Inflation/Deflation

BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view remains that US inflation will prove to be sticky. That said, in this report, we examine under what conditions a considerable drop in US core inflation, whenever it transpires, would be bullish for stocks. Potentially significant US disinflation would be bullish for stocks if it is due to an improvement in supply-side dynamics, but bearish if it is demand driven.

Is the BoE’s emergency intervention in its bond market a British idiosyncrasy that global investors can ignore? No, the UK’s near death experience sends three salutary warnings, with implications for all investors.

In this report, we assess that sterling likely bottomed below 1.04. We expect volatility in the currency to remain in place but are buyers below current levels. On balance, there is a tug of war between irresponsible fiscal policy and the pound as a global reserve currency. This will create a buy-in opportunity for investors who missed the latest dip.

This week, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for Q3/2022. We also discuss the model portfolio’s expected performance over next 3-6 months after our recent moves to reduce overall duration exposure and increase the underweight to US Treasuries.

Investors should go long US treasuries and stay overweight defensive versus cyclical sectors, large caps versus small caps, and aerospace/defense stocks. Regionally we favor the US, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, while disfavoring China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

In Section I, we note that the Fed’s new interest rate projections show that US monetary policy is set to rise soon into restrictive territory even relative to what we consider to be the neutral rate of interest, and to a level that has been consistent with the onset of recession since the 1960s. Imminent supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is crucial for the US to avoid a recession over the coming year. Stay neutral stocks versus bonds for now, but the next shift in our recommended asset allocation stance is more likely to be a downgrade to underweight rather than an upgrade to overweight. In Section II, a guest piece from our European Investment Strategy service discusses the outlook for European assets.

Executive Summary For the first time in a decade, it is much less attractive to buy than to rent a home. In both the UK and US, the mortgage rate is now almost double the average rental yield. To reset the equilibrium between buying and renting a home, either mortgage rates must come down by around 150 bps, or house prices must suffer a large double-digit correction. Or some combination, such as mortgage rates down 100 bps and house prices down 10 percent. In the US, a 10-year upcycle in housing investment has resulted in overinvestment relative to the number of households.  Falling house prices coming hot on the heels of a combined stock and bond market crash will unleash a deflationary impulse in 2023, which will return economies to 2 percent inflation. This reiterates our ‘2022-23 = 1981-82’ template for the markets. A coordinated global recession will cause bond prices to enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 will test 3500, or even 3200, before a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! Bottom Line: Falling house prices coming hot on the heels of a combined stock and bond market crash will unleash a deflationary impulse in 2023, which will return economies to 2 percent inflation. Feature Mortgage rates around the world have skyrocketed. The UK 5-year fixed mortgage rate which started the year at under 2 percent has more than doubled to over 5 percent. And the US 30-year mortgage rate, which began the year at 3 percent, now stands at an eyewatering 7 percent, its highest level since the US housing bubble burst in 2008. This raises a worrying spectre. Is the recent surge in mortgage rates about to trigger another housing crash? (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1UK Mortgage Rate Has Doubled UK Mortgage Rate Has Doubled UK Mortgage Rate Has Doubled Chart I-2US Mortgage Rate Has Doubled US Mortgage Rate Has Doubled US Mortgage Rate Has Doubled A good way to answer the question is to compare the cashflow costs of buying versus renting a home. This is because home prices are set by the volume of homebuyers versus home-sellers. If would-be homebuyers decide to rent rather than to buy – because renting gets them ‘more house’ – then it will drag down home prices. Here’s the concern. For the first time in a decade, it is much less attractive to buy than to rent a home. In both the UK and US, the mortgage rate is now almost double the average rental yield. Put another way, whatever your monthly housing budget, you can now rent a home worth twice as much as you can buy (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A UK Home! Chart I-4It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A US Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A US Home! It Now Costs Twice As Much To Buy Than To Rent A US Home! The Universal Theory Of House Prices Buying and renting a home are not the same thing, so the head-to-head comparison between the mortgage rate and rental yield is a simplification. Buying and renting are similar in that they both provide you with somewhere to live, a roof over your head or, in economic jargon, the consumption service called ‘shelter’. But there are two big differences. First, unlike renting, buying a home also provides you with an investment whose value you expect to increase in the long run. Second, unlike renting, buying a home incurs you the costs of maintaining it and keeping it up-to-date. Studies show that the annual cost averages around 2 percent of the value of the home.1 So, versus renting, buying a home provides you with an expected capital appreciation, but incurs you a ‘depreciation’ cost of around 2 percent a year. Which results in the following equilibrium between buying and renting: Mortgage rate = Rental yield + Expected house price appreciation - 2 But we can simplify this. In the long run, the price of any asset must trend in line with its income stream. Therefore, expected house price appreciation equates to expected rental growth. Also, rents move in lockstep with wages (Chart I-5). Understandably so, because rents must be paid from wages. And wage growth itself just equals consumer price inflation plus productivity growth, which averages around 1 percent (Chart I-6). Pulling all of this together, the equilibrium simplifies to: Chart I-5Rents Track Wages Rents Track Wages Rents Track Wages Chart I-6Rent Inflation = Wage Inflation = Consumer Price Inflation + 1 Rent Inflation = Wage Inflation = Consumer Price Inflation + 1 Rent Inflation = Wage Inflation = Consumer Price Inflation + 1 Mortgage rate = Rental yield + Expected consumer price inflation - 1 So, here’s our first conclusion. Assuming central banks achieve their long-term inflation target of 2 percent, the equilibrium becomes: Mortgage rate = Rental yield + 1 Under this assumption, to justify the current UK rental yield of 3 percent, the UK mortgage rate must plunge to 4 percent. But given that the government has just triggered an incipient balance of payments and currency crisis, the mortgage rate is likely to head even higher. In which case the rental yield must rise to at least 4 percent. Meaning either house prices falling 25 percent, or rents rising 33 percent. Meanwhile, to justify the current US rental yield of 3.7 percent, the US mortgage rate must plunge to 4.7 percent. Alternatively, to justify the current mortgage rate of 7 percent, the rental yield must surge to 6 percent. Meaning either house prices crashing 40 percent, or rents surging 60 percent. More likely though, all variables will correct. The equilibrium between buying and renting will be re-established by some combination of lower mortgage rates, lower house prices, and higher rents. The Housing Investment Cycle Is Turning Down The relationship between buying and renting a home raises an obvious counterargument. What if central banks cannot achieve their goal of price stability? In this case, expected inflation in the equilibrium would be considerably higher than 2 percent. This would justify a much higher mortgage rate for a given rental yield. Put differently, it would justify rental yields to stay structurally low (house prices to stay structurally high), even if mortgage rates marched higher. In an inflationary environment, houses would become the perfect foils against inflation. In an inflationary environment, houses would become the perfect foils against inflation because expected rental growth would track inflation – allowing rental yields to stay depressed versus much higher mortgage rates. This is precisely what happened in the 1970s. When the US mortgage rate peaked at 18 percent in 1981, the US rental yield barely got above 6 percent (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The Inflationary 70s, The Rental Yield Remained Well Below The Mortgage Rate... In The Inflationary 70s, The Rental Yield Remained Well Below The Mortgage Rate... In The Inflationary 70s, The Rental Yield Remained Well Below The Mortgage Rate... If the market fears another such inflationary episode, would it make the housing market a good investment? In the near term, the answer is still no, for two