for the 10 major investment grade industry groups relative to starting DTS for the period that ran from the March 23rd 2020 peak in spreads until the end of last year. The slope of the trendline is 79 bps, meaning that investors earned 79 bps of extra return for taking one extra unit of DTS risk. Notably, this credit risk premium fell to 35 bps per unit of DTS risk this year (Chart 4B), as tighter spreads led to a lower realized credit risk premium. Chart 4AInvestment Grade Credit Risk Premium: March 23 2020 To Dec 31 2020 The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Chart 4BInvestment Grade Credit Risk Premium: Year-To-Date The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Interestingly, we don’t observe the same declining credit risk premium in high-yield. Investors earned 95 bps per unit of DTS risk between March 23rd 2020 and Dec 31st 2020 (Chart 4C), but they have earned an even greater 98 bps per unit of DTS risk so far this year (Chart 4D). The steeper line is mostly due to the Energy sector that has delivered strong excess returns and that continues to offer an enticing spread in both absolute and risk-adjusted terms. Chart 4CHigh-Yield Credit Risk Premium: March 23 2020 To Dec 31 2020 The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Chart 4DHigh-Yield Credit Risk Premium: Year-To-Date The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The next section of this report dives into the relative attractiveness of different corporate bond industry groups. For now, we just want to stress that it makes sense for credit investors to increase their spread pick-up by favoring those industry groups with the highest DTS. Bottom Line: The credit risk premium has shrunk considerably during the past 16 months. While we don’t foresee a period of significant spread widening any time soon, lower spreads mean lower excess corporate bond returns. We recommend three ways for investors to grab extra spread and increase their excess corporate bond returns: (i) move down in quality, (ii) extend maturity, (iii) favor high-DTS industry groups. Sector Opportunities The previous section recommended three ways to increase the spread pick-up within a corporate bond portfolio. In this section, we identify sectors that offer attractive spreads in risk-adjusted terms. That is, we are looking for attractive spreads relative to other fixed income sectors with similar duration and credit rating. We specify three opportunities: 1. Corporate Bond Industry Groups Chart 5 plots a measure of risk-adjusted spread for each of the 10 major investment grade corporate bond industry groups relative to that industry group’s DTS. The risk-adjusted spread is the residual from a cross-sectional regression of sector spreads versus average credit rating and duration. The prior section noted that investors should favor high-DTS industry groups within investment grade corporate bonds, and Chart 5 reveals that those high-DTS sectors are also the most attractive in risk-adjusted terms. Energy, Utilities, Basic Industry and Communications all stand out as offering elevated risk-adjusted spreads. While the Transportation and Consumer Cyclical sectors offer low risk-adjusted spreads, the Airlines group within Transportation and the Lodging group within Consumer Cyclicals also stand out as being attractive.2 Chart 5Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Chart 6 shows the results of the same analysis performed on high-yield industry groups. Once again, we see that the high-DTS sectors look best in risk-adjusted terms. Communications, in particular, offers an extraordinarily high risk-adjusted spread that is driven by issuers in the Media: Entertainment and Wirelines sub-sectors. Overall, high-DTS industry groups like Energy, Communications, Utilities and Basic Industry offer the best risk-adjusted spread pick-up within both investment grade and junk bonds. Consumer Noncyclicals and Transportation also look attractive within high-yield. Chart 6High-Yield Corporate Sector Valuation The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium 2. Long-Maturity Municipal Bonds Another opportunity to add risk-adjusted spread to a US bond portfolio lies in tax-exempt municipal bonds. In particular, investment grade rated tax-exempt municipal bonds at the long-end of the curve. Chart 7A shows the yield offered by the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal General Obligation (GO) index at different maturity points alongside the US Credit index yield that has the same credit rating and duration. The average credit rating for GO maturity buckets ranges from Aa1/Aa2 to Aa3/A1. Chart 7B translates the yields shown in Chart 7A into breakeven tax rates. That is, it shows the tax rate that would make an investor indifferent between owning the GO muni and the US Credit index. While the breakeven tax rates are quite high at the front-end of the curve, they fall dramatically as maturity is extended. The breakeven tax rate falls to 29% for the 8-12 year maturity bucket, 13% for the 12-17 year bucket and a mere 3% for 17-year+ maturities. In other words, any investor faced with a tax rate above 3% would be better off owning a long-maturity GO muni than a long-maturity US corporate bond. Chart 7AGeneral Obligation Munis Versus US Credit: Yields The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Chart 7BGeneral Obligation Munis Versus US Credit: Breakeven Tax Rates The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Charts 8A and 8B show the results of the same analysis performed for Municipal Revenue bonds relative to the US Credit index. All Revenue Muni maturity buckets have an average credit rating of Aa3/A1. We find that Revenue bonds look even more attractive than GO bonds, though once again the attractive yields are found at the long-end of the curve. The negative breakeven tax rate shown for the 22-year+ maturity