reasons. First, even if rental yields do not track mortgage rates higher point for point, the yields do tend to move in the same direction – especially when mortgage rates surge as they did in the 1970s (Chart I-8). Some of this increase in rental yields might come from higher rents, but some of it might also come from lower house prices. Chart I-8...But Even In The 70s, The Rental Yield And Mortgage Rate Moved Directionally Together ...But Even In The 70s, The Rental Yield And Mortgage Rate Moved Directionally Together ...But Even In The 70s, The Rental Yield And Mortgage Rate Moved Directionally Together Second, based on the US, it is a bad time in the housing investment cycle. Theoretically and empirically, residential fixed investment tracks the number of households in the economy. But there are perpetual cycles of underinvestment and overinvestment – the most spectacular being the overinvestment boom that preceded the 2007-08 housing crisis. US housing investment has just experienced a 10-year upcycle in which it has overshot its relationship with the number of households. Therefore, contrary to the popular perception, there is not an undersupply of homes, but a marked oversupply relative to the number of households. (Chart I-9). This is important because, as the cycle turns down now – as it did in 1973, 1979, 1990, and 2007 – the preceding overinvestment always weighs down housing valuations (Chart I-10). Chart I-9The US Housing Investment Cycle Has Moved Into Overinvestment The US Housing Investment Cycle Has Moved Into Overinvestment The US Housing Investment Cycle Has Moved Into Overinvestment Chart I-10A Housing Investment Downcycle Always Weighs On Housing Valuations A Housing Investment Downcycle Always Weighs On Housing Valuations A Housing Investment Downcycle Always Weighs On Housing Valuations The Investment Conclusions Let’s sum up. If the market believes that economies will return to price stability, then to reset the equilibrium between buying and renting a home, either mortgage rates must come down by around 150 bps, or house prices must suffer a large double-digit correction. Or some combination, such as mortgage rates down 100 bps and house prices down 10 percent. If the market believes that economies will not return to price stability, then house prices are still near-term vulnerable to rising mortgage rates – especially in the US, as a 10-year upcycle in housing investment has resulted in overinvestment relative to the number of households.  US housing investment has just experienced a 10-year upcycle in which it has overshot its relationship with the number of households. Falling house prices coming hot on the heels of a combined stock and bond market crash will unleash a deflationary impulse in 2023, which will return economies to 2 percent inflation – even if the markets do not believe it now. This reiterates our ‘2022-23 = 1981-82’ template for the markets, as recently explained in Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next. In summary, a coordinated global recession will cause bond prices to enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 will test 3500, or even 3200, before a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Analysing The Pound’s Crash Through A Fractal Lens Finally, the incipient balance of payments and sterling crisis triggered by the UK government’s unfunded tax cuts has collapsed the 65-day fractal structure of the pound (Chart I-11). This would be justified if the Bank of England does not lean against the fiscal laxness with a compensating tighter monetary policy. But if, as we expect, monetary policy adjusts as a short-term counterbalance, then sterling will experience a temporary, but playable, countertrend bounce. Chart I-11The Pound Usually Turns When Its Fractal Structure Has Collapsed The Pound Usually Turns When Its Fractal Structure Has Collapsed The Pound Usually Turns When Its Fractal Structure Has Collapsed On this assumption, a recommended tactical trade, with a maximum holding period of 65 days, is to go long GBP/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. Chart 1Hungarian Bonds Are Oversold Hungarian Bonds Are Oversold Hungarian Bonds Are Oversold Chart 2Copper's Tactical Rebound Maybe Over Copper's Tactical Rebound Maybe Over Copper's Tactical Rebound Maybe Over Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started Is Fragile German Telecom Outperformance Has Started Is Fragile German Telecom Outperformance Has Started Is Fragile Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 12The Outperformance Of Tobacco Vs. Cannabis Is Fragile The Outperformance Of Tobacco Vs. Cannabis Is Fragile The Outperformance Of Tobacco Vs. Cannabis Is Fragile Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (frbsf.org) Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Will Surging Mortgage Rates Crash House Prices? Will Surging Mortgage Rates Crash House Prices? Will Surging Mortgage Rates Crash House Prices? Will Surging Mortgage Rates Crash House Prices? 6-12 Month Recommendations 6-12 MONTH RECOMMENDATIONS EXPIRE AFTER 15 MONTHS, IF NOT CLOSED EARLIER. Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Biden And Democrats Arrest Fall In Public Opinion Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation US policy is essential to the global macro, policy, and geopolitical outlook in the fourth quarter. Our three key views for 2022 are still in place: the Biden administration is facing congressional gridlock and shifting to executive action and foreign policy. Gridlock will be marginally positive for the stock market but foreign policy crises and additional energy shocks will be very negative. Stay defensive.  Our three long-term strategic themes – Generational Change, Peak Polarization, and Limited Big Government – are still on track but the first two will take a back seat during the 2022-24 election cycle. Investors should stay overweight defensive sectors versus cyclicals, large caps versus small caps, cyber security, aerospace/defense, oil and gas transportation/storage, and renewable energy. Go tactically long US treasuries but keep the US dollar on watch for a downgrade. Recommendation (Tactical) INITIATION DATE Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) Feb 23, 2022 18.6% Bottom Line: US policy uncertainty will rise then fall over the course of the midterm election, which will produce gridlock. Gridlock is neutral toward inflation, or disinflationary, and a boon for stocks. But geopolitical risk can still wreak havoc and investors should stay defensive. Feature Market-relevant geopolitical analysis begins with the United States, which remains the critical actor in the international system – as reflected today by the US dollar’s extraordinary bull run both in times of global deflation and inflation (Chart 1). Investors need a base case for US national policy over the course of the 2022-24 election cycle to form a base case for global policy and the macroeconomic and financial outlook. Our annual outlook last December argued that the US had entered a period of greater government involvement in the economy and yet that the Biden administration would face rising checks and balances over the course of 2022 due to thin majorities in Congress, midterm elections, an inflationary macroeconomic environment, and an unstable geopolitical backdrop. Chart 1Dollar Strong During Deflation And Inflation Dollar Strong During Deflation And Inflation Dollar Strong During Deflation And Inflation This forecast is largely intact today so the question is whether these checks and balances will inhibit inflation going forward. Biden has achieved significant liberal policy spending but now looks to be seriously constrained, having little ability to pass domestic legislation going forward. However, he faces three foreign policy crises (Ukraine, Taiwan, Iran), all of which are inflationary on the margin. In the coming months Biden’s foreign policy crises could morph into larger global supply shocks, most notably energy shocks from Russia and/or Iran. New shocks could kill demand and tip the economy into recession. If these risks fail to materialize, tighter monetary policy will reduce inflation but likely also at the cost of higher unemployment and recession. While we will maintain our defensive positioning, we may book some gains on bearish trades over the course of the fourth quarter, namely if we see compelling signs of US political and geopolitical risk subsiding and inflation rolling over. But we do not see that yet. Checking Up On Our Three Key Views For 2022 Here we update our three key views for 2022. We show how they have developed so far this year and what we expect in the final quarter: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: In the third quarter the Biden administration made a “last ditch effort” to turn around its fortunes ahead of the midterm election, mainly by focusing on fighting inflation. This effort succeeded in stabilizing support for Biden and the Democratic Party in opinion polls, albeit at low levels (Chart 2). The midterm is usually a check against the party in power and its major policy victories. In 2006 anti-war Democrats imposed a check on the Bush Republicans and the war in Iraq. In 2010 and 2014 Tea Party Republicans imposed a check on Obama Democrats and government intervention into health care. In 2018 anti-Trump Democrats imposed a check on Trump Republicans and tax cuts. In early 2022 the election was shaping up to be a referendum on the Biden Democrats and inflationary spending. But the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade has muddied the usually clear pattern of the “midterm curse.” In critical swing states a majority of voters opposes extensive new restrictions on abortion access (Chart 3). Chart 2Biden And Democrats Arrest Fall In Public Opinion Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Chart 3Swing States Support Abortion Access Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Young voters and women are especially motivated to vote for Democrats in reaction to the high court’s ruling (Chart 4). However, so far support for the Democrats among these groups is still lower than it was in 2020-21. And young people are not thrilled with old man Biden. Chart 4Youth And Women’s Support For Democrats Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Chart 5Voters Care Most About Economy … Where Biden Scores Lowest Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation As we enter the final stretch of the campaign, the president and his party receive the lowest grades on the economy, which is still voters’ top priority (Chart 5). Democrats face a negative cyclical backdrop and macroeconomic headwinds – namely falling real wages, incomes, and consumer confidence (Chart 6). In the House of Representatives, our quantitative election model considers how many seats the ruling party is defending, Congress’s net approval rating, and popular support for the two parties (the generic congressional ballot). The resulting estimate is that Democrats should lose 21 seats, whereas they only need to lose six to yield to Republican control (Table 1). Democrats can achieve a positive surprise and yet fail to retain control of the lower chamber. Chart 6Pocketbook Voter Is Frowning Pocketbook Voter Is Frowning Pocketbook Voter Is Frowning Table 1Our House Election Quant Model Predicts GOP Victory Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Democrats are more likely to retain the Senate but they cannot afford to lose a single seat on a net basis. State-level economic data, previous Senate margins of victory, presidential approval, the generic congressional ballot, and the tenure of Senate incumbents all suggest that Democrats will lose seats in Arizona and Georgia without gaining any seats, thus yielding control to Republicans. Yet this prediction from our quantitative election model necessarily excludes some of the idiosyncrasies of the 2022 election (Chart 7). Chart 7Our Senate Election Quant Model Favors GOP … But Too Close To Call Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation By contrast, state-level opinion polls suggest that Democrats will hold the Senate: several critical Republican-leaning races are tied while Democrats have a large lead in Arizona (Charts 8A & 8B). In short, the Senate is too close to call. Chart 8ADemocrats Tied In Red-Leaning States, Leading In Blue-Leaning States Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Chart 8BDemocrats Tied In Red-Leaning States, Leading In Blue-Leaning States Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation As long as Republicans gain one chamber the effect is the same: gridlock. The prevailing wind is voter discontent over inflation. The Misery Index (headline inflation plus unemployment) is reminiscent of the stagflationary 1970s and points to a negative outcome for Democrats in the House overall (Table 2). Table 2Misery Index Signals Democratic Losses To Come Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Hence the House will fall to the Republicans and single-party control will be broken. The federal spending spree will grind to a halt in 2023-24, which is positive for investors in an inflationary environment. For example, it is the opposite fiscal outcome from what is happening in the UK and Italy, where bonds are selling off sharply. 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: We expected Biden and the Democrats to pass a second budget reconciliation bill, which ended up being the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law on August 16. After that we expected the president to shift to executive action as his legislative options dwindled. There have already been some signs of this shift to executive power, such as President Biden’s tapping of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to release 180 million barrels of oil, which helped lower gasoline prices before the election (Chart 9). Biden also relaxed some regulations on fossil fuel production in a reversal of his 2020 call for “phasing out” oil and natural gas. More generally Biden has imposed a large number of economically significant regulations relative to previous administrations (Chart 10). He also unilaterally forgave $420 billion worth of student debt over 30 years. Chart 9Biden Tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserve Biden Tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserve Biden Tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserve Chart 10Biden Flexes Regulatory Muscles Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation This trend toward executive action will intensify if Congress is indeed gridlocked in 2023-24. It is marginally inflationary but likely to be outweighed by disinflationary fiscal drag in 2023. The same trend also feeds into the next point: Biden’s shift from domestic-oriented to foreign-oriented policy. 3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy: Biden did not seek out foreign policy crises. His primary focus lay on domestic legislation and the midterms. His foreign policy intention was merely to solidify US alliances after quarrels under the Trump administration. However, looming gridlock is forcing him to focus more heavily on foreign policy, where presidential powers are greatest. In particular Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has pushed foreign policy to the center of the agenda. Once Biden’s approval ratings collapsed he began to take on greater foreign policy risks, as we noted in May. His foreign policy is reactive and defensive in the sense that he is responding to foreign aggression and trying to avoid any blowback that hurts his party in the midterms. But he can no longer be said to be risk-averse. Instead Biden is doubling down on the enlargement of NATO and military support for Ukraine. He is arming Taiwan and pledging an unequivocal US willingness to defend it in the event of an “unprecedented attack.” He has expanded high-tech export controls on China while maintaining President Trump’s tariffs. And he is threatening to respond “decisively” to Russia in the non-negligible chance that it deploys a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine. The US-Iran attempt to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal is faltering, as we expected, due to mutual distrust. Almost immediately after negotiations failed in August, widespread social unrest broke out in Iran. While Iran’s structural conditions are conducive to social unrest, the Iranian government suspects the US of fomenting unrest, which is possible. Iran is threatening to retaliate. Iran will also continuing making nuclear advances prompting Israel to publicly entertain military options. The Biden administration will be forced to counteract Iranian threats against regional political stability and oil infrastructure. Hence Biden can no longer avoid energy supply risks emanating from the Middle East. The shift from domestic to foreign policy will become even more pronounced in 2023-24, as foreign policy will become more proactive due to gridlock at home. Taken together, gridlock will bring neutral fiscal policy and hawkish foreign policy. Any post-election decline in policy uncertainty will be short-lived. The loss of the House will increase the odds of economic policy mistakes in 2023 and a ruling party change in 2024 (Chart 11). A Republican House can impeach (but not remove) President Biden, put pressure on the Federal Reserve, and engage in brinksmanship over the national debt limit, which will need to be renewed in the third quarter of 2023. Obstructionism will put a floor under policy uncertainty, which will skyrocket as the 2024 election cycle approaches. Chart 11Biden’s 2024 Odds Fall If GOP Wins House Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Meanwhile proactive US foreign policy is not positive for investors as it risks escalating global instability. None of America’s rivals will be willing to offer major concessions to forge agreements with the Biden administration in 2023-24 because they will fear that President Trump or another populist Republican will retake the White House in 2025 and impose tariffs or sanctions regardless. The US cannot offer credible guarantees. This is how the Iran deal failed and it is likely to prevent a substantial US-China thaw in relations. Bottom Line: The investment takeaways from our key views for 2022 are mostly on track: inflation and policy uncertainty are rising, stocks are performing poorly, bond yields have spiked, and defensive sectors have outperformed cyclicals. These trends could start to shift in the fourth quarter given that domestic policy uncertainty will at least temporarily abate in the US and China after the fall’s political events. However, geopolitical energy shocks could still escalate if Russia or Iran disrupts global oil supply. And investors must plan for the worst. Even without additional energy shocks, Fed rate hikes are likely to precipitate a recession. Gridlock will have a neutral fiscal impact over the course of the subsequent 24 months, which is marginally disinflationary, but proactive US foreign policy will keep high the risk of energy shocks and global policy uncertainty. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s It is useless to predict specific policy outcomes too far in the future but investors need a framework for understanding the general drift of national policy amid the dramatic macro shifts occurring today. Here is a short update to our strategic themes for the decade: 1.   Millennials/GenZ Rising: The death of the Silent Generation, the retirement of the Baby Boomers, and the rise of Generations X, Y, and Z are causing major shifts in the US economy and markets. First, US population growth is not great but better than its developed market peers. Immigration is robust, though it is likely to be restricted somewhat by future administrations (Chart 12). Relatively strong labor force growth implies higher potential growth than developed market peers, assuming US productivity meets or exceeds that of Europe, as it should (Chart 13). As long as this growth is accompanied by decent policy, i.e. not too inflationary, it will produce relatively attractive real returns for investors. Chart 12US Population Growth And Immigration Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Chart 13US Relative Labor Force And Potential Growth Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Second, however, inflation will be a recurring problem because population aging is driving a vast redistribution of wealth from older to younger and from generations with a high propensity to save to those with a high propensity to consume. The impact is inflationary since there will be fewer savings to fund investments, according to our Global Investment Strategist Peter Berezin. This trend will drive up equilibrium real interest rates and bond yields (Chart 14). Thus America will witness a tug of war in which a new inflation tendency engenders periodic policy backlashes to keep inflation in check, as is likely in the 2022 midterms. Chart 14Major Redistribution Of Wealth Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation 2.   Peak Polarization: There is a large gap when it comes to identity and core values both within the Baby Boomer generation and between the Silent Generation and the younger generations. America has seen rapid change in the population’s ethnicity, religion, education, location, and industry. It is also a free country where self-expression is fully indulged, leading to wide extremes in individual and group behavior. Rapid pluralistic change combined with stark income and wealth inequality have fueled political polarization, which has made it increasingly difficult to generate nationwide policy consensus in recent decades (Chart 15). However, the rising electoral weight of the younger generations will resolve some of the most extreme policy differences in favor of the younger generations. Millennials and Generation Z will become more conservative over time but they will still lean to the left of their parents and grandparents on the economic policy spectrum (positive rights, progressive taxes, social spending, proactive regulation). Meaning that social spending and higher taxes will become more, not less, feasible over the long run (Chart 16). Meanwhile the revival of competition among the world’s great powers (multipolarity) is forcing the US population and policymakers to recognize common foreign challenges. This is leading to a new consensus around certain strategic and national interests having to do with trade protectionism, industrial guidance, and foreign policy realism. Chart 15Inequality As A Driver Of Polarization Inequality As A Driver Of Polarization Inequality As A Driver Of Polarization Chart 16Younger Generations Less ‘Capitalist,’ More ‘Socialist’ Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation This new consensus can be seen in the passage of bipartisan bills to build infrastructure, promote US manufacturing, shift supply chains to US-allied countries, and impose punitive measures against Russia, China, and Iran (Chart 17). Chart 17New Consensus: Nation Building At Home New Consensus: Nation Building At Home New Consensus: Nation Building At Home 3.   Limited Big Government: The emerging policy consensus will be federalism but not authoritarianism – a larger but not overwhelming role for government in the economy. Popular opinion is demanding a larger role for the government to reduce domestic social grievances and political instability. It is also demanding greater protections from global trade. Elite opinion requires sustained high investment in national defense. All of this ostensibly points to a new era of Big Government but there are important caveats. The US constitution, private institutions, and popular opinion will continue to prevent the full adoption of a statist model, with its inefficient bureaucracy and excessive regulation. The cost of too much government has already appeared in this year’s surge of inflation, which is motivating a political backlash that will moderate the liberal spending trajectory. In short US governance is shifting from decentralization to centralization but it is a marginal not absolute change (Chart 18). The insurrection of 2021 failed but so did the cultural revolution of 2020. Chart 18New Consensus: Limited Big Government Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Demographics, politics, and economics all point to a new US policy paradigm in which new generations take over and form a new policy consensus – and yet that consensus is not truly socialist. It is rather a continuation of the American combination of federalism, liberalism, and nationalism. Civil war is likely to be avoided because the economy is stable enough and the political system is flexible enough to prevent the inevitable violent movements and domestic terrorism from causing state fragmentation. Bottom Line: US currency and equity markets have greatly outperformed the rest of the world as financial markets priced the US’s structural advantages in the unstable world after the 2008 financial crisis. This trend is intact for now but could suffer setbacks whenever global growth rebounds and the new US policy consensus leads to higher wages, higher taxes, and lower corporate profitability. Investment Takeaways In our annual forecast we noted that US midterm election years tend to produce a flat stock market, rising bond yields, and the outperformance of defensive sectors. This year has been even worse than normal with the S&P500 down 23% to date and the 10-year Treasury up 243 basis points to date (down 17% in terms of total return). Note, however, that stocks typically rise and bond yields typically fall in the year after the midterm, which may bring some relief in 2023 (Chart 19). We expect this bounce in 2023 but it cannot happen until inflation rolls over decisively. Chart 19Worse Than Average Market Performance In Midterm Election Year Worse Than Average Market Performance In Midterm Election Year Worse Than Average Market Performance In Midterm Election Year The dollar rally is in line with, but exceeding, the interest rate differential between US and European government bonds. This makes sense given the geopolitical risk premium. Dollar strength is not only about euro weakness but is broad-based, as becomes clear when looking at the trade-weighted dollar. We have long argued the dollar would rise in line with global policy uncertainty (Chart 20). While our long DXY trade is long in the tooth, momentum is strong. Defensive sectors will outperform in a strong dollar context. Cyclical sectors have more downside relative to defensives and small caps have more downside relative to large caps. But oil and gas equities have become defensive and have more upside relative to the broad market (Chart 21). Energy volatility will continue to be a driving macro force in the fourth quarter due to the crosswinds of geopolitical supply disruptions and global economic slowdown. We are re-initiating our recommendation to overweight oil and gas transportation and storage stocks relative to the S&P 500. Chart 20US Dollar Reaching Extremes, On Watch For Downgrade US Dollar Reaching Extremes, On Watch For Downgrade US Dollar Reaching Extremes, On Watch For Downgrade Chart 21Energy Volatility To Continue In Q4 Energy Volatility To Continue In Q4 Energy Volatility To Continue In Q4 Renewable energy stocks should also remain an overweight given the new political impetus behind energy security. Tech stocks have more downside in the near term but should bounce back once inflation rolls over and bond yields start to fall. Cyber-security companies will generally trade in line with tech but will also benefit from geopolitical tailwinds. Renewables, cyber-security, and aerospace/defense remain our key overweights (Chart 22), in addition to infrastructure stocks as mentioned earlier in the report. Given the sharp selloff in bonds, the disinflationary aspects of gridlock and eventual recession, and today’s extraordinary geopolitical risks, we recommending buying 10-year treasuries on a tactical basis. Chart 22Stick With Cyber Security, Defense, Renewables Over Long Run Stick With Cyber Security, Defense, Renewables Over Long Run Stick With Cyber Security, Defense, Renewables Over Long Run Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Alice Brocheux Research Associate alice.brocheux@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Table A3US Political Capital Index Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Chart A1Presidential Election Model A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks Chart A2Senate Election Model A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks  Table A4House Election Model A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks A Politicized Fed? Another Blue Sweep? And Other Risks Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation Fourth Quarter US Political Outlook: Gridlock And Stagflation       Footnotes  