bucket means that the muni bond actually offers a before-tax yield pick-up compared to the corporate credit. Chart 8ARevenue Munis Versus US Credit: Yields The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Chart 8BRevenue Munis Versus US Credit: Breakeven Tax Rates The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns and Corporates Chart 9EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Finally, as we noted in a recent report,3 USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Corporate bonds offer an attractive yield pick-up relative to US corporate credit. Chart 9 shows the spreads of both the EM Sovereign and EM Corporate indexes relative to duration and credit rating matched positions in the US Credit index. First, we observe that both indexes offer a significant yield advantage over the US Credit index across all investment grade credit tiers. Second, we also observe that EM Corporates look much more attractive than Sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers, but that Sovereigns have the advantage within the Aa credit tier. The elevated Aa Sovereign spread is the result of USD bonds issued by the UAE and Qatar that offer yields above 2%. Bottom Line: US bond investors can increase the average yield of their portfolios without taking greater credit or duration risk by focusing on high-DTS industry groups (Energy, Communications, Utilities, Basic Industry) within both investment grade and high-yield corporate bond indexes. This can also be achieved by shifting allocation into long-maturity tax-exempt municipal bonds (both GO and Revenue) and USD-denominated EM Sovereign and Corporate debt. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 A version of this chart with all 40 industry groups can be found in our monthly Portfolio Allocation Summary. Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “On Track For 2022 Liftoff”, dated July 6, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Treasury Index Returns The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium Spread Product Returns The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium

Highlights Global Yields: Falling global bond yields, led by US Treasuries, are an oversized response to some modest cooling of growth momentum. Global growth will remain above-trend over the next year, which will keep global inflation rates elevated and maintain pressure on central banks (outside of Europe and Japan) to withdraw monetary accommodation. Stay below-benchmark on duration exposure, and underweight US Treasuries, in global bond portfolios. ECB Strategy Review: The ECB’s new monetary policy framework is a dovish move, as it gives the central bank the leeway to maintain accommodative policy settings even if euro area inflation temporarily rises above 2%. Maintain overweights to European government bonds, both in the core and the Periphery. Model Portfolio Benchmark: We are formally including inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in our model bond portfolio custom performance benchmark index. Stay neutral ILBs in the US, overweight ILBs in Europe and Japan, and underweight ILBs in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Letting Some Air Out Of Reflation Trades Chart of the WeekA Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields A Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields A Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields The growth acceleration narrative that drove much of the performance of global financial markets in 2021 has frayed a bit, led by US bond yields. The 10-year US Treasury yield declined to an intraday low of 1.25% last week, but has since recovered to 1.36%. That is well off the 2021 intraday high of 1.78% seen in late March. The yield decline has been concentrated in longer-maturity bonds, resulting in a bullish flattening of the US Treasury yield curve. While the inflation expectations component of yields has drifted lower, the big surprise move has been a fall in US real yields, with the benchmark 10-year TIPS yield falling back to -1% (Chart of the Week). This positive price action in bonds has led to investors questioning their faith in the so-called US Reflation Trade. US small-cap stocks – a proxy for the companies that would benefit as the US economy recovers from the pandemic - have been underperforming large-caps since March. Economically-sensitive commodity prices have lost much of the sharp upward momentum seen earlier this year, with the price of copper peaking in May and lumber futures prices down more than 40% over the past month. Technology-laden growth stocks have been outperforming value stocks since May, as investors have sought the reliable earnings of the US tech giants. Markets are likely getting a bit more jittery about the near-term growth outlook given the global spread of the Delta COVID-19 variant, which raises the risk of a reversal of “reopening momentum”. Yet nominal economic growth in the major developed economies is still projected to be above the pace seen during the pre-pandemic years - when global bond yields were much higher than current levels - until at least the end of 2022, according to Bloomberg consensus forecasts of real GDP growth and headline inflation (Chart 2). This suggests that global bond yields will begin climbing again, led by the US, as persistent above-trend growth limits how much US realized inflation cools after the Q2 spike, which would go a long way towards reestablishing the bond-bearish reflation narrative. Some pullback in US reflation trades was inevitable, given crowded positioning and a growing number of US data releases disappointing versus highly elevated expectations (Chart 3). Yet forward-looking US indicators like the Conference Board leading economic indicator and the Goldman Sachs financial conditions index are still pointing to strong US growth in the second half of 2021. Chart 2Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Chart 3No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth The reflation narrative has also been challenged by policy tightening in China. Last week, the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) for Chinese banks was cut by 50bps, while the credit data for June showed a stabilization of the credit impulse that has been declining since October (Chart 4). Our China strategists are not convinced that the RRR cut was the start of a full-blown easing cycle, but any additional positive policy surprises from China would help boost global growth expectations and breathe new life into the reflation narrative. For global bond markets, however, the Fed’s next moves remain critical. The FOMC minutes released last week reinforced the message from the June policy meeting, that the Fed has moved incrementally towards starting the process of monetary policy normalization. Lower real US real bond yields are the part of the reflation trade unwind that is most inconsistent with a Fed inching towards QE tapering in 2022 as the US labor market continues to tighten. The fall in US Treasury yields now looks overdone, with the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now below the range of median longer-term fed funds rate forecasts from the New York Fed’s Primary Dealer Survey (Chart 5). Once the overhang of short positioning in the Treasury market is fully worked off, likely in the next month or two, Treasury yields will begin to rise again driven by steady US growth and Fed tightening expectations. Chart 4Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Chart 5UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far Bottom Line: Falling global bond yields, led by US Treasuries, are an oversized response to some modest cooling of growth momentum. Global growth will remain above-trend over the next year, which will keep global inflation rates elevated and maintain pressure on central banks (outside of Europe and Japan) to withdraw monetary accommodation. Stay below-benchmark on duration exposure, and underweight US Treasuries, in global bond portfolios. The ECB Finds A New Way To Stay Dovish The ECB unveiled the results of its strategic review last week, with some noteworthy tweaks to the policy framework. The central bank shifted to a symmetric inflation target of 2%, a change from the prior goal of aiming for inflation “just below” 2%. While that may seem like a small distinction, it does the give the ECB some leeway in tolerating temporary bouts of inflation above the 2% target. This removes one of the rigidities of the prior framework, where the 2% level was considered to be a ceiling, a breach of which would force the ECB to tighten policy. Of course, the ECB has not had to deal with a +2% inflation rate for some time (Chart 6). The last time euro area headline inflation, core inflation and inflation expectations (using 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swaps) were all at or above 2% was back in 2012. Today, headline inflation is at 1.9%, while core inflation is a mere 0.9% and inflation expectations are at 1.6%. ECB President Christine Lagarde noted in the press conference announcing the strategy change that policymakers wanted to break out of the current situation where a too-rigid interpretation of the inflation target could result in sustained low longer-run inflation expectations when actual inflation was persistently low. Lagarde noted that the ECB needed room to “act forcefully” if needed when inflation expectations were too low, especially give the constraint of the lower bound on policy rates. Yet with nominal policy rates already in negative territory and the ECB balance sheet now nearly €8 trillion, there is limited scope for any new policy that could be considered sufficiently “forceful”. Our measure of the market-implied path of the real ECB policy rate, derived from the forward rates from overnight index swaps and CPI swaps, shows that the market already expects negative real rates to persist in the euro area well into the next decade (Chart 7). The ECB has had to resort to cutting nominal rates below 0%, as well as embarking on massive bond buying programs and cheap bank funding programs (TLTROs), in order to appear accommodative enough to try, unsuccessfully, to raise inflation expectations back to the 2% target. Chart 6The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible Chart 7Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation The ECB Governing Council realized that it had a credibility problem with its prior one-sided approach to the 2% inflation target, given the persistent undershooting of that level. By moving to allow a tolerance for inflation above 2%, policymakers hope to be perceived as being more flexible – and, thus, more dovish - as even inflation above 2% would not require immediate monetary tightening.This is especially important as the neutral real interest rate (or “r-star”) has likely stopped falling with potential growth in the euro area drifting higher over the past few years, according to the OECD (Chart 8). Euro area r-star should continue to drift higher in the next few years, especially given the potential for faster productivity growth on the back of Next Generation European Union (NGEU) government investments (Chart 9). This opens a window for the ECB to implement an even more accommodative monetary stance without doing anything, by leaving policy rates untouched while the equilibrium interest rate increases. To the extent that inflation also goes up at the same time, that will further depress real interest rates and widen the gap of real rates to r-star. This will help lift euro area inflation expectations closer to the 2% target over time. Chart 8Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Chart 9NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe In the end, the new ECB framework was a likely compromise between the various Governing Council members, who do not share the same degree of tolerance of higher inflation. For example, it is hard to imagine the Bundesbank being a willing participant to any monetary policy that permits above-target inflation, especially in a year when the German central bank is forecasting domestic inflation to hit a 14-year high of 2.6%. This poses a future communication problem for the ECB, as no guidance was provided about how much of an inflation overshoot above 2% would be tolerated, and for how long. That is likely because there was no agreement yet within the ECB Governing Council on those parameters. The current underlying inflation dynamics in the euro area are still weak, with ample spare capacity in labor markets still dampening wage pressures. Previous episodes of euro area headline inflation climbing above 2% occurred alongside euro area wage growth of at least 3% (Chart 10). With wage growth now slowing to 2.1% after the brief pandemic-fueled spike to 5% in 2020, the euro area needs a sustained period of above-trend growth to absorb spare economic capacity and push up weak domestically-driven inflation. The ECB has given themselves the opening to stay dovish with their new policy framework. Even a forecast of inflation moving above 2% will not necessarily suggest that policy should be tightened in any way, including tapering asset purchases. Our view remains that the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) will not be allowed to expire without some form of replacement program.1 The ECB simply cannot allow markets to tighten financial conditions through higher bond yields on Italian government bonds or euro area corporate debt, or through a stronger euro – all outcomes that would be likely to unfold if the ECB announced that it was letting the PEPP roll off - with inflation expectations still too low (Chart 11). Chart 10ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot Chart 11The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP We expect the ECB to make an announcement about the future of the PEPP – including the upsizing of the existing Asset Purchase Program (APP) and, potentially, the introduction of more flexibility of the rules governing the APP – at the next ECB meeting on July 22. Some changes to the ECB’s forward guidance, on both rates and future TLTROs, will likely also be unveiled in response to the new policy framework. In the end, the new strategy only confirms what most investors already know – the ECB is going to stay with a highly accommodative monetary policy for a very long time, keeping European interest rates among the lowest in the world for the next several years. Bottom Line: The ECB’s new monetary policy framework is a dovish move, as it gives the central bank the leeway to maintain accommodative policy settings even if euro area inflation temporarily rises above 2%. Maintain overweights to European government bonds, both in the core and the Periphery. Benchmarking Our Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations A little over a year ago, we added inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) to our model bond portfolio.2 At the time, our rationale was that inflation breakevens seemed extraordinarily depressed, far more than was justified by fundamentals, across developed markets. So, to gain exposure to the inevitable rebound in inflation expectations, we made an “opportunistic” addition of ILBs to the portfolio while giving them zero weighting in our model bond portfolio custom performance benchmark. Chart 12Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Effectively, this constrained us to either a zero or a long-only allocation to ILBs in the portfolio. At the time, such an approach was effective with ILBs extraordinarily cheap in all developed markets. However, with inflation expectations having rebounded and now above pre-pandemic levels across the developed markets, there are grounds for a more nuanced approach (Chart 12). Today, we are formally making inflation-linked bonds part of our custom performance benchmark. With this addition, we can now take positions relative to benchmark, as we do for all other categories included in our portfolio, rather than being restricted to absolute allocations to ILBs. Not only does this approach allow us to take proper short and neutral positions on ILBs, it is also more in line with the practices followed by global fixed income portfolio managers and many of our clients, who maintain a position in ILBs at all times and include them in their own benchmarks when measuring performance. As we have for all the other categories in our Model Bond Portfolio, we are basing the relative size of our allocations off the Bloomberg Barclays Indices. We will now include in our benchmark all the major ILB markets in developed economies – the US, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Spain, Canada, and Australia (Chart 13). Together, these amount to 98.7% of the $3.8 trillion Bloomberg Barclays World Government Inflation-Linked Index.3 Chart 13World Government Inflation-Linked Bond Index: Market Shares By Country The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place To help inform our ILB allocations, we turn to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBIs), which 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. (Chart 14). These indicators suggest that ILBs are still attractive in Europe and Japan while valuations look stretched in the other developed markets – Australia, US, Canada, and the UK. Globally, we think it is too early to position for falling breakevens even though real yields will play an increasingly important part in the continuing cyclical rise in bond yields. With a neutral global allocation to ILBs in mind, we are adding a