Executive Summary Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues In this report, we discuss our move last week to shift to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in more detail. Our strongest conviction view on developed market government bonds is underweighting US Treasuries. The outcome of last week’s FOMC meeting, where the Fed committed to a rapid shift to restrictive US monetary policy, supports that position. Our strongest conviction overweight is on Japan, with the Bank of Japan both willing and able to maintain its cap on longer-term JGB yields. We are also overweight countries where it will be difficult for central banks to lift rates as much as markets expect – core Europe, Australia and Canada. The explosion in UK bond yields, and collapse of the British pound, seen after last week’s UK “mini-budget” shows that investors have not lost the power to punish fiscal and monetary policies that are non-credible - like a massive debt-financed tax cut at a time of high inflation. As a result, the Bank of England will now be forced to raise rates much more than we had been expecting, and Gilts will remain extremely volatile in the near-term. Bottom Line: Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. Stay underweight US Treasuries. Upgrade exposure to government bonds in Japan and Canada to overweight, but tactically downgrade UK Gilts to underweight until a more market-friendly policy mix leads to greater stability of the British pound. Feature We shifted our recommended stance on overall global portfolio duration to below-benchmark in a Special Alert published last week. In this report, we go into the rationale for that move in more detail, and present specific details of that shift in terms of allocations by country across the various yield curves. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyReduce Global Portfolio Duration To Below-Benchmark The global inflation and monetary policy backdrops remain toxic for bond markets. Last week saw interest rate increases from multiple developed economy central banks, including the Fed and Bank of England (BoE). The magnitudes of the rate hikes unnerved bond investors, with even the likes of perennial low yielders like the Swiss National Bank and Riksbank lifting rates by 75bps and 100bps, respectively. The Fed followed up its own 75bp hike by digging in its heels on the need for additional policy tightening after the 300bps of hikes already delivered this year (Chart 1). Fed Chair Jerome Powell strongly hinted that a policy-induced US recession is likely the only way to return overshooting US inflation back to the Fed’s 2% target. This triggered a breakout of the benchmark US 10-year Treasury yield above 3.5%. But the real fireworks in global bond markets occurred after the UK government announced its “mini-budget” last Friday that included massive tax cuts to be funded by debt issuance, triggering a sharp decline in the British Pound and spike in UK Gilt yields – a move that spilled over into other bond markets, pushing government bond yields to cyclical highs in the US and euro area. Chart 1Central Banks Keep Trying To “Out-Hawk” Each Other The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues Chart 2Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation We had been anticipating another move upward in global bond yields for this cycle, and we shifted to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in advance of the Fed and BoE meetings last week. We see this next move higher in yields as being driven not by rising inflation expectations but by an upward repricing of interest rate expectations, leading to additional increases in real bond yields (Chart 2). Trying to pick a top in bond yields has now become a game of forecasting the level to which policy rates must rise in the current global monetary tightening cycle. On that front, there is still scope for rate expectations, and bond yields, to move higher in most developed market countries, justifying our downgrade of our recommended overall duration exposure to below-benchmark. Shifting rate expectations also lead to the changes in country bond allocations we announced last week. Rate Expectations And Country Bond Allocations Our proxy for medium-term nominal terminal rate expectations in developed market countries, the 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap (OIS) rate, has been tracking 10-year bond yields very closely in the US and UK and, to a lesser extent, Europe (Chart 3). In those regions, the OIS curves are pricing in an increasing medium-term level of policy rates, leading to markets repricing government bond yields higher. In the US, the OIS curve is pricing in a 2023 peak for the fed funds rate of 4.67%, but with only a modest path of rate cuts in 2024 and 2025, leading to a 5-year/5-year OIS projection of 3.36% as of Monday’s market close. After the Gilt market rout, the UK OIS curve is now pricing in a 2023 peak Bank Rate over 6%, with our medium-term nominal rate proxy settling at 3.69%. In the euro area, the OIS curve is discounting a 2023 peak in the ECB policy rate of 3.22%, with a 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate of 2.7%. For all three of those regions, the market is now pricing in the highest peak in rates for the current tightening cycle. That is not the case in Canada or Australia, where rate expectations and longer-term bond yields are still below cyclical peaks (Chart 4). Japan remains the outlier, with the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control keeping 10-year JGB yields capped at 0.25%, even with the Japan OIS curve pricing in a medium-term terminal rate of 0.75%. Chart 3Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Chart 4Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights After looking at all the repricing of interest rate expectations and bond yields, we can determine our preferred government bond allocations within our strategic model bond portfolio framework. The US Remains Our Favorite Government Bond Underweight The new set of interest rate forecasts (“the dots”) presented at last week’s Fed meeting showed that the median FOMC member was forecasting the fed funds rate to rise to 4.4% by the end of 2022 and 4.6% by the end of 2023, before falling to 3.9% and 2.9% and the end of 2024 and 2025, respectively. Those are all significant increases from the June dots, where the expectations called for the funds rate to hit 3.4% by end-2022 and 3.8% by end-2023. The median Fed forecasts are now broadly in line with the pricing in the US OIS curve for 2022-2024, although the market expects higher rates than the FOMC in 2025 (Chart 5). Chart 5USTs Still Vulnerable To Additional Fed Hawkish Surprises The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues There has been a lot of back and forth between the Fed and the markets this year, but the market has generally lagged the Fed interest rate projections for 2023 and 2024 before last week. Market pricing is now in line with the Fed dots, as investors have adjusted to the increasingly hawkish message from Fed officials that are focused solely on slowing growth, and tightening financial conditions, in an effort to bring US inflation down. We see the US Treasury curve as still vulnerable to additional hawkish messaging from the Fed, and a potentially higher-than-anticipated peak in the funds rate versus the FOMC dots. The US consumer is facing a lot of headwinds from higher interest rates and rising food and gasoline prices. However, the latter has fallen 26% from the June 13/2022 peak and is acting as a “tax cut” that also helps reduce US inflation expectations (Chart 6). Consumer confidence measures like the University of Michigan expectations survey have already shown improvement alongside the fall in gas prices, which has boosted real income expectations according to the New York Fed’s Consumer Survey (bottom panel). Even a subtle improvement in consumer confidence due to some easing of inflation expectations can help support a somewhat faster pace of consumer spending at a time of robust labor demand and accelerating wage growth. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is now growing at a year-over-year pace of 5.7%, while the ratio of US job openings to unemployed workers remains near a record high (Chart 7). Fed Chair Powell has noted that the Fed must see significant weakening of the US jobs market for the Fed to consider pausing on its current rate hike path. So far, there is little evidence pointing to a loosening of US labor market conditions that would ease domestically-generated inflation pressures. Chart 6Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Chart 7A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish Chart 8Stay Underweight US Treasuries Stay Underweight US Treasuries Stay Underweight US Treasuries We expect overall US inflation to decelerate next year on the back of additional slowing of goods inflation, but will likely settle in the 3-4% range in 2023 given stubbornly sticky services inflation and wage growth. The Fed should follow through on its current interest rate projections, with a good chance that rates will need to be pushed up even higher in response to resilient labor market conditions in the first half of 2023. The risk/reward still favors higher US Treasury yields over at least the next 3-6 months, particularly with an improving flow of US data surprises and with bond investor duration positioning now much closer to neutral according to the JPMorgan client survey (Chart 8). Bottom Line: The US remains our highest conviction strategic government bond underweight in the developed markets. Recommended Allocations In Other Countries The path for monetary policy rates outside the US shows a similar profile as in the US, with a “front loading” of rate hikes to mid-2023 followed by modest rate cuts over the subsequent two years (Chart 9). The OIS-implied path for the level of rates is nearly identical in the US, Australia and Canada. On the other hand, markets are discounting much lower of levels of policy rates in Europe and Japan compared to the US, and a considerably higher path for rates in the UK (more on that in the next section). Chart 9Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes We would lean against the US-like pricing of interest rates in Australia and Canada. Based on work we published in a recent Special Report along with our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, the neutral real interest rate (“r-star”) is estimated to be deeply negative in Australia and Canada after adjusting for the high level of non-financial debt in those countries (Table 1). That financial fragility makes it much less likely that the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia can raise rates as much as the Fed. Table 1Some Big Swings In Our R* Estimates When Including Debt The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues US-like interest rates would almost certainly trigger a major downturn in house prices and household wealth given the inflated housing values in those two countries – the growth of which is already slowing rapidly in response to rate hikes delivered in 2022. We are maintaining our overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds, while we upgraded Canada to overweight from neutral after last week’s duration downgrade. Chart 10Move To Overweight Japan Move To Overweight Japan Move To Overweight Japan We are also staying overweight on German and French government bonds, as the ECB is unlikely to deliver the full extent of rate increases discounted in the European OIS curve. Our estimated debt-adjusted r-star is also quite negative in the euro area, suggesting that financial fragility issues (due to high government debt in Italy and high corporate debt in France) will likely limit the ECB’s ability to continue with recent chunky rate increases for much longer. In Japan, we continue to view JGBs as an “anti-duration” instrument, given the Bank of Japan’s persistence in maintaining negative interest rates and yield curve control. That makes JGBs a good overweight when global bond yields are rising and a good underweight when global bond yields are falling (Chart 10). Given our decision to reduce our recommended duration exposure to below-benchmark, the logical follow through decision is to upgrade JGBs to overweight. The only remaining country to consider is our view on UK Gilts, which has now become more complicated. Anarchy In The UK The selloff in the UK Gilt market has been stunning in its ferocity. Dating back to last Thursday’s 50bp rate hike by the BoE, the 10-year UK Gilt yield has jumped 120bps and now sits at 4.52%. The increase in yields was identical at the front-end of the Gilt curve, with the 2-year yield jumping 120bps to 4.68%.  The surge in longer-term Gilt yields stands out to the rise in bond yields seen outside the UK, as it also incorporates an increase in our estimate of the UK term premium – a move that was not matched in other countries (Chart 11). The rise in Gilt yields was also much more concentrated in real yields compared to inflation expectations (Chart 12), as markets aggressively repriced the path for UK policy rates after the UK government’s announced debt-financed fiscal package, including £45bn of tax cuts. Chart 11Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Chart 12The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The UK’s National Institute for Economic And Social Research (NIESR) estimates that the combined impact of the tax cuts and additional spending measures would increase the UK government deficit by a whopping £150bn, or 5% of GDP. The NIESR also estimated that the fiscal measures, including the previously-announced plan for the UK government to cap energy price increases, would result in positive UK GDP growth in the 4th quarter and also lift annual real GDP growth to 2% over 2023-24. The UK government now faces a major credibility issue with markets on its announced fiscal plans. The sheer size of the package, coming at a time when the US economy was already operating at full employment with high inflation, invites a greater than expected monetary policy tightening response from the BoE. The UK OIS curve now forecasts a peak in rates of 6.3% in October 2023, up from the current 2.25%. That would be a massive move in rates in just one year from a central bank that has been relatively gun shy in lifting rates since the 2008 financial crisis, even during the current inflation overshoot. New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, and her new Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng, have both noted they would prefer a mix of looser fiscal policy (aimed at boosting the supply side of the economy to lift potential growth) with tighter monetary policy that would prevent asset bubbles and inflation overshoots. While there is certainly merit in any plan designed to boost medium-term growth by lifting anemic UK productivity through supply-side reforms, the timing of the announcement could not have been worse. Just one day earlier, the BoE announced a plan to go forward with the sale of Gilts from its balance sheet accumulated during quantitative easing. The Truss government needs to find buyers for all the Gilts that must be issued to pay for the tax cuts and stimulus, but the BoE will not be one of them. In the end, however, the BoE’s expected path for interest rates matters more than the increase in Gilt supply in determining the level of Gilt yields and the slope of the Gilt curve. The NIESR estimates that the UK public debt/GDP ratio will rise to 92% by 2024-25, versus its pre-budget forecast of 88%. While that is a meaningful increase, the correlation between the debt/GDP ratio and the slope of the Gilt curve has been negative for the past few years (Chart 13, top panel). The stronger relationship is between the slope of the curve and the level of the BoE base rate (bottom panel), which is pointing to an inversion of the 2-year/30-year curve if the BoE follows market pricing and lifts rates to 6%. Our view dating back to the early summer was that a low neutral interest rate would prevent the BoE from lifting rates as much as markets were discounting without causing a deep recession, lower inflation and, eventually, a quick reversal of rate hikes. The huge UK fiscal stimulus package changes that calculus, as the nominal neutral rate that will be needed to bring UK inflation back to target is likely now much higher. We have always believed that when a thesis underlying an investment recommendation is challenged by new information, it is best to adjust the recommendation to reflect the new facts. Thus, this week, we are tactically downgrading UK Gilts to underweight in our model bond portfolio framework. We still see a significant medium-term opportunity to go overweight Gilts, as UK policy rates pushing into the 4-6% range are not sustainable. However, the BoE will likely have no choice to begin lifting rates at a much more aggressive pace to restore UK policy credibility, especially with the British pound under immense selling pressure (Chart 14). Despite rumors of an inter-meeting rate hike by the BoE this week to try and support the pound, that is likely too risky a step for the BoE to take as it would invite a battle with investors and currency speculators. Such a battle would be difficult to win without a more credible and market-friendly medium-term fiscal policy from the Truss government. Chart 13The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts Chart 14Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts   Bottom Line: We will review our UK Gilt stance once there are more clear signals of stability in the pound, but for now, we will step aside and limit our recommended exposure to Gilts – even after the huge selloff seen to date, which likely has more to go. Summarizing All The Changes In Our Model Bond Portfolio All the changes to our recommended duration exposure and country allocations after the past week, including the new weightings in our model bond portfolio, are shown in the tables on pages 14-16. To summarize: We moved the overall recommended global duration exposure to below-benchmark, and shifted the model bond portfolio duration to 0.9 years below that of the custom benchmark index. We increased the size of the US Treasury underweight, and moved Canada and Japan to overweight. We moved the UK to underweight, on top of the reduction in UK duration exposure that was part of last week’s move to reduce overall portfolio duration. We are also cutting exposure to UK investment grade corporates to underweight, as part of an overall move to reduce UK risk in the portfolio. We slightly increased the overweight in Germany. In next week’s report, we will present the quarterly performance review of our model bond portfolio and, more importantly, we will present out scenario-based return expectations after all the changes made this week. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com     GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues

Executive Summary We hold to our view that households are in better shape than widely perceived, nourished by a robust labor market and a formidable supply of pandemic savings. We do not believe that the equity bear market will derail our base-case scenario that consumption will keep the economy afloat over the next several quarters. Empirically, changes in equity wealth have exerted little to no impact on consumption. Housing does have a discernible wealth effect, and consumption may be more sensitive to falling home prices than rising ones. The sharp decline in home prices feared by many investors could prompt homeowners to retrench, realizing the number-one risk to our constructive view. Although home price appreciation is in the process of decelerating, housing remains undersupplied and home prices will not fall precipitously. Housing bubble chatter is unfounded. Consumption Declines Are Few And Far Between Consumption Declines Are Few And Far Between Consumption Declines Are Few And Far Between Bottom Line: Neither the equity bear market nor a softening housing market will stifle consumption. The Fed’s anti-inflation campaign will eventually induce a recession, but wealth effect concerns are overblown. Feature Flush consumers drawing down the mountain of excess savings they accumulated across 2020 and 2021 provide the foundation for our constructive near-term view on risk assets and the economy. Consumer retrenchment is one of the two principal risks to our stance1 and we would abandon it if a meaningful share of households began to cut back. We do not know that households will dip into their savings to keep consuming at something close to their trend pace – the scale of the fiscal transfers that fattened their bank accounts was unprecedented – but we view the low and declining savings rate as providing ongoing validation for our thesis. Households can sustainably dis-save relative to their post-crisis trend (Chart 1), as a 5% savings rate whittles down their remaining $2.1 trillion stash by just $150 billion per quarter. Chart 1An Extended Period Of Dis-saving Is Sustainable An Extended Period Of Dis-saving Is Sustainable An Extended Period Of Dis-saving Is Sustainable The wealth effect is real – household spending fluctuates with wealth – and one may question whether consumers will continue to spend amidst an equity bear market while the 3-percentage-point surge in mortgage rates pressures home values. As counterintuitive as it may seem, however, changes in equity wealth have had a modest and inconsistent effect on consumption. Changes in housing wealth have exerted greater influence, and one study by prominent researchers suggests that the effect is stronger when home prices decline. We consider the empirical evidence regarding equity and housing wealth effects, along with the prospects for a sharp decline in home prices, in this report. What Drives Spending? For all the talk of the wealth effect, consumer spending is predominantly a function of income. Every multi-factor regression we performed (Box 1) indicated that changes in nominal income account for the lion’s share of changes in nominal consumption, with estimates ranging up to 75%. When we regressed real consumption with real income and real measures of equity and housing wealth, the estimates of income’s effect were sharply lower – typically between 10 and 25% – but the modeled results were dramatically less robust. We accordingly focus on the nominal relationships in the rest of this report, though we note that the real regressions reinforced the nominal regressions’ pointed implication that changes in equity wealth are largely irrelevant for explaining changes in consumption. Box 1: A Regression Refresher Multi-factor linear regression is a statistical method for determining which independent variables influence the movements of a dependent variable. Regression analysis reveals the statistical significance of independent variables based on their empirical relationship with the dependent variable. If the relationship is robust enough that it is unlikely to have occurred randomly, the independent variable is deemed to be significant. The regression equation describes a best-fit line that minimizes the individual observations’ aggregate deviation from the line. It includes a constant term, b, marking the point where the best-fit line intersects the y-axis, and an x term that denotes each of the independent variables, paired with a coefficient, a. Each coefficient describes the sensitivity of the dependent variable to changes in the value of each independent variable. For dependent variable y, and independent variables x1, x2, …, xn, the equation is written as: y = a1x1 + a2x2 + … + anxn + b. The robustness of the regression is indicated by its r-squared value, ranging from 0 to 1, which quantifies the share of the dependent variable's movement that is explained by movement in the independent variables. In our research, we used Personal Consumption Expenditures and Personal Income from the National Income Accounts as our measures of consumption and income, respectively. We used the measure of corporate equities held by households and nonprofit organizations from the Fed’s quarterly Financial Accounts of the United States (report Z.1) to measure equity wealth and followed the methodology of Case, Quigley and Shiller (2005 and 2013)2 to calculate housing wealth.3 We also followed Case, Quigley and Shiller’s methodology in regressing the year-over-year percentage change in the natural log of the variables’ values. Homes Trump Stocks Simple regressions, measuring the empirical impact of a single independent variable upon a dependent variable, indicate that changes in equity wealth exert considerably less influence over changes in consumption than changes in housing wealth. With a two-quarter lag, year-over-year consumption has changed by nearly three cents for every dollar move in equity wealth (Chart 2). Three cents are in line with rule-of-thumb estimates, but we note that the regression’s r-squared is less than 3%. An unlagged year-over-year regression posits a 0.6-cent consumption change for every dollar move in equity wealth with a microscopic r-squared of 0.1%. Chart 2Equities' Relationship With Consumption Is Weak And Unreliable, ... The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households The housing wealth regression indicates that every dollar of changes in housing wealth leads to a 38-cent change in consumption. With a 38% r-squared, the housing wealth regression generates a visibly tighter fit (Chart 3), inspiring more confidence in the posited relationship, though it is incomplete without considering any other variables’ role in influencing consumption. The housing wealth relationship is also considerably stronger on an unlagged basis (Table 1). Chart 3... Contrasting With Housing's Stronger, More Consistent Pull The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households Table 1Simple Regression Output The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households Chart 4Equities Are Owned By Low MPC Households The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households It may seem surprising that relatively opaque changes in housing wealth exert a much stronger influence over consumption than immediately observable changes in equity wealth. We think the result is a function of the greater breadth of home ownership; nearly two-thirds of households own their home, and it is far and away the largest asset for all but the wealthiest of families. Stock ownership, on the other hand, is highly concentrated, with the top 1% of households by wealth owning over 50% of equities, and the top 10% owning nearly 90% of them (Chart 4). Fluctuations in the stock market mostly impact households with a low marginal propensity to consume but changes in home prices effect a much fuller sweep of Americans. The simple regressions set the stage for what we discovered when we performed multi-factor regressions, confirming previous researchers’ findings. Income is the primary driver of consumption, with a one-dollar change in nominal income provoking a 65-to-72-cent change in nominal spending, and its statistical significance in the models is beyond question (Table 2). Table 2Multiple Regression Output The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households Equities’ wealth effect is not statistically significant in the unlagged model at a 5% significance level (it’s not even statistically significant at the more forgiving 10% significance level) and it is modest (about 1.5 cents on the dollar) in any event. The model would be better off without including equity wealth as an independent variable. In the model lagging consumption by two quarters, which produces a slightly better fit and accords more easily with our own intuition that wealth effects are not felt instantaneously, consumption moves inversely with equity wealth, falling 3 cents for every one-dollar increase in equity wealth and rising 3 cents for every one-dollar decrease. That result is statistically significant, albeit hard to wrap one’s head around. The housing wealth variable is comfortably significant even at a 1% significance level and its impact is quite large in both the unlagged (14.5 cents on the dollar) and the two-quarter-lagged (11.75 cents on the dollar) specifications. Both model specifications generate high r-squareds, explaining 58% and 60% of the variability in consumption, respectively, and the modeled values fit the actual values extremely well before the pandemic scrambled the relationship between consumption and its drivers (Chart 5). Chart 5A Tight Fit Before The Pandemic A Tight Fit Before The Pandemic A Tight Fit Before The Pandemic We also ran a version of the model that substituted Disposable Income for Personal Income, but it slightly weakened its explanatory power and we judge that the broader Personal Income series is a better input. We also ran a version of the model that used household real estate holdings and mortgage balances from the Fed’s quarterly Z.1 report to calculate a factor that translates gross housing wealth to net housing wealth to reflect that all households do not own their homes free and clear.4 Substituting net housing wealth reduced the model’s explanatory power by about two percentage points but left the individual variables’ significance largely intact while cutting housing’s unlagged and two-quarter lagged wealth effect to 7 and 5 cents, respectively (Table 3). Net housing wealth is more intellectually satisfying than gross housing wealth and the smaller wealth effect estimates are more in line with the peer-reviewed literature. Table 3Multiple Regression Output With Net Housing Wealth The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households Whither Home Prices? Investors appear to be braced for a sizable decline in home prices even though nominal price declines are unusual in the five-decade history of the leading repeat sales price indexes. The Case-Shiller National Index has declined just 19% of the time on a sequential basis and 14% of the time on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6). Excepting the 21 consecutive quarters of year-over-year declines from 1Q07 through 1Q12, the Case-Shiller National Index has declined in just five quarters over 41 years, all during the 1990-91 recession that featured tax law changes sharply curtailing individuals’ ability to benefit from losses on real estate investments. The FHFA (née OFHEO) House Price Index has declined on a year-over-year basis just 11% of the time, with only one decline occurring outside of 2007 to 2012 (Chart 7). Chart 6Ex-The Crisis, Declines Are Rare, ... Ex-The Crisis, Declines Are Rare, ... Ex-The Crisis, Declines Are Rare, ... ​​​​​​ Chart 7... In Both Major Series ... In Both Major Series ... In Both Major Series ​​​​​​ Investors expecting a decline therefore appear to be anchoring to an extreme outlier. We cringe whenever we hear the term “housing bubble” used to liken today’s backdrop to the one that preceded the financial crisis. Make no mistake: it is not 2007 in the housing finance market in any way, shape or form. Residential mortgage originations have been made to vastly better borrowers than they were in the run-up to the crisis (Chart 8) and they’ve been made on far more solid terms, as the loan-to-value ratio for residential mortgages has shrunk by 25 percentage points in the immediate aftermath of the bust to its easily sustainable levels of the early ‘80s (Chart 9). Chart 8Mortgages Have Been Extended To Better Borrowers ... The Wealth Of Households The Wealth Of Households Chart 9... On Better Terms Than Before The Crisis ... On Better Terms Than Before The Crisis ... On Better Terms Than Before The Crisis Chart 10Housing Supply Is Tight Housing Supply Is Tight Housing Supply Is Tight Housing is broadly undersupplied, as evidenced by the record-low home vacancy rate (Chart 10). Higher mortgage rates have surely put monthly payments out of the reach of some aspiring buyers, sending them to the sidelines, but supply remains constrained and home prices fall slowly. Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that people are quick to take gains by selling appreciated assets but slow to part with assets that are under water. Even if we are underestimating the eventual magnitude of a decline in home prices, we are confident that the decline will not be sudden. Homeowners with discretion over when they sell will wait to exercise it; turnover will slow as pricing softens and the reduced supply will help to mitigate the declines. Investment Implications We were inspired to explore the housing wealth effect by a striking assertion featured in a leading market periodical two weeks ago. An independent strategist stated that the wealth effect from a one dollar decline in home prices was a whopping 40 cents, while the effect of a like decline in equity prices was 10 cents. The assertion was passed on without comment or criticism by the publication, which has long touted its skepticism and unwillingness to accept bullish statements at face value. Alas for its readers, the standard apparently does not apply to bearish claims, no matter how far off the beam they may be. (Based on our results, we suspect these wealth effect estimates are based on simple regressions.) Divergent views are what make a market, but nothing in the body of peer-reviewed research supports the idea that the $6.5 trillion decline in directly owned equities and a hypothetical 10% decline in home equity from its nearly $30 trillion June 30th level will extinguish $650 billion and $1.2 trillion of consumption, respectively. That nearly $2 trillion hit would be punishing, given consumption's current $17 trillion annualized pace. It would also be unprecedented: since the Personal Consumption Expenditures series began in 1950, nominal consumption has only ever declined by a margin that can be seen by the naked eye during the Great Recession and the COVID pandemic (Chart 11). Those historic declines amounted to 3.5% from the 3Q08 peak to the 2Q09 trough and 11.4% from the 4Q20 peak to the lockdown 2Q21 trough. Chart 11Visible Declines In Nominal Spending Are Rare Visible Declines In Nominal Spending Are Rare Visible Declines In Nominal Spending Are Rare We are only too happy to take the other side of the view that another 11% decline could be in store, assuming the absence of nuclear war or another pandemic. We think the 3.5% Great Recession decline will likely remain out of reach, as well, given that the financial crisis emerged from a concatenation of events that cannot repeat now that regulators have so thoroughly clipped the banking system’s wings. Not every investor subscribes to Chicken Little warnings about the housing market, but the promiscuity with which the term bubble is thrown around strongly suggests to us that the consensus view overestimates the probability of a dire economic outcome. When subsequent events reveal that the shock probability has been overstated, the consensus economic and S&P 500 earnings views will have to be revised upward and we believe the eventual revisions will provide risk assets with a path to recover some of the ground they’ve lost this year. We continue to believe that it would be premature to implement full-on defensive asset allocation measures before they do.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      A breakout in long-run inflation expectations is the other. 2      Case, Karl E., John M. Quigley, and Robert J. Shiller, “Comparing Wealth Effects: the Stock Market versus the Housing Market,” Advances in Microeconomics, 5(1),2005: 1-32.  Case, Karl E., John M. Quigley, and Robert J. Shiller, “Wealth Effects Revisited: 1975-2012,” NBER Working Paper 18667, January 2013. 3      Case, Quigley and Shiller calculate housing wealth in time t, HWt, as the product of the number of US households, Nt, the homeownership rate, ORt, the average price of a single-family home in the base period (1Q75 in our study), AVGBASE, and a weighted repeat sales price index relative to its base period value, (PIt/PIBASE). We used the National Association of Realtors’ average existing home price series and the Case-Shiller National Index for variables AVG and PI, respectively, as per the following equation: HWt = Nt × ORt × AVG1Q75 × (PIt/PI1Q75) 4     HWt, described in the second footnote, is a gross measure of housing wealth. We divided outstanding mortgage debt by the value of households’ real estate holdings to calculate the aggregate residential mortgage loan-to-value ratio, LTV. We subtracted LTV from 1 to calculate the share of housing value that represented households’ aggregate home equity and multiplied it by HWt to produce an estimate of net housing wealth, NHW: NHWt = HWt × (1 – LTVt)