neutral US TIPS allocation to our model portfolio, while adding a new small overweight to Japanese ILBs. We are introducing a below-benchmark allocation to the large UK ILB market, while staying completely out of smaller and less liquid Australian and Canadian ILBs. We are maintaining our existing European ILB overweights in Germany, France and Italy where our CBIs show that breakevens have the most upside potential. Even though US breakevens do look stretched on our CBIs, it is impossible, given the sheer size of the US and UK ILB markets, to go underweight on both while maintaining an overall neutral allocation globally. We are more willing to be ILB-bearish in the UK, as we currently have the UK on “downgrade watch” given our view that the Bank of England will withdraw monetary accommodation faster than the markets expect over the next couple of years – an outcome that will likely push up real yields and lower UK breakeven inflation rates. As part of this exercise, we are also rebalancing the market weights and updating durations for the existing categories in our benchmark. After this rebalancing, government bonds in total make up 59% of the benchmark, with ILBs making up 11% of that allocation. The rest goes to spread product, which now makes up 41% of the benchmark, falling a single percentage point from before the rebalancing (Chart 15). Our rebalanced benchmark and allocations can be found on pages 14-15. Chart 14Stay Overweight Euro Area Inflation-Linked Bonds The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place Bottom Line: We are formally including inflation-linked bonds in our GFIS Custom Performance Benchmark. Stay neutral ILBs in the US, overweight ILBs in Europe and Japan, and underweight ILBs in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Chart 15GFIS Custom Performance Benchmark: Rebalanced Allocations The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years", dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Bloomberg Ticker: BCIW1A Index. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone. Economic growth is no longer accelerating, but it hasn’t slowed enough to justify the strength in bonds. Stronger employment data will pressure bond yields higher this fall, once labor supply constraints ebb. Ultimately, we expect the 10-year Treasury yield to reach a range of 2% to 2.25% by the end of 2022 when the Fed is ready to lift rates. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Employment: The static unemployment rate and sub-50 readings from ISM employment indexes will prove to be short-lived phenomena driven by labor supply constraints. These constraints will vanish in the fall when schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse. Yield Curve: Remain positioned in yield curve flatteners. We specifically like shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. We expect that the next significant move in Treasury yields will be a bear-flattening of the curve prompted by strong employment data this fall. Feature Last week was another dramatic one in the bond market. Bond yields fell sharply as doubts emerged about the pace of economic recovery and the economy’s progress back to full employment. The 10-year Treasury yield started the week at 1.44% before hitting an intra-day low of 1.25% on Thursday. It then rebounded somewhat to end the week at 1.36%. One catalyst for the move was Tuesday morning’s ISM Non-Manufacturing report that printed at 60.1, below consensus expectations of 63.5. But in truth, economic momentum had already been slowing for several months before that release. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 1.74% on March 31st, right around the same time that the New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index and both the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing indexes leveled-off (Chart 1). Last week simply saw the “slowing growth” narrative pick up steam. One noteworthy feature of last week’s market action is that the Treasury curve flattened as yields fell. While the 10-year yield is now at its lowest since February, the 2-year yield remains higher than it was just prior to the June FOMC meeting (Chart 2). This suggests that part of the drop in long-maturity bond yields is due to a fear that the Fed will over-tighten in the face of slowing growth. This fear likely stems from the Fed’s apparent hawkish pivot at the June FOMC meeting.1 Chart 1"Peak Growth" Hits The Bond Market "Peak Growth" Hits The Bond Market "Peak Growth" Hits The Bond Market Chart 2A Flatter Curve Since March A Flatter Curve Since March A Flatter Curve Since March   It’s also worth mentioning that the bulk of last week’s drop in yields was concentrated in long-maturity real yields (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen somewhat since the end of March. But, at 2.3% and 2.23% respectively, the 10-year and 30-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates are not that far below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Chart 3Bond Rally Not Confirmed By Commodities Bond Rally Not Confirmed By Commodities Bond Rally Not Confirmed By Commodities Finally, many have suggested that “technical factors” are responsible for last week’s bond market strength. That is, factors related to the supply and demand for bonds but unrelated to economic fundamentals conspired to push yields lower. This is a difficult thesis to prove or disprove, but we will point out that the 10-year Treasury yield has diverged significantly from the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio (Chart 3). The 10-year yield and the CRB/Gold ratio tend to track each other very closely but, in contrast to yields, the CRB/Gold ratio has actually increased since March 31st. This lends some credence to the argument that last week’s drop in yields is not purely a reflection of economic weakness, and it could be an overreaction to weaker-than-expected data that was exacerbated by extreme short positioning in the market (Chart 3, bottom panel). Three Reasons Why The Decline In Treasury Yields Is Overdone We do in fact think that the recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone, and we continue to see the 10-year Treasury yield reaching a range of 2% - 2.25% by the end of next year when the Fed is ready to lift rates. We present three reasons why the recent drop in Treasury yields is overdone. First, the bond market is making too much of the “slowing growth” narrative. Yes, it’s certainly true that the economic indicators shown in Chart 1 are no longer accelerating, but in level terms they remain consistent with a robust economic recovery where GDP growth is well above trend. This sort of growth environment is consistent with a falling unemployment rate that will eventually bring Fed rate hikes into play. Bond yields will move higher as this tightening cycle approaches. Second, it is not just the pace of economic growth that matters for bond yields. The output gap matters as well.2 That is, the same rate of economic growth will coincide with higher bond yields when the unemployment rate is 5% than it will when the unemployment rate is 10%. With that in mind, we observe that the output gap has closed significantly during the past year. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is 77%, up from a 2020 low of 70%. Similarly, capacity utilization is 75%, up from a 2020 low of 64% (Chart 4). Unless we expect economic growth to slow enough for progress on these two fronts to reverse, then we should see significantly higher bond yields this year compared to last year. This makes it difficult to see how Treasury yields can fall much further from current levels. Another way to conceptualize the relationship between the output gap and long-maturity bond yields is to look at how long-dated yields move relative to short-dated yields. Since the Fed moves the funds rate in response to changes in the output gap, we can model the 10-year Treasury yield relative to the fed funds rate and expectations for near-term changes in the fed funds rate to get a sense of how well the output gap explains changes in long-maturity bond yields. Chart 5 presents a simple model of the 10-year Treasury yield relative to the fed funds rate and the 24-month fed funds discounter. It shows that last week’s decline in the 10-year yield caused it to diverge significantly from the model’s fair value. Chart 4The Output Gap Matters The Output Gap Matters The Output Gap Matters Chart 5Long-Maturity Yields Are Too Low Long-Maturity Yields Are Too Low Long-Maturity Yields Are Too Low   Third, the Fed’s pledge to keep rates at the zero-lower-bound at least until the labor market reaches “maximum employment” means that the labor market outlook is critical for bond yields. Our view is that the labor market is on the cusp of a rapid recovery that will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022. However, recent labor market data have been mixed and there is considerable uncertainty in the market about the future pace of employment gains. The next section delves deeper into the outlook for the labor market. Making Sense Of The Employment Data Chart 6ISM Employment Below 50 ... ISM Employment Below 50 ... ISM Employment Below 50 ... Overall, it seems safe to say that the labor market data have been disappointing in recent months. Yes, nonfarm payroll growth has averaged a robust +543k this year, but the minutes of the June FOMC meeting revealed that “some participants” viewed employment gains as “weaker than they had expected”. The recent dips in the employment components of both the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing indexes to below the 50 boom/bust line only add to the sense of pessimism about the labor market. Historically, sub-50 readings from the ISM employment indices (particularly from the non-manufacturing ISM) have coincided with slowing employment growth (Chart 6). This time, however, we don’t see the ISM employment indexes staying below 50 for very long. The more demand-focused components of the ISM indexes – production, new orders and backlog of orders – remain elevated (Chart 7). This tells us that demand is strong and that hiring is only weak because of labor supply constraints, a topic we have covered repeatedly in this publication.3 Our view is that by September, once schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse, we will see a surge in hiring and a jump in the ISM employment components as people are enticed back into the workforce. A clearer picture of the labor market will then emerge, and it will catalyze a jump in bond yields. It’s not just weak ISM employment readings that are giving investors doubts about the labor market. The unemployment rate’s decline has also slowed markedly in recent months (Chart 8). Our adjusted measure of the U3 unemployment rate currently sits at 6.1%, above the headline U3 measure of 5.9% and significantly above the range of 3.5% to 4.5% that the Fed estimates is consistent with full employment. Chart 7... But Demand Indicators Are Elevated ... But Demand Indicators Are Elevated ... But Demand Indicators Are Elevated Chart 8Slow Progress On Unemployment Slow Progress On Unemployment Slow Progress On Unemployment Chart 9Labor Supply Is The Problem Labor Supply Is The Problem Labor Supply Is The Problem We adjust the U3 unemployment rate to include a number of people that are currently being classified as “employed but absent from work” when they should be classified as “temporarily unemployed”. The number of people describing themselves as “employed but absent from work” jumped sharply in March 2020 and has remained elevated. This is the result of workers that were placed on temporary furlough during the pandemic and who should be counted as unemployed. We make our adjustment by taking the difference between the number of people that are “employed but absent from work for other reasons” each month and a baseline calculated as that month’s average between 2015 and 2019. We then add this excess amount to the number of temporarily unemployed. This gives us adjusted readings for both the U3 unemployment rate and the temporary unemployment rate (Chart 8, top 2 panels). The Appendix of this report updates our scenarios for the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach “maximum employment” to consider both this new adjustment and June’s employment figures. Technical adjustments aside, the main takeaway for investors is that progress toward “maximum employment” has been relatively slow during the past few months. This is particularly true if we look at the unemployment rate excluding those on temporary furlough (Chart 8, panel 3) and the labor force participation rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). This slow progress toward “maximum employment” is undoubtedly a reason why bond yields remain low. But, once again, we think it’s only a matter of time before labor supply constraints ease and the unemployment rate falls rapidly, catching up to indicators of labor demand that have already surpassed pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Bottom Line: The recent decline in Treasury yields is overdone. Economic growth is no longer accelerating, but it hasn’t slowed enough to justify the strength in bonds. The labor market also continues to make progress toward maximum employment (and Fed rate hikes) though that progress has slowed during the past few months. We anticipate that stronger employment data will pressure bond yields higher this fall, once labor supply constraints ebb. Ultimately, the economy will reach full employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022. We expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will be in a range of 2% to 2.25% by then. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. A Quick Note On The Yield Curve Chart 105y5y Still Close To Fair Value 5y5y Still Close To Fair Value 5y5y Still Close To Fair Value While we view the recent drop in the level of bond yields as an overreaction, we are less inclined to view recent curve flattening as temporary. To see why, let’s look at the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield relative to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. We like to think of the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield as a market proxy for the long-run neutral fed funds rate, so a range of estimates of that rate is a logical fair value target. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has fallen a lot during the past few weeks. But, at 2%, it is still within the range of neutral rate estimates from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and only just outside of the same range from the Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 10). The fact that the 5-year/5-year yield remains relatively close to its fair value range tells us that there is very limited scope for curve steepening. Recent periods of significant curve steepening have tended to coincide with one of the following two developments: The Fed is cutting rates (coincides with a bull-steepening) The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield moves into its fair value range after starting out well below it (coincides with a bear-steepening) This second sort of curve steepening occurred during the 2013 taper tantrum, after the 2016 presidential election and again after the 2020 presidential election. It’s conceivable that the yield curve could re-steepen somewhat during the next few months, if the 5-year/5-year forward yield moves back to its prior highs. But we expect the next major move in the Treasury market to be a bear-flattening as the rest of the yield curve catches up to the 5-year/5-year. This is the sort of curve flattening that occurred in 2017 and 2018 when the Fed was lifting rates (Chart 10, bottom 2 panels). A bear-flattening of the yield curve is also the most likely outcome if we start to see significant positive employment surprises later this year, as we anticipate. These employment surprises would bring forward the timing and pace of rate hikes but wouldn’t necessarily cause investors to question their views about the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Bottom Line: Remain positioned in yield curve flatteners. We specifically like shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. We expect that the next significant move in Treasury yields will be a bear-flattening of the curve prompted by strong employment data this fall. 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 more or less complete recovery of the labor force participation rate back to February 2020 levels (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 3.7% and a participation rate of 63%. 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 +484k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Overreaction Overreaction Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Overreaction Overreaction Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Overreaction Overreaction Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents Overreaction Overreaction 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 helps us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth continues to print at the same level as last month, then we could anticipate a Fed rate hike by June 2022. 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 Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021. 2 For a description of the five macro factors that determine bond yields please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021.   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification