Labor Market

Executive Summary Peak Fed Funds? Peak Fed Funds? Peak Fed Funds? The bond market is priced for a fed funds rate that will peak in February 2023 at 3.44% before trending down. We survey several interest rate cycle indicators and conclude that the market’s expected peak is too low and occurs too early. These indicators include: the unemployment rate, financial conditions, PMIs, the yield curve and housing starts. We also update our default rate forecast and are now looking for the default rate to rise to between 4.7% and 5.9% during the next 12 months. While our default rate forecasts imply a reasonably attractive 12-month junk bond valuation, we hesitate to turn too bullish on high-yield given that the next peak in the default rate is still not in sight. Bottom Line: We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being, though we will be looking for opportunities to reduce duration in the second half of this year. Similarly, we recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to junk bonds but will recommend reducing exposure if spreads rally back to average 2017-19 levels. Feature Last week’s report presented three conjectures about the US economy.1 One of those was that a recession will be required to get inflation back to 2%. But when will that recession occur? The question of timing is a vital one for bond investors. Are we on the cusp of recession right now? If so, then bond investors should extend portfolio duration in anticipation of Fed rate cuts and a return to 2% inflation. Conversely, if the recession is delayed, interest rates probably move higher before the cycle ends and investors should consider reducing portfolio duration. This week’s report addresses the topic of timing the next recession and discusses the implications for bond portfolio construction. Timing The Interest Rate Cycle From a bond market perspective, the question of whether the economy is in recession is less important than whether the Fed is hiking or cutting rates. Therefore, for the purposes of this report we will define a “recession” as an economic slowdown that is significant enough for the Fed to start cutting interest rates. Chart 1Peak Fed Funds? Peak Fed Funds? Peak Fed Funds? Now, let’s start by looking at what sort of interest rate cycle is priced in the market. The overnight index swap curve is currently discounting a peak fed funds rate of 3.44% (Chart 1). It is also priced for that peak to occur in 7 months, or by February 2023 (Chart 1, bottom panel). As bond investors, the question we must ask is whether this pricing seems reasonable. To do so, we will perform a survey of different indicators that have strong track records of sending signals near the peaks of interest rate cycles. Unemployment The first indicator we’ll look at is the unemployment rate. Economist Claudia Sahm has shown that a recession always occurs when the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate rises to 0.5% above its trailing 12-month minimum.2 Table 1 dispenses with the moving average and simply shows the deviation of the unemployment rate from its trailing 12-month minimum on the dates of first Fed rate cuts since 1990. We see that the Fed has typically started to cut rates once the unemployment rate is 0.3-0.4 percentage points off its low. The exception is 2019 when the unemployment rate was only 0.1% off its low, but when inflation was below the Fed’s 2% target. Table 1Unemployment And Inflation When The Fed Starts Easing Recession Now Or Recession Later? Recession Now Or Recession Later? At 3.6%, the unemployment rate is currently at its cycle low. Based on the numbers shown in Table 1, this means that we should only expect the Fed to cut interest rates if the unemployment rises to at least 3.9% or 4.0%. We say “at least” because it’s also important to note that the inflation picture is a lot different today than it was during the periods shown in Table 1. With inflation so much higher, it is reasonable to think that the Fed will tolerate a greater increase in the unemployment rate before pivoting to rate cuts. Looking ahead, initial unemployment claims appear to have bottomed for the cycle and changes in initial claims are highly correlated with changes in the unemployment rate (Chart 2). That said, the trend in claims is currently consistent with a leveling-off of the unemployment rate, not a large increase. Financial Conditions Second, we turn to financial conditions. Fed officials often assert that monetary policy works through its impact on broad financial conditions. Therefore, it’s not too surprising that rate cuts tend to occur only after the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index has moved into restrictive territory. Currently, despite the Fed’s dramatic hawkish shift, the index still shows financial conditions to be accommodative (Chart 3). Chart 2Jobless Claims Moving Higher Jobless Claims Moving Higher Jobless Claims Moving Higher Chart 3Financial Conditions Financial Conditions Financial Conditions   The same caveat we applied to the unemployment rate applies to financial conditions. As long as inflation is above the Fed’s target, it’s highly likely that the Fed will be comfortable with financial conditions that are somewhat restrictive. Therefore, the Fed may not pivot as soon as the Goldman Sachs index moves above 100, as has been the pattern in the recent past. Yield Curve Third, we note that an inverted Treasury curve almost always precedes the start of a Fed rate cut cycle, and the Treasury curve is certainly inverted today (Chart 4). The logic behind this indicator is somewhat circular in the sense that an inverted Treasury curve simply tells us that the market anticipates Fed rate cuts. If data emerge to suggest that Fed rate cuts will be postponed, then the Treasury curve could re-steepen. It’s for this reason that the Treasury curve often inverts well in advance of an economic recession and Fed rate cuts. We explored the relationship in more detail in a recent Special Report.3 Chart 4Interest Rate Cycle Indicators Interest Rate Cycle Indicators Interest Rate Cycle Indicators Chart 5Manufacturing PMIs Manufacturing PMIs Manufacturing PMIs PMIs Typically, the ISM Manufacturing PMI is below 50 by the time of the first Fed rate cut (Chart 4, panel 3). Currently, the ISM Manufacturing PMI is a healthy 53.0, but it has been falling quickly and trends in regional PMI surveys suggest that it will dip below 50 within the next few months (Chart 5). Interestingly, both the ISM and regional PMI surveys show that manufacturing supplier delivery times have come down a lot (Chart 5, panel 2). This gives some hope that goods inflation will trend lower during the next few months, as is our expectation. Recently, there’s also been an unusual divergence between the employment components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys. The New York and Philadelphia Fed surveys are showing strength in their employment components. Meanwhile, the ISM employment figure is below 50 (Chart 5, bottom panel). This divergence likely boils down to labor shortages that complicate how firms are responding to the employment question in the surveys. For example, despite the sub-50 employment figure, the latest ISM release noted that “an overwhelming majority of panelists […] indicate that their companies are hiring.”4 Housing In a recent report, we developed a rule of thumb that says that Fed rate cuts typically don’t occur until after the 12-month moving average of housing starts falls below the 24-month moving average.5 That indicator is coming down, but it still has a lot of breathing room before it dips into negative territory (Chart 4, bottom panel). That same report also outlined that we see the housing market slowdown proceeding in three stages. First, higher mortgage rates will suppress housing demand. This is already happening at a rapid pace as indicated by trends in mortgage purchase applications and existing home sales (Chart 6A). Second, lower housing demand will push up inventories and send prices lower. This has not yet shown up in the data (Chart 6B). Finally, once lower prices and higher inventories sufficiently disincentivize construction, we will see a marked deterioration in housing starts. Currently we see that housing starts have dipped, and homebuilder confidence has plummeted, but starts still haven’t decisively broken their uptrend (Chart 6C). Chart 6AHousing Demand Housing Demand Housing Demand Chart 6BPrices & Inventories Prices & Inventories Prices & Inventories Chart 6CBuilding Activity Building Activity Building Activity Putting It All Together To make sense of all the different indicators that could signal a Fed pivot toward rate cuts, we turn to our Fed Monitor. The Fed Monitor is a composite indicator that includes many of the individual indicators we have already examined in this report, as well as some others. The Fed Monitor is constructed so that a positive reading suggests that the Fed should be hiking rates and a negative reading suggests the Fed should be cutting rates. As can be seen in Chart 7, the Monitor is currently deep in positive territory. Chart 7Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Money Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Money Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Money The Fed Monitor consists of three main sub-components, an economic growth component, an inflation component and a financial conditions component (Chart 7, bottom 3 panels). We see that the economic growth component of the Monitor is consistent with a neutral Fed policy stance – neither hikes nor cuts - and financial conditions point to a mildly restrictive stance. However, unsurprisingly, the inflation component is the highest it has been since the early-1980s and this is applying a ton of upward pressure to the Monitor. While our Fed Monitor is not a perfect indicator, it does speak to the tradeoff between inflation and economic growth that we have already hinted at in this report. Specifically, the Monitor illustrates that as long as inflation remains elevated it will take a significant deterioration in economic growth and financial conditions before the overall Monitor recommends a dovish Fed pivot. To us, this argues for a higher and later peak in the fed funds rate than is currently priced in the curve. Bottom Line: The peak fed funds rate that is currently priced in the market for 2023 is too low, and the funds rate will also likely peak later than what is priced in the curve. That said, falling inflation and economic growth concerns will probably keep a lid on bond yields during the next few months. We advise investors to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being, but to look for opportunities to reduce exposure. We will consider reducing our recommended portfolio duration stance to ‘below-benchmark’ if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation reverts to our estimate of its 4%-5% underlying trend. Timing The Default Rate Cycle The interest rate cycle is not the only important one for bond investors. The default rate cycle is also crucial for spread product allocations because default trends are responsible for a significant amount of the volatility in corporate bond spreads. In this section we consider the outlook for corporate defaults and high-yield bond performance. We model the trailing 12-month speculative grade default rate using gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) and C&I lending standards (Chart 8). Conservatively, if we assume 5% corporate debt growth for the next 12 months and corporate profit growth of between -10% and -20%, our model projects that the default rate will rise to between 4.7% and 5.9% (Chart 8, top panel). It’s notable that, like us, banks are also preparing for an increase in corporate defaults by raising their loan loss provisions (Chart 8, panel 2). Meanwhile, job cut announcements – another reliable indicator of corporate defaults – still don’t point to a higher default rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8The Default Rate Has Troughed The Default Rate Has Troughed The Default Rate Has Troughed Interestingly, our model’s conservative projections suggest that in 12 months the default rate will be lower than its typical recession peak. Given today’s cheap junk valuations, this sort of analysis is encouraging a lot of people to turn bullish on high-yield bonds. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread This line of reasoning is not totally unfounded. Using the same forecasted default rate scenarios from Chart 8 along with an assumed 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, we calculate that the excess spread available in the junk index after subtracting 12-month default losses is between 136 bps and 208 bps. This is below the historical average (Chart 9), but still above the 100 bps threshold that often delineates between junk bond outperformance and underperformance versus duration-matched Treasuries.6 More specifically, Chart 10 shows the relationship between our default-adjusted spread and high-yield excess returns versus Treasuries for each calendar year going back to 1995. We see that, in general, there is a positive relationship between spread and returns and that excess returns are more often positive than negative whenever the default-adjusted spread is above 100 bps. However, Chart 10 also shows periods when a pure analysis of junk bond performance based on the 12-month default-adjusted spread didn’t pan out. The year 2008 is a prime example. The default-adjusted spread came in at 249 bps for 2008, above the historical average. However, junk spreads widened dramatically in 2008 and excess returns were dismal. Chart 10The Default-Adjusted Spread And High-Yield Returns Recession Now Or Recession Later? Recession Now Or Recession Later? The reason the default-adjusted spread valuation framework failed in 2008 is that while the default rate only moved up to 4.9% in 2008, it wasn’t done increasing for the cycle. In fact, the rise in the default rate accelerated in 2009 until it hit 14.6% in November of that year. So, while default losses were low compared to the starting index spread in 2008, junk index spreads widened sharply in 2008 as the market prepared for worse default losses in 2009. The lesson we draw from the 2008 example is that even if the junk bond market is attractively priced relative to expected default losses on a 12-month horizon, unless we can forecast a peak in the default rate it is unwise to be overly bullish on high-yield bonds. Even if a recession doesn’t occur within the next 6-12 months, it will likely occur within the next 12-24 months. In that environment, investors are unlikely to realize the full potential of today’s attractive 12-month junk bond valuations. Chart 11Junk Spreads Junk Spreads Junk Spreads The bottom line is that we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield within US fixed income portfolios for now. Junk spreads are elevated compared to past rate hike cycles and could tighten during the next few months as inflation converges to its underlying 4%-5% trend. That said, we will not turn outright bullish on junk bonds until we can reasonably forecast a peak in the default rate. In the meantime, a sell on strength strategy is more appropriate. We will reduce our recommended allocation to high-yield bonds if the average index spread tightens to its average 2017-19 level (Chart 11) or once inflation converges with its underlying 4%-5% trend. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Conjectures About The US Economy”, dated July 19, 2022. 2     https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Sahm_web_20190506.pdf 3    Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. 4    https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/reports/ism… 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 6    For a more complete analysis of the link between the default-adjusted spread and excess high-yield returns please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds,” dated April 12, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary The ECB finally exited negative interest rates last week. In exchange for higher rates, the doves received an ambitious anti-fragmentation tool, the TPI. The ECB deposit rate is likely to reach between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023. The ECB’s number one problem remains the widely different neutral rates across the Eurozone’s largest economies. Our r-star estimates suggest that the German neutral rate is significantly above that of Spain, Italy, and even France. This divergence in r-star means that the TPI will be activated, but its presence alone is not enough to tame the peripheral bond markets when the ECB hikes rates. While the near-term remains fraught with risks, BTPs are increasingly attractive for long-term investors. The TPI also creates a bullish long-term backdrop for the euro. Many R-Star In The European Sky ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All Bottom Line: Diverging neutral rates across the Eurozone’s main economies will impair the ECB’s ability to normalize interest rates over the next twelve months without also activating the new anti-fragmentation tool, the TPI. BTPs have become attractive for long-term rather than short-term investors.   Last week, the European Central Bank (ECB) increased interest rates by 50bps, the first hike in eleven years and the third time in its history that it has tightened policy by such a large increment. In exchange for this abrupt end to negative interest rates, the doves on the Governing Council (GC) extracted the creation of the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI), a new facility designed to limit fragmentation risk on sovereign bond yields in the Eurozone. These two moves raise three key questions: Will the ECB continue to increase rates this aggressively in the coming months? Have peripheral spreads peaked? Will the threat of TPI buying be enough to put a ceiling on spreads, or will the ECB actually need to activate the program in the coming months? To answer these questions, we evaluate where r-star (the neutral real rate of interest) stands in the four largest Euro Area economies. While there is scope for the ECB to push policy rates higher, the wide differences in r-star across European nations indicate that the TPI will need to be activated to stabilize peripheral bond markets, most importantly, Italian government debt. This makes BTPs attractive for long-term investors, although near-term volatility will remain elevated as the markets test the ECB’s resolve. What Happened? Related Report  European Investment StrategyLooking Beyond Europe’s Inflation Peak In terms of interest rates, the most important conclusion from last’s week policy meeting was that forward guidance has been abandoned. The ECB is now fully data dependent, and each policy meeting will be a live one. Another rate hike is certain for the September meeting, ranging from 25bps to potentially 75bps if the ECB wishes to further “front-load” tightening. The single guiding principle will be the outlook for inflation.   ​​​​​​​ Chart 1Incoming Inflation Peak Incoming Inflation Peak Incoming Inflation Peak We do expect inflation to peak soon in the Eurozone, mostly because of the decline in the commodity impulse and slowing food inflation (Chart 1).  Additionally, the one-month impulse of our Trimmed-Mean CPI is weakening. However, as of June, headline and core inflation stand at 8.6% and 3.7%, respectively. Inflation is unlikely to slow enough by the September meeting to prompt the ECB to forecast inflation falling below its 2% target by 2024.  In this context, our base case remains that the GC will opt for a 50bps hike in September. Beyond September, we expect the ECB to revert to 25bps rate hikes and the policy rate to settle between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023, which is broadly in line with the current pricing of the €STR curve (Chart 2). We are somewhat less hawkish than the market for the month of October, because we expect inflation to roll over this fall. Moreover, the European economy continues to decelerate, as highlighted by the declines in the ZEW growth expectations and the PMIs (Chart 3). This deceleration will allow the ECB to revise down its inflation outlook over time. Chart 2Appropriate Pricing Appropriate Pricing Appropriate Pricing Chart 3Growth Is Slowing Growth Is Slowing Growth Is Slowing The announcement of the TPI was the other crucial development from the last ECB meeting. The TPI was unanimously supported. In addition, its asset purchases will be unlimited, and the GC will have much discretion with respect to its implementation. These are three important features that give it ample credibility. However, the program has yet to be activated. Chart 4PEPP Reinvestment Doing Little PEPP Reinvestment Doing Little PEPP Reinvestment Doing Little We do not share the optimism of the GC members who believe that the TPI’s existence alone will narrow peripheral spreads without the ECB having to purchase a single bond. The market will have to figure out what the GC deems as “unwarranted” and “disorderly” moves, especially in a context in which the Draghi government has collapsed and Italy’s commitment to reform will be challenged exactly as interest rates begin to rise. Moreover, the flexible re-investment of PEPP redemptions has not prevented BTP/Bund spreads from widening (Chart 4). As a result, we expect the market to test the ECB’s resolve over the coming weeks, which is likely to result in volatility and wider spreads until the TPI is activated. Bottom Line: Last week’s ECB meeting was a seminal moment. The ECB not only abandoned eight years of negative rates in one go, but it also implemented an ambitious program that aims to restrict peripheral spreads, albeit with some near-term volatility. European policy rates are set to rise to between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023. In Search Of A Neutral Rate During Thursday’s press conference, President Christine Lagarde refused to respond to a question about the neutral rate of interest in Europe. We have sympathy for her predicament. The ECB’s biggest problem is that there is not one neutral interest rate for the entire euro area, but nineteen individual neutral rates for each Eurozone country, with wild differences among them.1  The differences between the neutral rates across the Eurozone are the key factor limiting how far and how fast the ECB may increase rates. It is also the main reason why the ECB resorts to an alphabet soup of non-interest rate policy measures (APP, PEPP, LTRO and, now, TPI) to maintain appropriate monetary conditions across the bloc. But exactly how wide are the differences between the neutral rates? To answer this question, we expand on the methodology developed by Holston, Laubach and Williams (HLW) from the San Francisco Fed  to estimate the neutral real interest rate – or “r-star” - in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. These are the four largest economies in the Euro Area, accounting for 70% of its GDP. Specifically, we run regressions between the real interest rates in those countries versus trend GDP growth and current account balances, which approximates the savings-investment balance. Mimicking the HLW methodology, the inflation expectations used to extract real interest rates from nominal short rates reflect an adaptative framework whereby inflation expectations are a function of the ten-year moving average core CPI. Our methodology produces estimates of r-star that range from 0% in Germany, to -0.8% in Italy, or a GDP-weighted average of -0.3% for the Eurozone (Table 1). When incorporating last week’s ECB rate hike, Europe’s real deposit rate falls to -1.2% if we use the smoothing procedure from HLW to compute inflation expectations, or -3.7% if we use current core CPI. In either case, policy remains accommodative for everyone. Table 1Many R-Star In The European Sky ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All We also ran a second set of estimates for r-star, which includes total nonfinancial debt-to-GDP. The logic reflects the notion that adverse debt dynamics was a key force behind the 2011/12 European sovereign debt crisis, which obligated the ECB to reverse course after pushing up the repo rate twice in 2011. Moreover, heavy debt loads not only constrain the ability of various countries to withstand higher rates, but they are also linked to misallocated capital and are therefore likely to depress trend GDP growth over time compared to countries with lighter debt loads. This adjustment changes the picture considerably. While Germany’s real neutral rate of interest remains around 0%, those of Italy and Spain plunge to -1.8% and -2.4%, respectively. France has also experienced a large decline in its r-star to -2.1% in response to the heavy debt load carried by its private and public sectors. Using this method, the GDP-weighted Euro Area r-star falls to -1.4% (Table 1). So which version of the model is more accurate? We believe the most realistic estimate for r-star in each of the four countries is the simple average of both the unadjusted and the debt-adjusted r-star. This implies that the inflation-adjusted neutral rate is close 0% in Germany, -1.2% in France, -1.2% in Spain and -1.3% in Italy (Table 1). Are those results consistent with reality? A country-by-country evaluation suggests that this ranking is correct. To arrive at this judgment, we evaluated each country based on the following four dimensions: Private sector debt accumulation since 2010. If policy is particularly easy for one country, the private sector will be incentivized to take on debt at a more rapid pace than if monetary conditions were tighter. House price appreciation since 2010. Housing is the part of the economy most sensitive to monetary conditions. Larger real estate price gains will materialize in economies where monetary policy is particularly loose. Profit growth since 2010. Easy monetary policy will subsidize corporate profitability, either through faster domestic activity or a cheaper exchange rate (or both). Unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is a crude measure of slack in the economy. An easier policy setting in one country will reduce the unemployment rate compared to a country where policy rates are high relative to r-star. Germany Chart 5Loosest Monetary Conditions In Germany Loosest Monetary Conditions In Germany Loosest Monetary Conditions In Germany Germany exhibits all the evidence of monetary policy being much more accommodative for that country than the other four countries, for the following reasons: Since 2010, German private debt has been expanding much faster than the average of the four countries (Chart 5, top panel). Germany is experiencing the fastest house price appreciation (Chart 5, second panel). Germany’s profits have grown much faster (Chart 5, third panel). Germany’s unemployment rate stands at only 3%, compared to an average rate of 8% for the four nations together (Chart 5, bottom panel). France Chart 6French Monetary Conditions Are Tighter French Monetary Conditions Are Tighter French Monetary Conditions Are Tighter France is a mixed bag. Monetary policy has been easy for France, but the French economy lags Germany on three of the four aforementioned dimensions: Since 2010, French private debt is growing at the fastest pace of the four economies studied, outpacing even that of Germany (Chart 6, top panel). While French house prices have grown slightly faster than the average of the four nations, they lagged German real estate prices (Chart 6, second panel). While French profits have also bested the average of the four nations, they nonetheless trail German profits (Chart 6, third panel). France’s unemployment rate is in line with the average of the four countries under observation (Chart 6, bottom panel). Spain For most of the period following 2010, Spain has suffered from the scars of the disastrous deleveraging that was required in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis. Its trend growth collapsed, and the ECB’s common policy was never as accommodative as it was for its northern neighbors. However, in recent years, the Spanish economy seems to be catching up, a result of the impact of previous structural reforms and the improved competitiveness brought about by collapsing real unit labor costs: Chart 7Spain Still Grapples With Problems Spain Still Grapples With Problems Spain Still Grapples With Problems Since 2010, Spanish private debt has contracted by 20% compared to a 33% expansion for the European average (Chart 7, top panel). Spanish real estate prices have also lagged far behind those of the other countries put together (Chart 7, second panel). However, since 2015, Spanish house prices have begun to recover, and they are now moving at the same pace as the Euro Area average. Spanish profit growth remains weak compared to the average of the four countries studied in this report (Chart 7, third panel). The Spanish unemployment continues to tower at 13%, well above the average of the four largest Euro Area economies (Chart 7, bottom panel). Italy Italy has a similar profile to that of Spain. While its worst performance is solidly in the rear-view mirror, the recent period of easy monetary policy has allowed for some recovery. Nonetheless, Italy still lags far behind other Eurozone countries, which suggests that policy in Italy is not nearly as accommodative as in the rest of the Eurozone. Chart 8Italy Shows Little Improvements Italy Shows Little Improvements Italy Shows Little Improvements Burdened by very large nonperforming loans, the Italian banking sector has been unable to provide adequate credit to the Italian private sector, which already had a limited appetite for debt. As a result, since 2010, Italian private credit has lagged far behind the European average (Chart 8, top panel). Italian real estate prices have not recovered meaningfully from their contraction between 2011 and 2019. Consequently, Italian housing prices lag substantially behind the average of the largest Euro Area countries (Chart 8, second panel). Italian profits remain weak (Chart 8, third panel). While not as elevated as the Spanish unemployment rate, at 8%, Italy’s rate is comparable to the four-country average (Chart 8, bottom panel). Generalizations These observations about individual countries confirm that Germany’s r-star is significantly higher than those of Spain and Italy. When compared to France, the German r-star is also higher, but the gap is much narrower than that between Germany and the two southern nations. The recent ECB Euro Area Bank Lending Survey confirms that France’s r-star is well below that of Germany. French lending standards are tightening as fast as those in Italy (Chart 9). In effect, France’s heavy private sector debt load is proving to be a burden as the ECB begins to tighten policy, which implies a lower French r-star. Chart 9Lending Standard Are Tightening Most In France And Italy ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All ECB Policy: One Size Doesn’t Fit All ​​​​​​​ Bottom Line: Among the four largest economies in the Eurozone, a modeling exercise based on the HWL approach reveals that there is a large gap in neutral real interest rates, with Germany on one side around 0%, and Italy, Spain, and even France on the other side with r-star estimates ranging between -1.2% and -1.3%. A survey of current economic activity in these four nations confirms the results from the modeling exercise. Investment Implications The main consequence of the differing r-star across the Eurozone is that the ECB will need to remain an active player in the sovereign bond market. The German, Dutch, and Baltic economies are overheating, and policy needs to be tightened. This means that the ECB will continue to hike rates over the coming months. However, it cannot raise rates much more before they become problematic in Italy, Spain, and even France. Thus, the ECB will activate the TPI in the coming months in order to ease monetary conditions in those economies relative to the stronger group by limiting policy-induced increases in bond yields. In fact, using the r-star estimates adjusted for the debt-to-GDP ratios, the ECB would need to absorb roughly 30% of the Italian total debt to bring Italy’s r-star closer to Germany’s levels. This will not happen, which means that in the foreseeable future, Italy will not be able to withstand the levels of interest rate needed to cool down the German economy. Nonetheless, the TPI can help the ECB in fine-tuning monetary conditions across the Eurozone as it hikes policy rates. For now, Italian bonds are likely to remain volatile until the TPI is activated, especially considering the political situation in Italy, where the outlook for structural reform seems compromised by political uncertainty. This volatility will result in the activation of the TPI before year-end. Once the TPI is activated, BTP/Bund spreads are likely to move back toward 100bps, the level historically consistent with the ECB’s involvement in the sovereign debt market during the APP/PEPP era. The activation of the TPI will also be a positive development for the European corporate bond market, especially investment grade bonds. In last week’s post-conference press release, the ECB revealed that the TPI will also be able to buy private issuer securities. Thus, the ECB is likely to return as a potential buyer in this market. Moreover, investment grade bonds already price in a European recession and therefore offer a large value cushion with 12-month breakeven spreads trading in their 79th historical percentile (Chart 10). We especially like European investment grade corporate bonds relative to US ones on a USD-hedged basis. Relative valuations are in favor of Europe, and the ECB is not tightening policy as much as the Fed. Related Report  European Investment StrategyTo Parity And Beyond The euro will ultimately benefit from the activation of the TPI. The narrowing of both sovereign and corporate spreads resulting from the program represents a very bullish development for EUR/USD (Chart 11), especially because the ECB will likely sterilize the bonds purchased under the program (i.e. the ECB’s balance sheet will not expand because of the TPI). The TPI will also allow the ECB to deliver higher interest rates, which further supports the euro. Nonetheless, we continue to see substantial (roughly 20%) odds of a break below parity in the near-term, especially if wider BTP-Bund spreads in the coming three months are the key catalyst behind the TPI’s activation.  Chart 10Eurozone IG Debt Is Attractive Eurozone IG Debt Is Attractive Eurozone IG Debt Is Attractive Chart 11The TPI Will Help The Euro, Eventually The TPI Will Help The Euro, Eventually The TPI Will Help The Euro, Eventually Finally, last week’s policy development is unlikely to affect the absolute performance of European stocks. European equities remain mostly impacted by the fluctuations in global stock prices and the shifting probability of a recession in Europe this winter in response to the evolving energy crisis on the continent. European equities are inexpensive, and the probability of a recession is declining as a result of the resumption of natural gas flows from Russia. Crucially, the broadening trend toward coal utilization this winter and the growing list of deals that Europe is striking to secure non-Russian gas supplies suggest the impact of Russian cutoffs this winter could be more limited than once feared. Moreover, we expect European governments to hose their economies with stimulus if a crisis does emerge, which would both limit the depth of the crisis and prompt a rapid rebound in activity once winter ends. However, the inattention of the ECB to recession risks suggests that European equities could lag US equities in the near term. Bottom Line: The differences in r-star across Europe mean that the ECB will be forced to activate the TPI before year-end in order to hike interest rates further. Practically, this means that medium- to long-term investors should overweight Italian bonds at the current level of spreads. Short-term investors should remain on the sidelines; the political situation in Italy is still dangerous, and speculators are likely to test the ECB’s resolve. This also means that the euro is attractive as a long-term play, but it still carries large left-tail risk in the near term. While investors should favor European investment-grade bonds in USD-hedged terms relative to the US, European equities are likely to continue to suffer headwinds compared to US stocks.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     In fact, it will soon be 20 r-star since Croatia will join the euro on January 1, 2023.

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary The odds of a recession in the US are lower than widely perceived. The probability of a recession is higher in Europe, although this week’s partial resumption of gas flows through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, along with increased use of coal-fired power plants, should soften the blow. Chinese growth should rebound in the second half of the year. However, the specter of future lockdowns, the shift in global spending away from manufactured goods towards services, and the weakening property sector will continue to weigh on activity. With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, it is increasingly likely that the authorities will open up a firehose of stimulus. Fading recession risks will buoy stocks in the near term. However, a brighter economic outlook also means that the Fed, and several other central banks, may see little need to cut policy rates in 2023, as the markets are currently discounting. The end result is that government bond yields will rise from current levels, implying that stock valuations will not return to last year’s levels even if a recession is averted. After Rapidly Raising Rates, Markets Expect Some DM Central Banks To Start Easing Next Year The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Bottom Line: We recommend a modest overweight on global equities for now but would turn neutral if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050.   Dear Client, I am delighted to announce that Ritika Mankar, CFA, has joined the Global Investment Strategy team. Ritika will be writing occasional special reports on a variety of topical issues. Next week, she will make the case that the US economy’s ability to spawn mega-sized companies may become increasingly compromised over the next decade. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist The Case for a Soft Landing in the US Chart 1Cyclicals Underperformed Defensives As Recession Risks Intensified Cyclicals Underperformed Defensives As Recession Risks Intensified Cyclicals Underperformed Defensives As Recession Risks Intensified Over the last few months, investors have become concerned that the Fed and many other central banks will need to engineer a recession in order to bring inflation down to more comfortable levels. While these fears have abated over the past trading week, they still continue to dominate market action (Chart 1). We place the odds of a US recession at about 40%. This is arguably more optimistic than the consensus view. According to Bank of America, the majority of fund managers saw recession as likely in this month’s survey. Not surprisingly, investors consider recession to be a major risk for equities over the next 12 months (Chart 2). Chart 2Many Investors Now See Recession As Baked In The Cake The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Even if a recession does occur, we have contended that it will likely be a mild one, perhaps so mild that it will be difficult to distinguish it from a soft landing. A number of things make a soft landing in the US more probable than in the past: Labor supply has scope to increase. The labor participation rate is still 1.2 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, two-thirds of which is due to decreased participation among workers under the age of 55 (Chart 3). The share of workers holding multiple jobs is also below its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). The number of multiple job holders has been rising briskly lately. That is one reason why job growth in the payroll survey – which double counts workers if they hold more than one job – has been stronger than job growth in the household survey. Increased labor supply would obviate the need for the Fed to take drastic actions to curtail labor demand in its effort to restore balance to the labor market. Chart 3Labor Supply Has Scope To Rise Labor Supply Has Scope To Rise Labor Supply Has Scope To Rise Chart 4The Number Of Multiple Job Holders Is Still Below Pre-Pandemic Levels The Number Of Multiple Job Holders Is Still Below Pre-Pandemic Levels The Number Of Multiple Job Holders Is Still Below Pre-Pandemic Levels A high level of job openings creates a moat around the labor market. There are almost two times as many job openings as there are unemployed workers in the US (Chart 5). Many firms are likely to pull job openings before they cut jobs in response to a slowing economy. A high level of job openings will also allow workers who lose their jobs to find employment more quickly than usual, thus limiting the rise in so-called frictional unemployment. It is worth noting that the job openings rate has declined from a record 7.3% in March to a still-high 6.9% in May, with no change in the unemployment rate over this period. Chart 5A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A steep Phillips curve implies that only a modest increase in unemployment may be necessary to knock down inflation towards the Fed’s target. Just as was the case in the 1960s, the Phillips curve has proven to be kinked near full employment (Chart 6). Unlike in the late 1960s, however, when rising realized inflation caused long-term inflation expectations to reset higher, expectations have remained well anchored this time around (Chart 7). Chart 6The Phillips Curve Is Kinked At Very Low Levels Of Unemployment The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Chart 7Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Well Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Well Anchored Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Well Anchored   The unwinding of pandemic and war-related dislocations should push down inflation. A recent study by the San Francisco Fed estimates that about half of May’s PCE inflation print was the result of supply-side disturbances (Chart 8). While the ongoing war in Ukraine and the threat of another Covid wave in China will continue to unsettle global supply chains, these problems should fade over time. Falling inflation would allow real wages to start rising again. This would bolster confidence, making a soft landing more likely (Chart 9). Chart 8Supply Factors Explain Half Of The Increase In Prices Over The Past Year The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Chart 9Positive Real Wage Growth Will Bolster Consumer Confidence Positive Real Wage Growth Will Bolster Consumer Confidence Positive Real Wage Growth Will Bolster Consumer Confidence A lack of major financial imbalances makes the US economy more resilient to economic shocks. As a share of disposable income, US household debt is 34 percentage points below its 2008 peak (Chart 10). Relative to net worth, household debt is at multi-decade lows. About two-thirds of mortgages carry a FICO score above 760 compared to only one-third during the housing bubble (Chart 11). Non-mortgage consumer credit also remains in good shape, as my colleague Doug Peta elaborated in this week’s US Investment Strategy report. While corporate debt has risen over the past decade, the ratio of corporate debt-to-assets today is still below where it was during the 1990s. Moreover, thanks to stronger corporate profitability, the interest coverage ratio is near an all-time high (Chart 12).   Chart 10AUS Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (I) US Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (I) US Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (I) Chart 10BUS Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (II) US Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (II) US Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (II) Chart 11FICO Scores For Residential Mortgages Have Improved Considerably Since The Pre-GFC Housing Bubble The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Chart 12Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Decent Shape Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Decent Shape Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Decent Shape Chart 13Tight Supply Limits The Downside Risks To Housing Tight Supply Limits The Downside Risks To Housing Tight Supply Limits The Downside Risks To Housing Just like the US does not suffer from major financial imbalances, it does not suffer from any major economic imbalances either. The homeowner vacancy rate is near a record low, which should put a floor under residential investment (Chart 13). Outside of investment in intellectual property, which is not especially sensitive to the business cycle, nonresidential investment is still below pre-pandemic levels and not much above where it was as a share of GDP during the Great Recession (Chart 14). Spending on consumer durable goods has retraced four-fifths of its pandemic surge, with little ill-effect on aggregate employment (Chart 15). Chart 14Outside Of IP, Nonresidential Investment Is Still Low Outside Of IP, Nonresidential Investment Is Still Low Outside Of IP, Nonresidential Investment Is Still Low Chart 15Spending On Durable Goods Has Been Normalizing Without Derailing The Economy Spending On Durable Goods Has Been Normalizing Without Derailing The Economy Spending On Durable Goods Has Been Normalizing Without Derailing The Economy Europe: A Deep Freeze Will Likely Be Avoided Chart 16Russia Can Potentially Cause Significant Economic Damage In The EU If It Closes The Taps The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing The macroeconomic picture is less benign outside the US. Four years ago, German diplomats laughed off warnings that their country had become dangerously dependent on Russian energy. They are not laughing anymore. German industry, just like industry across much of Europe, is facing a major energy crunch. The IMF estimates that output losses associated with a full Russian gas shutoff over the next 12 months could amount to as much as 2.7% of GDP in the EU (Chart 16). In Central and Eastern Europe, output could shrink by 6%. Among the major economies, Germany and Italy are the most at risk. Fortunately, Europe is finally stepping up to the challenge. The highly ambitious REPowerEU plan seeks to displace two-thirds of Russian gas by the end of 2022. The plan does not include any additional energy that could be generated by increased usage of coal-fired power plants, a strategy that the European political establishment (including the German Green Party!) has only recently begun to champion. It is possible that EU leaders felt the need to generate a crisis mentality to justify the decision to burn more coal. Dire warnings about how Europe is prepared to ration gas also send a message to Russia that the EU is ready to suffer in order to thwart Putin’s despotic regime. Whether Europe actually follows through is a different story. It is worth noting that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline resumed operations this week after Germany received, over Ukrainian objections, a repaired turbine from Canada. The resumption of partial flows through the pipeline, along with increased fiscal support for households and firms, reduces the risks of a “deep freeze” recession in Europe. The unveiling of the ECB’s new Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) this week should also help anchor sovereign credit spreads across the euro area. While the exact conditions under which the TPI will be engaged have yet to be fleshed out, we expect the terms to be fairly liberal, reflecting not only the lessons learned from last decade’s euro debt crisis, but also to serve as a powerful bulwark against Putin’s efforts to destabilize the EU economy. China: Government’s Growth Target Looks Increasingly Unrealistic Stronger growth in China would help European exporters (Chart 17). Chinese real GDP grew by just 0.4% in the second quarter from a year earlier as the economy was battered by Covid lockdowns. Activity should pick up in the second half of the year, but at this point, the government’s 5.5% growth target looks completely unachievable. The specter of future lockdowns, the shift in global spending away from manufactured goods towards services, and the weakening Chinese property sector are all weighing on the economy (Chart 18). Chart 17European Exporters Would Welcome A Stronger Chinese Economy European Exporters Would Welcome A Stronger Chinese Economy European Exporters Would Welcome A Stronger Chinese Economy The authorities will likely seek to stimulate the economy by allowing local governments to bring forward $220 billion in bond issuance that had been originally slated for 2023. The problem is that land sales – the main source of local government revenue – have collapsed. Worried about the ability of local governments to service their obligations, both retail investors and banks have shied away from buying local government debt. Chart 18A Slowing Property Market And Covid Lockdowns Have Been Weighing On The Chinese Economy A Slowing Property Market And Covid Lockdowns Have Been Weighing On The Chinese Economy A Slowing Property Market And Covid Lockdowns Have Been Weighing On The Chinese Economy Meanwhile, the inability of property developers to secure adequate financing to complete construction projects has left a growing number of home buyers in the lurch. In most cases, these properties were purchased off-the-plan. Understandably, home buyers have balked at the prospect of having to make mortgage payments on properties that they do not possess.  With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, it is increasingly likely that the authorities will open up a firehose of stimulus, including increased assistance for property developers and banks, as well as income-support measures for households. While such measures will not address China’s myriad structural problems, they will help keep the economy afloat. Equity Valuations in a Soft-Landing Scenario A few weeks ago, the consensus view was that stocks would tumble in the second half of the year as the global economy fell into recession but would then rally in 2023 as central banks began lowering rates. We argued the opposite, namely that stocks would likely rebound in the second half of the year as the economy outperformed expectations but would then face renewed pressure in 2023 as it became clear that the Fed and several other central banks had no reason to cut rates (Chart 19). Chart 19After Rapidly Raising Rates, Markets Expect Some DM Central Banks To Start Easing Next Year The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Chart 20Real Rates Have Jumped This Year Real Rates Have Jumped This Year Real Rates Have Jumped This Year In a baseline scenario where a recession is averted, we argued that the S&P 500 could rise to 4,500 (60% odds). In contrast, we noted that the S&P 500 could fall to 3,500 in a mild recession scenario (30% odds) and to 2,900 in a deep recession scenario (10% odds). It is worth stressing that even at 4,500, the S&P 500 would still be 11% lower in real terms than it was on January 4th. At the stock market’s peak in January, the 10-year TIPS yield stood at -0.91%, while the 30-year TIPS yield stood at -0.27%. Today, they stand at 0.58% and 0.93%, respectively (Chart 20). If real rates do not return to their prior lows, it is unlikely that equity valuations will return to their prior highs. This limits the upside for stocks, even in a soft-landing scenario. The sharp rally in stocks over the past week has priced out some of this recession risk, moving equity valuations closer towards what we regard as fair value. As we noted last week, we will turn neutral on equities if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050. As we go to press, we are only 1.3% from that level.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on         LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Downside Of A Soft Landing The Downside Of A Soft Landing    

Executive Summary We posit three conjectures about the US economy: Inflation has an easy path back to 4%, but a move to 2% will require a higher unemployment rate. It will be more difficult to raise the unemployment rate than many anticipate. The Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many anticipate. Taken together, these conjectures point to a higher fed funds rate in 2023 than is currently discounted in the market. This suggests that investors should be bearish bonds on a 12-18 month investment horizon. While we are bearish bonds in the medium-to-long term, we retain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance for the time being because numerous indicators point to lower bond yields during the next few months. We also recommend an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, though we highlight the potential for solid near-term junk bond returns. Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Bottom Line: Maintain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance. We will recommend reducing portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation converges with our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend. Feature Uncertainty in bond markets remains elevated as investors seemingly can’t decide whether the US economy is in the midst of an inflationary boom or hurtling towards recession. This week’s report details our view of the current macroeconomic environment by offering three conjectures about the state of the US economy and monetary policy. We conclude by explaining how these conjectures shape our recommended investment strategy. Conjecture #1: Inflation Has An Easy Path Back To 4%, The Path To 2% Will Be More Difficult At 5.9%, core CPI inflation is running well above the Fed’s 2% target. However, we know that some portion of that 5.9% reflects supply side constraints related to the pandemic and some portion reflects an overheating of the demand side of the US economy. This distinction is important because the pandemic-related inflation will eventually subside on its own, without the need for materially slower economic growth. In contrast, a significant economic slowdown and a higher unemployment rate will be required to tame any inflation driven by strong US demand. Chart 1Estimating Trend Inflation Estimating Trend Inflation Estimating Trend Inflation In a recent report we looked at three different techniques for distinguishing between these two types of inflation.1First, we considered the Atlanta Fed’s decomposition of core inflation into flexible and sticky components. At present, the volatile core flexible CPI is running at an 8.4% annual rate and the core sticky CPI stands at 5.4% (Chart 1). Second, we noted that the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge is running at 4.8% (Chart 1, bottom panel). Finally, we used wage growth net of trend productivity growth as an estimate of inflation’s underlying trend and calculated that to be 3.7% (Chart 1, bottom panel). From this analysis, our general conclusion is that core CPI inflation can fall into a range of 4%-5% just from the unwinding of pandemic-induced supply-side effects. After that, the Fed will be forced to engineer an economic slowdown to bring inflation from the stickier 4% level back down to its 2% target. Inflation Progress Report Last week’s June CPI report shows that even progress back to our 4%-5% estimate of inflation’s underlying trend is proving difficult. Core CPI rose 0.71% in June, well above expectations, and monthly trimmed mean CPI was an even stronger 0.80% (Chart 2A). Base effects led to a small drop in the annual core CPI number – from 6.0% to 5.9% - but annual trimmed mean CPI moved up to 6.9% (Chart 2B). The strong CPI print has led to increased speculation that the Fed will raise rates by 100 bps this month (see Box). Chart 2AMonthly Inflation Monthly Inflation Monthly Inflation Chart 2BYearly Inflation Yearly Inflation Yearly Inflation Turning to the three major components of core inflation, we see that shelter, goods, and services ex. shelter contributed roughly equal amounts to the June core CPI reading (Chart 3). The elevated reading from core goods inflation is particularly notable because this is one area where we have been anticipating that easing supply-side constraints will send prices lower. Car prices, specifically, have been one of the principal drivers of high inflation and they remained stubbornly high in June (Chart 4). Chart 3Monthly Core CPI Inflation By Major Component Three Conjectures About The US Economy Three Conjectures About The US Economy Chart 4Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core Goods CPI Three Conjectures About The US Economy Three Conjectures About The US Economy Chart 5Supply-Side Constraints Are Easing Supply-Side Constraints Are Easing Supply-Side Constraints Are Easing While it has taken much longer than expected for core goods and other pandemic-driven components of inflation to turn down, leading indicators still suggest that these prices are more likely to fall than rise during the next few months. The New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has clearly rolled over and supplier delivery times, as measured by both the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys, have shortened (Chart 5). While core goods and autos are representative of the sort of inflation that will ease naturally as supply chain constraints abate, shelter inflation is representative of the sort of inflation that will be stickier. That is, a higher unemployment rate will be required to significantly lower shelter inflation. Chart 6Shelter CPI Model Shelter CPI Model Shelter CPI Model Shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, can be modeled using the unemployment rate, rental vacancies and home prices (Chart 6). Given that shelter is such a large component of core inflation, it must fall if the Fed is going to achieve its 2% inflation target. That will certainly require a higher unemployment rate and very likely a recession. Bottom Line: Core inflation will move down in the second half of this year, as easing supply-side constraints lead to lower goods prices. Inflation’s downtrend will subside once it reaches its trend level of 4%-5%, at which point a higher unemployment rate and economic recession will be required to move it even lower, back to the Fed’s 2% target. BOX 75 bps Or 100 bps At The Next FOMC Meeting? Guidance provided by Fed Chair Jay Powell at the last meeting FOMC meeting suggested that the committee will choose between lifting rates by 50 bps or 75 bps when it meets later this month. The implication was that any negative inflation surprise would push the committee towards 75 bps. Certainly, last month’s strong employment report and hot CPI print justify a 75 bps move within Powell’s framework. But is it possible that Powell’s guidance from the June FOMC meeting is already stale? Chart B1July FOMC Expectations July FOMC Expectations July FOMC Expectations Investors are increasingly betting that it is, and the market is now discounting some chance of a 100 bps rate hike this month (Chart B1). The reason for this pricing is that the Fed has already backtracked on its guidance once before. Powell ruled out 75 bps rate hikes at the May FOMC press conference. Then, the committee delivered a 75 bps increase in June after core CPI came in hot. Kansas City Fed President Esther George dissented from the June decision because she objected to the Fed flip-flopping on its guidance so quickly. George explained her dissent in a recent speech by saying that “communicating the path for interest rates is likely far more consequential than the speed with which we get there.”2 Where does this leave us for the July meeting? Our expectation is that the Fed will stick to its guidance and deliver a 75 bps increase this month. However, if the market moves to fully price-in a 100 bps move then the committee may be tempted to deliver on those expectations. In other words, the Fed’s recent track record of abandoning its forward rate guidance means that both a 75 bps rate hike and a 100 bps rate hike are in play for July. Conjecture #2: The Labor Market Will Be More Resilient Than Is Widely Believed Chart 7An Extremely Tight Labor Market An Extremely Tight Labor Market An Extremely Tight Labor Market Our second conjecture is that it will be more difficult to lift the unemployment rate than many people think. This view stems from the fact that the labor market is incredibly tight. As Fed officials have often pointed out, there are currently almost two job openings for every unemployed worker in the country (Chart 7). Further, we noted in last week’s report that while the employment readings from both ISM surveys are in contractionary territory, respondents to those surveys were much more likely to cite concerns about the supply side of the labor market than they were to cite concerns about hiring demand.3 In other words, an economy where there are twice as many job openings as unemployed workers and where firms are complaining about a shortage of labor is not one where we are likely to see an immediate surge in layoffs, even as demand starts to soften. Conjecture #3: The Fed Will Tolerate A Higher Unemployment Rate Than Is Widely Believed Chart 8Optimal Control Monetary Policy Optimal Control Monetary Policy Optimal Control Monetary Policy Our final conjecture is that the Fed will persistently run a much more restrictive monetary policy than many investors anticipate. We detailed our logic in a recent report where we argued that the Fed will adopt an optimal control approach to monetary policy.4 An optimal control strategy is employed when the Fed is unlikely to perfectly hit both its full employment goal and its 2% inflation target. In such environments, Janet Yellen has argued that the Fed should set monetary policy to minimize the joint deviations of inflation from target and of the unemployment rate from estimates of its full employment level.5 Chart 8 presents an example of an optimal control loss function that consists of adding together the squared deviations of inflation from 2% and of the unemployment rate from the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU. Using this framework, the Fed’s goal is to minimize the output of the loss function shown in the top panel. The dashed lines in Chart 8 illustrate a scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% but where the output from the loss function is held flat. That scenario implies an increase in the unemployment rate from its current level of 3.6% all the way up to 6.7%! This exercise demonstrates that, under an optimal control framework, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an unemployment rate of 6.7% or lower in order to move core inflation back to 4%. We don’t see the unemployment rate hitting 6.7% any time soon. The main point of this analysis is to illustrate that Fed policy is likely to retain a restrictive bias until inflation returns to 2% or lower. It won’t move toward easing policy at the first sign of a higher unemployment rate, as has been the pattern in recent years when inflation was much more contained. Investment Implications To summarize, our three conjectures about the US economy are that: (i) a higher unemployment rate will be required to move inflation from 4% to the Fed’s 2% target, (ii) a lot of demand destruction will be required before we see a significant rise in the unemployment rate and (iii) in its pursuit of lower inflation, the Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many people expect. Taken together, these three conjectures imply that the fed funds rate will be higher in 2023 than what is currently priced in the curve. At present, the market is priced for the fed funds to peak at 3.67% in March 2023 and then fall back to 3.13% by the end of the year (Chart 9). If our three conjectures pan out, then we think it’s likely that the fed funds rate will move above 4% next year and that it will be higher than 3.13% by the end of 2023. Chart 9Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Portfolio Duration Chart 10High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators Obviously, this view makes us inclined toward a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 12-18 month investment horizon. That said, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for now because many indicators suggest that bond yields could fall during the next few months (Chart 10). More specifically, with core CPI still above our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend, we see inflation as more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. At the same time, aggregate demand will be slowing as the Fed tightens policy and the unemployment rate is more likely to rise than fall. These factors will keep bond yields contained between now and the end of the year. While we recommend an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon, we will reduce portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield moves back to 2.5% or once core inflation converges to our 4%-5% estimate of trend. At that point, we think inflation will be stickier and it will make sense to position for higher bond yields. Spread Product Our three conjectures also imply a negative environment for spread product. Monetary policy will become increasingly restrictive, and it will be a long time before the Fed moves toward interest rate cuts – the traditional signal to pile into spread product. We therefore advocate an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. One exception to our underweight spread product allocation is that we retain a neutral allocation to high-yield. Our reasoning is that high-yield spreads are elevated and they have the potential to tighten during the next few months as inflation converges toward our estimate of trend. As inflation falls and fears of immediate recession abate, it’s conceivable that junk spreads could revert to their 2017-19 average, the level that prevailed during the previous tightening cycle (Chart 11), and such a move would lead to roughly 8.4% of excess return.6 If such a move were to occur within the next six months, then we would be inclined to reduce our junk bond exposure to underweight. A Quick Note On 2-Year TIPS Chart 11Junk Spreads Are Elevated Junk Spreads Are Elevated Junk Spreads Are Elevated Chart 122-Year TIPS Yield Is Positive Three Conjectures About The US Economy Three Conjectures About The US Economy In last week’s report we recommended upgrading TIPS from underweight to neutral relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. However, given that the 2-year TIPS yield was still negative, we did not close our recommendation to short 2-year TIPS or our recommended 2/10 real yield curve flattener and 2/10 inflation curve steepener positions. The 2-year real yield has continued to rise during the past week and, at +9 bps, it is now in positive territory (Chart 12). We were confident that the 2-year TIPS yield would turn positive because the Fed has implied that it is targeting positive real yields across the entire curve. But now that the yield is positive, we are no longer confident in the trade’s upside. Bottom Line: Investors should close out their short 2-year TIPS positions, as well as their 2/10 real yield curve flatteners and 2/10 inflation curve steepeners. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “No End In Sight For Fed Tightening”, dated June 21, 2022. 2     https://www.kansascityfed.org/Speeches/documents/8875/2022-George-MidAm… 3    Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 6    Return estimate assumes default losses of 1.8% and that the spread tightening occurs over a six month period.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary China's Unemployment Questions From The Road Questions From The Road Over the past week we have been visiting clients along the US west coast. In this report we hit some of the highlights from the most important and frequently asked questions. Xi Jinping is seizing absolute power just as the country’s decades-long property boom turns to bust. He will stimulate the economy but Chinese stimulus is less effective than it used to be. The US and Israel are underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, the Middle East will begin to unravel again. The UK’s domestic instability is returning, with Scotland threatening to leave the union. Brexit, the pandemic, and inflation make a Scottish referendum a more serious risk than in the past. Shinzo Abe’s assassination makes him a martyr for a vision of Japan as a “normal country” – i.e. one that is not pacifist but capable of defending itself. Japan’s rearmament, like Germany’s, points to the decline of the WWII peace settlement and the return of great power competition. Bottom Line: Investors need a new global balance to be achieved through US diplomacy with Russia, China, and Iran. That is not forthcoming, as the chief nations face instability at home and a stagflationary global economy. Feature The world is becoming less stable as stagflation combines with great power competition. Global uncertainty is through the roof. From a macroeconomic perspective, investors need to know whether central banks can whip inflation without triggering a recession. From a geopolitical perspective, investors need to know whether Russia’s conflict with the West will expand, whether US-China and US-Iran tensions will escalate in a damaging way, and whether domestic political rotations in the US and China this fall will lead to more stable and productive economies. China: What Will Happen At The Communist Party Reshuffle? General Secretary Xi Jinping will cement another five-to-10 years in power while promoting members of his faction into key positions on the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. By December Xi will roll out a pro-growth strategy for 2023 and the government will signal that it will start relaxing Covid-19 restrictions. But China’s structural problems ensure that this good news for global growth will only have a fleeting effect. China’s governance is shifting from single-party rule to single-person rule. It is also shifting from commercially focused decentralization to national security focused centralization. Xi has concentrated power in himself, in the party, and in Beijing at the expense of political opponents, the private economy, and outlying regions like Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang. The subordination of Taiwan is the next major project, ensuring that China will ally with Russia and that the US and China cannot repair or deepen their economic partnership. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyWill China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Xi and the Communist Party began centralizing political power and economic control shortly after the Great Recession. At that time it became clear that a painful transition away from export manufacturing and close relations with the United States was necessary. The transition would jeopardize China’s long-term economic, social, political, and geopolitical stability. The Communist Party believed it needed to revive strongman leadership (autocracy) rather than pursuing greater liberalization that would ultimately increase the odds of political revolution (democratization). The Xi administration has struggled to manage the country’s vast debt bubble, given that total debt standing has surged to 287% of GDP. The global pandemic forced the government to launch another large stimulus package, which it then attempted to contain. Corporate and household deleveraging ensued. The property and infrastructure boom of the past three decades has stalled, as the regime has imposed liquidity and capital requirements on banks and property developers to try to avoid a financial crisis. Regulatory tightening occurred in other sectors to try to steer investment into government-approved sectors and reduce the odds of technological advancement fanning social dissent. China’s draconian “zero Covid” policy sought to limit the disease’s toll, improve China’s economic self-reliance, and eliminate the threat of social protest during the year of the twentieth party congress. But it also slammed the brakes on growth. China is highly vulnerable to social instability for both structural and cyclical reasons. Chinese social unrest was our number one “Black Swan” for this year and it is now starting to take shape in the form of angry mortgage owners across the country refusing to make mortgage payments on houses that were pre-purchased but not yet built and delivered (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Mortgage Payment Boycott Questions From The Road Questions From The Road The mortgage payment boycott is important because it is stemming from the outstanding economic and financial imbalance – the property sector – and because it is a form of cross-regional social organization, which the Communist Party will disapprove. There are other social protests emerging, including low-level bank runs, which must be monitored very closely. Local authorities will act quickly to stop the spread of the mortgage boycott. But unhappy homeowners will be a persistent problem due to the decline of the property sector and industry. China’s property sector looks uncomfortably like the American property sector ahead of the 2006-08 bust. Prices for existing homes are falling while new house prices are on the verge of falling (Chart 2). While mortgages only make up 15% of bank assets, and household debt is only 62% of GDP, households are no longer taking on new debt (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Falling Property Prices China's Falling Property Prices China's Falling Property Prices ​​​​​​ Chart 3China's Property Crisis China's Property Crisis China's Property Crisis ​​​​​​ Chart 4China's Unemployment China's Unemployment China's Unemployment Most likely China’s property sector is entering the bust phase that we have long expected – if not, then the reason will be a rapid and aggressive move by authorities to expand monetary and fiscal stimulus and loosen economic restrictions. That process of broad-based easing – “letting 100 flowers bloom” – will not fully get under way until after the party congress, say in December. Unemployment is rising across China as the economy slows, another point of comparison with the United States ahead of the 2008 property collapse (Chart 4). Unemployment is a manipulated statistic so real conditions are likely worse. There is no more important indicator. China’s government will be forced to ease policy, creating a positive impact on global growth in 2023, but the impact will be fleeting. Bottom Line: The underlying debt-deflationary context will prevail before long in China, weighing on global growth and inflation expectations on a cyclical basis. Middle East: Why Did Biden Go And What Will He Get? President Biden traveled to Israel and now Saudi Arabia because he wants Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab members of OPEC to increase oil production to reduce gasoline prices at the pump for Americans ahead of the midterm elections (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia True, fears of recession are already weighing on prices, but Biden embarked on this mission before the growth slowdown was fully appreciated and he is not going to lightly abandon the anti-inflation fight before the midterm election. Biden also went because one of his top foreign policy priorities – the renegotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – is falling apart. The Iranians do not want to freeze their nuclear program because they want regime survival and security. While Biden is offering a return to the 2015 deal, the conditions that produced the deal are no longer applicable: Russia and China are not cooperating with the US and EU to isolate Iran. Russia is courting Iran, oil prices are high and sanction enforcement is weak (unlike 2015). The Iranians now know, after the Trump administration, that they cannot trust the Americans to give credible security guarantees that will last across parties and administrations. The war in Ukraine also underscores the weakness of diplomatic security guarantees as opposed to a nuclear deterrent. Hence the joint US and Israeli declaration that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The good news is that this kind of joint statement is precisely what needed to occur – the underscoring of the red line – to try to change Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s calculus regarding his drive to achieve nuclear breakout. In 2015 Khamenei gave diplomacy a chance to try to improve the economy, stave off social unrest, prepare the way for his eventual leadership succession process, and secure the Islamic Republic. The bad news is that Khamenei probably cannot make the same decision this time, as the hawkish faction now runs his government, the Americans are unreliable, and Russia and China are offering an alternative strategic orientation. The Saudis will pump more oil if necessary to save the global business cycle but not at the beck and call of a US president. The drop in oil prices reduces their urgency. The Americans can reassure the Saudis and Israel as long as the deal with Iran is not going forward. That looks to be the case. But then the US and Israel will have to undertake joint actions to underline their threat to Iran – and Iran will have to threaten to stage attacks across the region so as to deter any attack. Bottom Line: If a US-Iran deal does not materialize at the last minute, Middle Eastern instability will revive and a new source of oil supply constraint will plague the global economy. We continue to believe a US-Iran deal is unlikely, with only 40% odds of happening. Europe: Will Russia Turn Back On The Natural Gas? Russia’s objective in cutting off European natural gas is to inflict a recession on Europe. It wants a better bargaining position on strategic matters. Therefore we assume Russia will continue to squeeze supplies from now through the winter, when European demand rises and Russian leverage will peak. If Russia allows some flow to return, then it will be part of the negotiating process and will not preclude another cutoff before winter. It is possible that Russia is merely giving Europe a warning and will revert back to supplying natural gas. The problem is that Russia’s purpose is to achieve a strategic victory in Ukraine and in negotiations over NATO’s role in the Nordic countries. Russia has not achieved these goals, so natural gas cutoff will likely continue. Russia also hopes that by utilizing its energy leverage – while it still has it – it will bring forward the economic pain of Europe’s transition away from reliance on Russian energy. In that case European countries will experience recession and households will begin to change their view of the situation. European governments will be more likely to change their policies, to become more pragmatic and less confrontational toward Russia. Or European governments will be voted out of power and do the same thing. Other states could join Hungary in saying that Europe should never impose a full natural gas embargo on Russia. Russia would be able to salvage some of its energy trade with Europe over the long run, despite the war in Ukraine and the inevitable European energy diversification. In recent months we highlighted Italy as the weakest link in the European chain and the country most likely to see such a shift in policy occur. Italy’s national unity coalition had lost its reason for being, while the combination of rising bond yields and natural gas prices weighed on the economy. The Italian bond spread over German bunds has long served as our indicator of European political stress – and it is spiking now, forcing the European Central Bank to rush to plan an anti-fragmentation strategy that would theoretically enable it to tighten monetary policy while preventing an Italian debt crisis (Chart 6). The European Union remains unlikely to break up – Russian aggression was always one of our chief arguments for why the EU would stick together. But Italy will undergo a recession and an election (due by June 2023 but that could easily happen this fall), likely producing a new government that is more pragmatic with regard to Russia so as to reduce the energy strain. Chart 6Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy’s political turmoil shows that European states are feeling the energy crisis and will begin to shift policies to reduce the burden on households. Households will lose their appetite for conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukrainians, especially if Russia begins offering a ceasefire after completing its conquest of the Donetsk area. If Russia expands its invasion, then Europe will expand sanctions and the risk of further strategic instability will go up. But most likely Russia will seek to quit while it is ahead and twist Europe’s arm into foisting a ceasefire onto Ukraine. Bottom Line: A change of government in Italy will increase the odds that the EU will engage in diplomacy with Russia in the coming year, if Russia offers, so as to reach a new understanding, restore natural gas flows, and salvage the economy. This would leave NATO enlargement unresolved but a shift in favor of a ceasefire in Ukraine in 2023 would be less negative for European assets and the euro. UK: Who Will Replace Boris Johnson? Last week UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson fell from power and now the Conservative Party is engaging in a leadership competition to replace him. We gave up on Johnson after he survived his no-confidence vote and yet it became clear that he could not recover in popular opinion. The inflation outburst destroyed his premiership and wiped away whatever support he had gained from executing Brexit. In fact it reinforced the faction that believed Brexit was the wrong decision. Going forward the UK will be consumed with domestic political turmoil as the cost of stagflation mounts, and geopolitical turmoil as Scotland attempts to hold a second independence referendum, possibly by October 2023. Global investors should focus primarily on Scotland’s attempt to secede, since the breakup of the United Kingdom would be a momentous historical event and a huge negative shock for pound sterling. While only 44.7% of Scots voted for independence in 2014, now they have witnessed Brexit, Covid-19, and stagflation, producing tailwinds for the Scots nationalist vote (Chart 7). Chart 7Forget Bojo's Exit, Watch Scotland Questions From The Road Questions From The Road There are still major limitations on Scotland exiting, since its national capabilities are limited, it would need to join the European Union, and Spain and possibly others will threaten to veto its membership in the European Union for fear of feeding their own secessionist movements. But any new referendum – including one done without the approval of Westminster – should be taken very seriously by investors. Bottom Line: Johnson’s removal will only marginally improve the Tories’ ability to manage the rebellion brewing in the north. A snap election that brings the Labour Party back into power would have a greater chance of keeping Scotland in the union, although it is not clear that such a snap election will happen in time to affect any Scottish decision. The UK faces economic and political turmoil between now and any referendum and investors should steer clear of the pound. (Though we still favor GBP over eastern European currencies). Britain will remain aggressive toward Russia but its ability to affect the Russian dynamic will fall, leaving the US and EU to decide the fate of Russian relations. Japan: What Is The Significance Of Shinzo Abe’s Assassination? Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a lone fanatic with a handmade gun. The significance of the incident is that Abe will become a martyr for a certain vision of Japan – his vision of Japan, which is that Japan can become a “normal country” that moves beyond the shackles of the guilt of its imperial aggression in World War II. A normal country is one that is economically stable and militarily capable of defending itself – not a pacifist country mired in debt-deflation. Abe stood for domestic reflation and a proactive foreign policy, along with the normalization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). True, economic policy can become less dovish if necessary to deal with inflation. Some changes at the Bank of Japan may usher in a less dovish shift in monetary policy in particular. But monetary policy cannot become outright hawkish like it was before Abe. And Abe’s fiscal policy was never as loose as it was made out to be, given that he executed several hikes to the consumption tax. Japan’s structural demographic decline and large debt burden will continue to weigh on economic activity whenever real rates and the yen rise. The government will be forced to reflate using monetary and fiscal policy whenever deflation threatens to return. Debt monetization will remain an option for future Japanese governments, even if it is restrained during times of high inflation. Chart 8Shinzo Abe's Legacy Questions From The Road Questions From The Road ​​​​​​​ This is not only because Japanese households will become depressed if deflation is left unchecked but also because economic growth must be maintained in order to sustain the nation’s new and growing national defense budgets. Japan’s growing need for self defense stems from China’s strategic rise, Russia’s aggression, and North Korea’s nuclearization, plus uncertainty about the future of American foreign policy. These trends will not change anytime soon. Indeed the Liberal Democratic Party’s popularity has increased under Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who will largely sustain Abe’s vision. The Diet still has a supermajority in favor of constitutional revision so as to enshrine the self-defense forces (Chart 8). And the de facto policy of rearmament continues even without formal revision. Bottom Line: Any Japanese leader who attempts to promote a hawkish BoJ, and a dovish JSDF, will fail sooner rather than later. The revolving door of prime ministers will accelerate. As Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe opened up the reliable pathway, which is that of a dovish BoJ and a hawkish foreign policy. This is important for the world, as well as Japan, because a more hawkish Japan will increase China’s fears of strategic containment. The frozen conflicts in Asia will continue to thaw, perpetuating the secular rise in geopolitical risk. We remain long JPY-KRW, since the BoJ may adjust in the short term and Chinese stimulus is still compromised, but that trade is on downgrade watch. Investment Takeaways Russia’s energy cutoff is aimed at pushing Europe into recession so as to force policy changes or government changes in Europe that will improve Russia’s position at the negotiating table over Ukraine, NATO, and other strategic disputes. Hence Russia is unlikely to increase the natural gas flow until it believes it has achieved its strategic aims and multiple veto players in the EU will prevent the EU from ever implementing a full-blown natural gas embargo. Chinese stimulus cannot be fully effective until it relaxes Covid-19 restrictions, likely beginning in December or next year when Xi Jinping uses his renewed political capital to try to stabilize the economy. However, China’s government powers alone are insufficient to prevent the debt-deflationary tendency of the property bust. The Middle East faces rising geopolitical tensions that will take markets by surprise with additional energy supply constraints. The implication is continued oil volatility given that global growth is faltering. Once global demand stabilizes, the Middle East’s turmoil will add to existing oil supply constraints to create new price pressures. The odds are not very high of the Federal Reserve achieving a “soft landing” in the context of a global energy shock and a stagflationary Europe and China.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

In lieu of next week’s report, I will host the monthly Counterpoint Webcast on Monday, July 25. Please mark the date in your calendar, and I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Central banks face a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If they choose inflation at 2 percent, they will have to take the economy into recession. To take the economy into recession, bond yields and energy prices do not need to move any higher. They just need to stay where they are. The stock market has not yet discounted a recession. With stocks and bonds having become equally ‘cheaper’ this year, but stocks now vulnerable to substantial downgrades to their profits, stocks are likely to underperform bonds over the coming 6-12 months. In the event of recession followed by plunging inflation, a valuation uplift for bonds will also underpin stock prices and limit further downside in absolute terms. The biggest loser will be commodities. On a 6-12 month horizon, the optimal asset allocation is: overweight bonds, neutral stocks, underweight commodities. Fractal trading watchlist: Ethereum. The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession… Yet Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis Bottom Line: On a 6-12 month horizon, overweight bonds, neutral stocks, underweight commodities. Feature The Greek mythological sea monsters, Scylla and Charybdis, sat on opposite sides of the narrow Strait of Messina, with one monster likened to a shoal of rocks, the other to a vortex. Avoiding the rocks meant getting too close to the vortex, and avoiding the vortex meant getting too close to the rocks. In today’s stock market, if Scylla is the monster of high bond yields, then Charybdis is the monster of falling profits. Whether the stock market can safely navigate these twin monsters without further damage depends on a sequence of questions. In today’s stock market, if Scylla is the monster of high bond yields, then Charybdis is the monster of falling profits. If the market can escape high bond yields, can it also escape falling profits? The answer to this depends on a second question. Can central banks guide inflation back to 2 percent without taking the economy into recession? The answer to this depends on a third question. Is 2 percent inflation still consistent with full employment? Central Banks Face A ‘Sophie’s Choice’ – Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? In the US, the main transmission mechanism from employment to inflation is through so-called ‘rent of shelter’. Because, to put it bluntly, you need a steady job to pay the rent. And rent comprises 41 percent of the core inflation basket. For the past couple of decades, the Fed could have its cake and eat it: full employment and inflation running close to 2 percent. This was because full employment was consistent with rent of shelter inflation running at 3.5 percent, which itself was consistent with core inflation running at 2 percent. The Fed faces a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If it chooses inflation at 2 percent, then the Fed will have to take the economy into recession. But recently, there has been a phase-shift between the employment market and rent of shelter inflation. The current state of full employment equates to rent of shelter inflation running not at 3.5 percent, but at 5.5 percent (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Central Banks Face A 'Sophie's Choice' - Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? Central Banks Face A 'Sophie's Choice' - Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? Central Banks Face A 'Sophie's Choice' - Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? Hence, the Fed faces a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If it chooses inflation at 2 percent, the unemployment rate will have to rise by 2 percent. Meaning, the Fed will have to take the economy into recession. The Economy Tries The ‘Cold Pressor Test’ To take the economy into recession, bond yields and energy prices do not need to move any higher – they just need to stay where they are. This is because the damage from elevated bond yields and energy prices doesn’t come just from their level. It comes from their level multiplied by the length of time that they stay elevated. Try putting your hand in a bucket of ice water. For the first few seconds, or even tens of seconds, you will not feel any discomfort. After a few minutes though, the pain becomes excruciating. This so-called ‘cold pressor test’ tells us that your discomfort results not just from the temperature level of the ice water, but equally from the length of time that you keep your hand in it. Likewise, a short-lived spike in the mortgage rate or in the price of natural gas, or a short-lived collapse in your stock market wealth will not cause any discomfort. But the longer the mortgage rate stays elevated, and more and more people are buying or refinancing a home at a much higher rate, the greater becomes the economic pain. In the same vein, most Europeans will not notice the sky-high prices of natural gas in the summer when the heating is off. But come the cold of October and November, many people will have to choose literally between physical or economic pain. Some commentators counter that the “war chest of savings” accumulated during the pandemic will buffer households against higher mortgage rates and energy prices. We strongly disagree. The savings accumulated during the pandemic just added to, and became indistinguishable from, other wealth. Yet now, in case you hadn’t noticed, wealth has been pummelled. In case you hadn’t noticed, wealth has been pummelled. The impact of wealth on spending is a huge topic which we will expand upon in a future report. In a nutshell, most spending comes from income and income proxies. Wealth generates income, but it also generates an income proxy via capital gain. So, to the extent that wealth can drive spending growth, the biggest contributor comes from the change in capital gain, also known as the ‘wealth impulse’. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse is now in deeply negative territory (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Wealth Impulse Is In Deeply Negative Territory The Wealth Impulse Is In Deeply Negative Territory The Wealth Impulse Is In Deeply Negative Territory The Stock Market Has Not Yet Discounted A Recession Coming back to the stock market, does the 2022 bear market mean that it has already discounted a recession? No, this year’s bear market is entirely due to a collapse in valuations. Since the start of the year, US profit expectations have held up. If the bear market were front running profit downgrades, then it would be underperforming its valuation component, but it is not. The counterargument is that analysts are notoriously slow to downgrade their profit estimates. Isn’t the bear market the ‘real-time’ stock market ‘front running’ big downgrades to these profit estimates? Again, no. If the market were front running profit downgrades, then it would be underperforming its valuation component, but it is not (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession...Yet The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession...Yet The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession...Yet The bear market in the S&P 500 has near-perfectly tracked the bear market in its valuation component, the 30-year T-bond price. The valuation component of the S&P 500 is the 30-year T-bond price because the duration of the S&P 500 equals the duration of the 30-year T-bond. Several clients have asked how to prove that the duration of the S&P 500 equals that of the 30-year T-bond. We can do it either a difficult theoretical way, or an easy empirical way. The difficult theoretical way is to take the projected cashflows, and calculate the weighted average time to those cashflows, where the weights are the discounted values of those cashflows. The much easier empirical way is to show that the S&P 500 tracks its profits multiplied by the 30-year T-bond price more faithfully than if we use a shorter maturity bond, such as the 10-year T-bond (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5) Chart I-4The S&P 500 Tracks Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year T-Bond Price More Faithfully... The S&P 500 Tracks Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year T-Bond Price More Faithfully... The S&P 500 Tracks Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year T-Bond Price More Faithfully... Chart I-5...Than Profits Multiplied By The 10-Year T-Bond Price ...Than Profits Multiplied By The 10-Year T-Bond Price ...Than Profits Multiplied By The 10-Year T-Bond Price One important upshot is that any valuation comparison of the S&P 500 with a bond other than the 30-year T-bond is a fundamental error of duration mismatch. Most strategists compare the S&P 500 with the 10-year T-bond because it is convenient. But the duration mismatch makes this ‘apples versus oranges’ valuation comparison one of the most common mistakes in finance. Overweight Bonds, Neutral Stocks, Underweight Commodities All of this is important to answer a crucial question about stock market valuations. With the stock market 20 percent down this year when expected profits have held up, it might appear that stocks have become much cheaper. The truth is more nuanced. Relative to expected profits over the next 12 months the US stock market is indeed much cheaper (Chart I-6). The caveat is that these expected profits are vulnerable to substantial downgrades in the event of a recession. Chart I-6The US Stock Market Is Cheaper Versus Expected Profits, But These Profits Are Too Optimistic The US Stock Market Is Cheaper Versus Expected Profits, But These Profits Are Too Optimistic The US Stock Market Is Cheaper Versus Expected Profits, But These Profits Are Too Optimistic Chart I-7The US Stock Market Is Not Cheaper Versus The 30-Year T-Bond The US Stock Market Is Not Cheaper Versus The 30-Year T-Bond The US Stock Market Is Not Cheaper Versus The 30-Year T-Bond But relative to the equal duration 30-year T-bond, the US stock market is not cheaper. Since, the start of the year, the uplift in the stock market’s (forward earnings) yield is precisely the same as the that on the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-7).  Relative to the equal duration 30-year T-bond, the US stock market has not become cheaper. With stocks and bonds having become equally ‘cheaper’ this year, but stocks now vulnerable to substantial downgrades to their profits, stocks are likely to underperform bonds over the coming 6-12 months. The good news is that a valuation uplift for bonds will also underpin stock prices, and limit further downside in absolute terms. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for commodities, whose real prices are still close to the upper end of their 40-year trading range (Chart I-8) Chart I-8The Real Price Of Metals Is Still At The Upper End Of Its 40-Year Trading Range The Real Price Of Metals Is Still At The Upper End Of Its 40-Year Trading Range The Real Price Of Metals Is Still At The Upper End Of Its 40-Year Trading Range In the event of recession followed by plunging inflation, the biggest winner will be bonds and the biggest loser will be commodities. Therefore, on a 6-12 horizon, the optimal asset allocation is: Overweight bonds. Neutral stocks. Underweight commodities. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we are adding Ethereum to our watchlist, as its 130-day fractal structure is approaching the capitulation point that signalled previous major trend reversals in 2018 (a bottom) and 2021 (a top). The full watchlist of 27 investments that are approaching, or at, potential trend reversals is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions Chart I-9Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 1CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point   Chart 2US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 3CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 5The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 6The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 7FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 8Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 9The 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 10The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 11Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 12German Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal German Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal German Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 13Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 14ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation Chart 15The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 16The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 17A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 18Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 19Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 20Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 21Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 22USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 23The 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 24A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 25GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 26US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 27The 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 Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis Stocks Caught Between Scylla And Charybdis 6-12 Month Recommendations 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 Bond investors can’t seem to decide whether the US economy is in the midst of an inflationary boom or hurtling toward recession. Our sense is that, while US economic growth is clearly slowing, we don’t see the unemployment rate rising enough for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle any time soon. The 5-year US Treasury yield has tightened relative to the rest of the curve in recent weeks, and the 2-year maturity now looks like the most attractive spot for investors. TIPS breakeven inflation rates have also declined markedly in recent weeks, and TIPS no longer look expensive on our models. TIPS Are No Longer Expensive TIPS Are No Longer Expensive TIPS Are No Longer Expensive Bottom Line: US bond investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. They should also shift Treasury curve allocations from the 5-year maturity to the 2-year maturity and upgrade TIPS from underweight to neutral. Whipsaw Inflationary boom or recession? US bond investors can’t seem to decide and yields are swinging back and forth depending on the latest economic data. Just in the past month we’ve seen the 10-year US Treasury yield peak at 3.49%, fall to 2.82% and then finally move back above 3% following last week’s strong employment report. Not surprisingly, implied interest rate volatility is the highest it’s been since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Our sense is that, while US economic growth is clearly slowing, we don’t see the unemployment rate rising enough for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle any time soon. This is especially true because the Fed will tolerate a significant rise in the unemployment rate as long as inflation stays above target.1 Turning to the evidence, decelerating US economic activity is apparent in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs, which are both falling rapidly from high levels (Chart 2). Though both indexes remain firmly above the 50 boom/bust line, trends in financial conditions suggest that they could dip below 50 within the next few months. Chart 1A Highly Volatile Rates Market A Highly Volatile Rates Market A Highly Volatile Rates Market Chart 2US Growth Is Slowing US Growth Is Slowing US Growth Is Slowing The employment components of both indexes are already in contractionary territory (Chart 2, bottom panel), but this is due to concerns about labor supply, not demand. For example, last week’s ISM non-manufacturing PMI release included three representative quotes from respondents about labor market conditions.2 All three quotes reference concerns about labor supply: Unable to fill positions with qualified applicants. Extremely hard to find truck drivers. Demand for talent is higher, but availability of candidates to fill open roles continues to keep employment levels from increasing. This doesn’t sound like an economy that is on the cusp of surging unemployment, and this is exactly what the Fed is counting on. The Fed’s hope is that slower demand will bring down the large number of job openings without leading to a significant increase in layoffs or a significant rise in the unemployment rate. In that regard, it is notable that job openings ticked down in May, both in absolute terms and relative to the number of unemployed. Meanwhile, the rates of hiring and layoffs held steady (Chart 3). Chart 3Some Hope For A Soft Landing Some Hope For A Soft Landing Some Hope For A Soft Landing Investment Implications Our investment strategy hinges on two key economic views related to the labor market and inflation. First, while a surge doesn’t seem imminent, slowing economic activity means that the unemployment rate is more likely to edge higher between now and the end of the year than it is to fall. Second, as we’ve written in previous reports, US inflation has a relatively easy path back to its underlying trend of approximately 4%.3 After that, it will be more difficult for policymakers to bring inflation from 4% back down to 2%, and we could see the Fed push rates above 4% next year to accomplish this task. Taken together, these two views suggest that growth will be slowing and inflation falling between now and the end of the year. This combination could easily push bond yields lower, especially if recession worries flare up again. High frequency bond yield indicators such as the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equities also suggest that bond yields have room to fall (Chart 4). That said, the market is currently priced for the fed funds rate to peak at 3.74% in May 2023 and to fall back to 3.19% by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that inflation will be sticky enough (and the labor market resilient enough) for the Fed to push rates above those levels next year. This leaves us with an ‘at benchmark’ stance on portfolio duration for the time being, with an inclination to turn more bearish on bonds later this year if our base case forecast pans out. More specifically, we would likely reduce portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield falls back to 2.5% or if inflation reverts to its 4% underlying trend. Conversely, we will turn more bullish on bonds if we see signs in the labor market data that point to a Fed pause (or Fed rate cuts) being necessary. For now, growth in nonfarm employment and aggregate weekly payrolls (wages x hours x employment) suggest we aren’t close to this outcome (Chart 5). Chart 4High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators Chart 5The US Labor Market Is Strong The US Labor Market Is Strong The US Labor Market Is Strong Sliding Down The Yield Curve Since early April we’ve been recommending that investors position long the 5-year Treasury note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes to take advantage of a US yield curve that was quite steep out to the 5-year maturity point and quite flat beyond that. That trade is now played out. The 5 over 2/10 butterfly spread has tightened back to zero and the 2-year note is now the most attractively priced security on the US Treasury curve. Chart 6 shows that the spread between the 2-year note and a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 5-year note offers an extraordinary yield advantage of 92 bps. What’s more, Table 1 shows that, with the exception of the unloved 20-year bond, the 2-year note offers the most attractive 12-month carry on the curve, largely a result of the 18 bps of rolldown attributable to the still-steep slope between the 1-year and 2-year maturity points. Chart 6Shift Into 2s Shift Into 2s Shift Into 2s Table 112-Month Carry Across The US Treasury Curve A Low Conviction US Bond Market A Low Conviction US Bond Market This large shift in relative pricing compels us to close our prior position (long 5-year bullet versus 2/10 barbell) and open a new position: long the 2-year note and short a duration-matched cash/5 barbell. This new position (long 2yr over cash/5) offers attractive 12-month carry, but given the current volatile interest rate environment, it should mainly be expected to profit in the event of a steepening of the 2/5 Treasury slope. With that in mind, it’s notable that the 2/5 slope recently inverted. Inversions of the 2/5 slope are historically rare. They tend to occur near the end of Fed tightening cycles and, with the exception of the early-1980s, they tend to not last that long (Chart 7). Chart 72/5 Inversions Are Rare And Fleeting 2/5 Inversions Are Rare And Fleeting 2/5 Inversions Are Rare And Fleeting Going forward, we see three plausible scenarios for the 2/5 slope during the next 6-12 months. First, the Fed achieves something close to the soft landing it is aiming for. Inflation starts to fall and the unemployment rate edges higher. However, unemployment never reaches levels that necessitate a complete reversal of Fed tightening. The 2/5 Treasury slope bear-steepens in this scenario as the market discounts that the Fed will have to push rates above 4% to hit its inflation target. Second, a deep recession and complete reversal of Fed tightening occur much more quickly than we anticipate. The 2/5 Treasury slope would bull-steepen in this scenario as the front-end of the curve is pulled down by the Fed’s pivot. Third, inflation shows no signs of reversing course. Long-dated inflation expectations jump and the Fed determines that it has no choice but to follow the example of Paul Volcker and tighten, even if the economy falls into a deep recession. As was the case in the early-1980s, the 2/5 Treasury slope could become deeply inverted in this scenario. Our sense is that the first two scenarios are much more likely than the third. We have written in prior reports about how the current spate of inflation is much different than what was seen in the early 1980s.4  This makes us willing to bet against a prolonged deep inversion of the 2/5 slope. Bottom Line: US Treasury curve investors should exit their positions long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. They should initiate a position long the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched cash/5 barbell. Upgrade US TIPS To Neutral Finally, we note that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have declined markedly during the past month. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.38%, near the lower-end of the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range, and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a mere 2.12%, well below target (Chart 8). We also note that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is back below survey estimates of what inflation will be 5-10 years in the future (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens We have been recommending an underweight position in TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries since early April, but the recent valuation shift means it’s time to add some exposure. Critically, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator has also increased to +0.6, moving into “TIPS cheap” territory (Chart 9). Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has averaged an increase of 28 bps in the 12 months following a reading between +0.5 and +1.0 from our Indicator (Table 2). Chart 9TIPS Are No Longer Expensive TIPS Are No Longer Expensive TIPS Are No Longer Expensive Table 2TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator Track Record A Low Conviction US Bond Market A Low Conviction US Bond Market The drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates has been most prominent at the front-end of the curve. The 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is down to 3.22% from a peak of 4.93%. The high correlation between short-maturity TIPS breakevens and realized CPI inflation means that short-dated breakevens can fall further as inflation continues to trend down, but already we see that 3.22% looks like a much more reasonable estimate of average inflation for the next two years than did the 4.93% peak. While we advise investors to upgrade TIPS from underweight to neutral relative to nominal US Treasuries, we continue to recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. The 2-year TIPS yield has risen sharply since its 2021 low (Chart 10), but recent comments from Fed officials imply that the Fed would like to see positive real yields across the entire curve before it declares monetary policy sufficiently restrictive.5 This means that there is still some room for the 2-year TIPS yield to increase, from its current level of -0.10% back into positive territory. Such a move should also lead to more flattening of the 2/10 TIPS curve, and we continue to recommend holding that position as well (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10Stay Short 2-Year TIPS Stay Short 2-Year TIPS Stay Short 2-Year TIPS Bottom Line: Investors should upgrade TIPS from underweight to neutral relative to nominal US Treasuries but maintain outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. 2/10 TIPS curve flatteners and 2/10 inflation curve steepeners also continue to make sense. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on how to think about the tradeoff between the Fed’s inflation and employment goals please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 2 https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/reports/ism-report-on-business/services/june/ 3 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “No End In Sight For Fed Tightening”, dated June 21, 2022. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Relief From High Inflation”, dated June 14, 2022. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

In this <i>Strategy Outlook</i>, we present the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.

Dear Client, This month’s Special Report has been written by Martin Barnes, BCA’s former Chief Economist. Martin, who retired from BCA Research last year after a long and illustrious career, discusses the long-run outlook for inflation. The views expressed in this report are his, and may not be consistent with those of the Bank Credit Analyst or other BCA Research services. But Martin’s warning of future stagflation is sobering, and I trust you will find his report both interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Highlights Overly stimulative policies meant that inflation was set to rise even before the disruptions caused by the pandemic and Ukraine conflict. Inflation should decline sharply over the coming year in response to weaker economic growth and an easing in supply problems. But it will be a temporary respite. Central banks will not have the stomach to keep policy tight enough for long enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. Price pressures will return as economies bottom and the environment will become one of stagflation. Financial assets will rally strongly when inflation fears subside but subsequent stagflation will not be bullish for markets. Feature Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once defined price stability as existing when “households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions”. Until recently, that state of affairs was the case for much of the past 30 years and for many, inflation was quiescent during their entire working lives. But inflation is now back as a huge issue and there is massive debate and uncertainty about whether it will be a temporary or lasting problem. I lean toward the latter view. Major changes in the economic and/or financial environment more often are identified in hindsight than in real time. It is easier to attribute large trend deviations to temporary factors than to make bold predictions about structural shifts. Obviously, the pandemic and conflict in Ukraine have had a significant impact on the near-term inflation picture via massive supply-side disruptions and represent temporary events. Thus, inflation will retreat from current elevated levels as those disruptions diminish. But the conditions for higher inflation were already in place before those two unfortunate events occurred. Specifically, central banks have been erring on the side of stimulus for several years and they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. Inflation has moved from a non-issue to the most important factor driving markets. Over the next year, the next big surprise might be how fast inflation retreats and investors and policymakers will then breathe a big sigh of relief. However, this will prove to be a temporary respite because it will not take long for inflation to move back up and remain stubbornly above central bank targets. In other words, a whipsaw is in prospect over the next few years as inflation goes from up, to down, and to up again. The Current Inflation Problem The biggest increases in consumer prices have occurred in areas most affected by supply problems, with energy attracting the most attention. Nevertheless, in most countries, inflation has risen across the majority of goods and services. The core inflation rate (i.e. consumer prices excluding food and energy) in the G7 economies climbed from 2% to 4.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean measure of US consumer price inflation has spiked dramatically higher, consistent with a broad-based acceleration in inflation.1 The rise in underlying inflation is a bigger problem in the US, UK and Canada than in Japan or the Euro Area. Chart II-2 shows current core inflation rates relative to the target rate of 2% pursued by most central banks. That geographical divergence will be touched on later and in the meantime, the focus will be on the US situation. Chart II-1A Broad-Based Pickup In Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation Chart II-2The US, UK And Canada Have A Bigger Inflation Problem July 2022 July 2022   The latest US inflation data for a range of goods and services is shown in Table II-1. The table shows the three- and six-month annualized changes in prices because 12-month rates can be affected by a base effect given the impact of pandemic-related shutdowns and disruptions a year ago. Also, a comparison of the three- and six-month rates shows if momentum is building or fading. The trends are not encouraging in that momentum has accelerated, not diminished in many key areas. Table II-1Selected Inflation Rates In The US CPI July 2022 July 2022 Even if the data show a moderation in core inflation in the months ahead, it is important to note that rent inflation – the CPI component with the biggest weight – is seriously underestimated. This is one of the few items where prices are collected with a lag and real estate industry reports highlight that rent inflation is running at double-digit rates in the major cities. According to one report, average rents nationally increased by more than 25% in the year to May.2 The CPI data will eventually catch up with reality, providing at least a partial offset to any inflation improvements in other areas. Another problem for inflation is the acceleration in wage growth against the backdrop of an unusually tight labor market. Currently, the number of unfilled vacancies is almost twice the number of unemployed and it is thus no surprise that wage growth has picked up sharply (Chart II-3). The Atlanta Fed’s measure of annual wage inflation has risen above 6%, its highest reading since the data began in 1997. Wage growth is unlikely to suddenly decline absent a marked rise in the unemployment rate. There is much debate about whether the US economy is on the verge of recession, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of whether the technical definition of recession is met (at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), the pace of activity is set to slow sharply. Plunging consumer and business confidence, contracting real incomes and a peaking in housing activity all point to a significant weakening in growth, even if the labor market stays healthy (Chart II-4). Chart II-3A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market Chart II-4The US Economy Is In Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble   Softer economic growth eventually will take the edge off inflationary pressures in many goods and services. Combined with an easing in supply-side disruptions, the inflation rate is certain to decline in the coming year, even if oil prices move higher in the short run. Currently, the Fed is talking tough about dealing with inflation and there is little doubt that further rate hikes are on the way. However, policymakers will have little stomach for inflicting enough economic pain to completely squeeze inflation out of the system. Once there are clear signs of a significant economic slowdown, the Fed will back off quickly. What Causes Inflation Anyway? Economics 101 teaches that prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service exceeds supply, then prices will rise to bring things back into balance. Seems simple enough but, unfortunately, this leaves many unanswered questions. How much must prices rise and for how long in order to restore balance? What if there are structural impediments to supply? What if there are monopolies in key commodities or services? What if policy interferes with the operation of market-clearing solutions? And, finally, what measure of inflation should we be looking at? Chart II-5Inflation Is A 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue For much of economic history, deflation was just as prevalent as inflation, with the latter only being a problem during periods of war (Chart II-5). As the pre-WWII world pre-dated fiat money, automatic stabilizers (e.g. the welfare state), and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, economies were prone to regular depressions that served to wash out financial and economic excesses and any inflationary pressures. But those days are long gone and free market forces should not be expected to keep inflation under wraps. I rather like the simple explanation of inflation’s roots as being “too much money chasing too few goods”. In that sense, the control of inflation lies firmly at the door of central banks. In the “old days” (i.e. before the 1990s), it was possible to use the growth in the money supply to gauge the stance of policy because there was a fairly stable and predictable relationship between monetary and economic trends. That all ended when financial deregulation and the explosion in non-bank financial activities meant that monetary trends ceased to be a reliable indicator of economic growth and inflation. As a result, the Fed stopped setting monetary growth targets more than 20 years ago and since then, money supply data has rarely been mentioned in FOMC discussions. Chart II-6A Simple Measure Of The Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance Fortunately, all is not lost. The gap between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth is a reasonably good proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Conditions are easy when rates are persistently below GDP growth and vice versa when they are above. As can be seen in Chart II-6, rates were below GDP growth during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when inflation rose sharply. And inflation fell steadily in the 1980s into the first half of the 1990s when the Fed kept interest rates above GDP growth. And look at what has happened in the past decade: rates have been significantly below GDP growth, suggesting an aggressively easy monetary stance. It was only a matter of time before inflation picked up, even without the recent supply-side disruptions. The FOMC’s latest projections show long-run growth of 3.8% in nominal GDP while the fed funds rate is expected to average only 2.5%. That implies a continued accommodative stance, yet inflation is forecast to be in line with the 2% target. That all seems very unlikely. Fed policymakers spend a lot of time trying to figure out the level of the equilibrium real interest rate – the level consistent with steady non-inflationary economic growth. It would be very helpful to have this number but coming up with an accurate measure is a largely futile exercise. It cannot be measured empirically and its estimation requires a lot of assumptions, explaining why there is no broad agreement on what the right number is. I think there is a case for the simpler approach of using the nominal growth in GDP as a proxy for where rates should be in normal circumstances. As noted above, that suggests monetary policy was excessively accommodative for an extended period. If US Policy Was Too Easy, Why Was Inflation Low For So Long? The Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation is the change in the personal consumption deflator, excluding food and energy. In the 25 years to 2019, inflation by this measure averaged only 1.7%, compared to the Fed’s desired level of 2%. Thus, even though the level of interest rates implied very accommodative policy over that period, inflation remained tame. This leads to an important caveat. The stance of monetary policy plays the key role in driving inflation, but it is not everything. Offsetting forces on inflation (in both directions) can mute or even swamp the impact of policy. There were several disinflationary forces in operation during the past 25 years. Specifically: In the second half of the 1990s, the explosive growth of the internet and accompanying boom in technology spending led to a marked pickup in productivity growth. The entry of China into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 unleashed a wave of offshoring and downward pressure on traded goods prices. A series of deflationary shocks hit the US and global economy including the 1998 financial crisis in South-East Asia and Russia, the bursting of the tech bubble after 2000, and of course the global financial meltdown in 2007-09. Unstable economic conditions undermined labor’s bargaining power, keeping a tight lid on wage growth. This was highlighted by the dramatic decline in labor’s share of income after 2000. Importantly, the above forces are no longer in place and in some cases are reversing. The key technological advances of the past decade have not been particularly good for productivity. Indeed, one could argue that the activities of most so-called FANG stocks – especially those involved in social media - have had a negative impact on productivity. Time spent on FaceBook, Twitter and Netflix do not have obvious benefits for increased economic efficiency. Chart II-7Globalization In Retreat Globalization in Retreat Globalization in Retreat Even before the pandemic’s impact on supply chains, there were signs that globalization had peaked (Chart II-7). Indeed, BCA first suggested in 2014 that globalization was running out of steam. More recently, the interruption to supply chains has highlighted the downside of relying excessively on overseas production for key goods such as semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals. Onshoring rather than offshoring will become more common with higher prices being the cost for greater control over supply. Globalization is not dead, but, at the margin, it no longer is a powerful source of disinflation. US import prices from China are back to their highest level in a decade after falling steadily during the eight years to 2020. The inflationary impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine via supply-side disruptions are more than offsetting any disinflationary effects of softer economic growth. In other words, they have represented stagflationary rather than deflationary shocks. Finally, with regard to income shares, the pendulum has swung more in favor of labor. Demographic trends (e.g. slow growth in the working-age population) suggest that the labor market will remain relatively tight in the years ahead, notwithstanding short-term weakness as the economy slows. Profit margins are likely to weaken and labor’s share of income will rise. The bottom line is that easy money policies will no longer be offset by a number of powerful external forces that served to keep consumer price inflation under wraps in the pre-pandemic period. And this raises another important point. If monetary policy is too easy, then it will show up somewhere, even if consumer price inflation is under control. There Is More Than One Kind Of Inflation Inflation most commonly refers to the change in the prices of consumer goods and services. That is understandable because consumer spending accounts for more than half of GDP in the major developed economies (and almost 70% in the US). And because consumers are the ones who vote, it is the inflation rate that politicians care most about. However, there are other kinds of inflation. If there are structural impediments to increased consumer prices, then excessively easy monetary policy most likely will show up in higher asset prices. This is a very different kind of inflation because it is welcomed by the owners of assets and by politicians. Nobody is happy to face higher prices for the goods and services they buy, but asset owners love the wealth-boosting effect of higher prices for homes and shares.  Consumer inflation may have been subdued in the pre-pandemic decade, but the same is not true for asset prices. During the period that the Fed ran accommodative policies, there were several periods of rampant asset inflation such as the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s, the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the bond bubble of 2016-2020. And both equity and home prices surged in response to monetary stimulus triggered by the pandemic. Central banks may fret about the potential financial stability implications of surging asset prices, but in practice they do not act to curb them. Policymakers argue that it is hard to determine when an asset bubble exists and even when one is obvious, monetary policy is a crude tool to deal with it. If rising asset prices occur alongside an economy that is characterized by stable growth and moderate inflation, then acting to burst a bubble could inflict unnecessary economic damage. That is an understandable position, but it means ignoring the longer-term problems that occur when bubbles inevitably burst. This was highlighted by the economic and financial chaos after the US housing bubble burst in 2007. The reality is that central banks have been forced to rely more heavily on asset inflation as a source of monetary stimulus. An easing in monetary policy affects economic conditions in three primary ways: boosting credit demand and supply, raising asset prices, and lowering the exchange rate.3 Historically, the credit channel was by far the most important. BCA has written extensively about the Debt Supercycle and the role of monetary policy in fueling ever-rising levels of private sector indebtedness (see the Appendix for a brief description of the Debt Supercycle). Chart II-8No Releveraging Cycle In Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt The environment changed dramatically after the 2007-09 financial meltdown. The collapse of the credit-fueled housing bubble drove a stake through the heart of the household sector’s love affair with debt. The ratio of household debt to income peaked in early 2009 and ten years later it was back to the levels of 2001 (Chart II-8). Even an extended period of record low interest rates has failed to trigger a new leveraging cycle. If the Fed can’t persuade consumers and businesses to fall back in love with debt, then it must rely on the other two transmission channels for monetary policy – asset prices and the exchange rate. And the Fed really has limited control over the latter channel given that it also depends on the actions of other central banks. The deleveraging of the household sector in the post-2009 period could have been very bearish for the economy, but the Fed’s easy money policies underpinned the stock market, allowing household net worth to revive. There was an explosive rise in household net worth in 2020-21 as surging house prices added to stock market gains. Between end-2019 and end-2021, the household sector’s direct holdings of equities plus owner’s equity in real estate increased in value by around $20 trillion, equal to more than one year’s personal disposable income. The recent decline in equity prices has reversed some of the gains, but net worth remains elevated by historical standards. The bottom line is that it was wrong to suggest that the Fed’s accommodative stance did not create inflation. Consumer price inflation was tame in the pre-pandemic period, but there was lots of asset inflation and that gathered pace in 2020 and 2021. There was always going to be some leakage of this into more generalized inflation but this was accelerated by the double whammy of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Strange Case Of Japan If higher inflation in the US has seemed inevitable, how can one explain the situation in Japan? In contrast to other developed countries, Japan’s annual core inflation rate was only 0.2% in May. While this was an increase from the average -1.3% rate in the prior six months, it is impressive given the country’s continued highly stimulative monetary policy and the same exposure to supply disruptions as elsewhere. Most importantly, Japan has suffered structural deflation for so long that inflation expectations are totally dormant for both consumers and businesses. In other words, raising prices is seen as a desperate measure and something to be avoided. Japan’s poor demographics may also have played a role. A sharply declining labor force and rapidly aging population are disinflationary rather than inflationary influences and help reinforce the corporate sector’s reluctance to raise prices. While Japan seems an outlier, it is worth noting that core inflation also has remained relatively subdued in many European countries. For the overall Euro area, the latest core inflation rate is 3.8%, well below that of the US and UK. Two common features of the higher inflation countries are that they tended to have more aggressively-easy fiscal policies in recent years and greater asset inflation – especially in real estate. Unfortunately, inflation expectations and business pricing behavior in the US and other Anglo-Saxon economies have not followed Japan’s example. Employees have become more aggressive in demanding higher wages, and most companies have no problem in passing on higher costs to their customers. The UK is facing a wave of public sector strikes over pay the likes of which have not been seen for decades. The Outlook Chart II-9A Peaking In Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? Inflation may prove sticky over the next few months, but as noted earlier, it should move significantly lower over the coming year. Crude oil prices have risen by around 75% in the past year and that pace of rise cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, while shipping rates remain historically high, they are down sharply from earlier peaks (Chart II-9). Together with a revival in Chinese exports, this suggests some easing in supply chain problems. And as mentioned above, the pace of economic activity is set to slow sharply. But a return to pre-pandemic inflation levels is not in the cards. The Fed currently is talking tough and further rate hikes are on the way. But the tightening will end as soon as it becomes clear that the economy is heading south. A deep recession is not likely because there are not the worrying imbalances such as excessive consumer debt or inventories that typically precede serious downturns. However, policymakers will not take any risks and policy will return quickly to an accommodative stance, even though inflation is unlikely to return to the desired 2% level. On a positive note, inflation may be the highest in 40 years in many countries, but we are not facing a return to the destructive high-inflation environment of the 1970s. Inflation back then was institutionalized and a self-feeding cycle of higher wages and rising prices was deeply embedded. I was working as an economist for BP in London in the 1970s and remember receiving large quarterly pay rises just to compensate for inflation. In the absence of inflation-accounting practices, companies seriously underestimated the destruction that inflation was creating to balance sheets and profitability, making them complacent about the problem. Moreover, there were not the same global competitive pressures that exist today. Inflation in the US likely will form a new base of 3% to 4% over the medium term, with occasional fluctuations to 5% or above. An environment of stagflation is in prospect: growth will not be weak enough to suppress inflation and not strong enough to allow the Fed to maintain a restrictive stance. This puts the Fed in a difficult spot as it will be reluctant to admit defeat by raising the inflation target from its current 2%, even though that level will be out of reach in practical terms. A counter view is that I am too pessimistic by underestimating the disinflationary effects of technological advances. A sustained improvement in productivity would certainly help lower inflation but how likely is this? Technological advances are occurring all the time, but in recent years they largely have been incremental in nature and it is hard to think of any new breakthrough productivity-enhancing technologies. There is a difference between new technologies that simply represent better ways to do existing tasks (3D printing would fall into that category) and general purpose technologies that completely change the way economies operate (e.g. electricity and the internet). While businesses are still exploiting the benefits of the digital world, we await innovations that will trigger a new sustained upsurge in productivity. A game changer would be the development of unlimited cheap energy (cold fusion?) but that does not seem likely any time soon. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind about the potential for productivity to surprise on the upside, despite my current skepticism. Chart II-10Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher What does all this mean for the markets? Not surprisingly, shifts in market expectations for future inflation are highly correlated with the current rate and have thus spiked higher in recent months, hurting both bonds and stocks (Chart II-10). Obvious inflation hedges would be inflation-protected bonds and resources, but neither group currently is attractively priced. The good news is that the current panic about inflation is setting the scene for a buying opportunity in both stocks and bonds. The exact timing is tricky to predict but both stocks and bonds will rally strongly later this year when inflation expectations retreat as it becomes clear that the economy is weakening and the Fed softens its hawkish tones. The bad news is that this bullish phase will not last much more than a year because a re-emergence of inflationary pressures will bring things back to earth. The long-run outlook is one of stagflation and that will be a tough environment for financial assets. Martin H. Barnes Former Chief Economist, BCA Research mhbarnes15@gmail.com Appendix: A Primer On The Debt Supercycle The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance-sheet liquidity and rise in indebtedness during the post-WWII period. Economic expansions have always been associated with a buildup of leverage. However, prior to the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as the welfare state and deposit insurance, balance-sheet excesses tended to be fully unwound during economic downturns, albeit at the cost of severe declines in activity. The pain of the Great Depression led governments to intervene to smooth out the business cycle, and their actions were given legitimacy by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Fiscal and monetary reflation, together with the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy, but the downside was that balance-sheet imbalances and financial excesses built up during each expansion phase were never fully unwound. Periodic "cyclical" corrections to the buildup of debt and illiquidity occurred during recessions, but these were never enough to reverse the long-run trend. Although liquidity was rebuilt during a recession, it did not return to its previous cyclical high. Meanwhile, the liquidity rundown during the next expansion phase established new lows. These trends led to growing illiquidity, and vulnerability in the financial markets. The greater the degree of illiquidity in the economy, the greater is the threat of deflation. Thus, the bigger that balance-sheet excesses become, the more painful the corrective process would be. So, the stakes became higher in each cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to reflate demand, by whatever means were available. The Supercycle process was driven over time by the building tension between rising underlying deflationary risks in the economy, and the ability of policymakers to create inflation. The Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic and financial meltdown, with the authorities reaching the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more leverage. This forced the government to leverage itself up instead, representing the Debt Supercycle's final inning. Footnotes 1This trimmed mean measure excludes the top 8% of CPI components with the largest monthly price gains and the bottom 8% with the smallest monthly gains. 2 Rent.com, https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/, June 2022. 3 A fourth channel can be via a psychological boost to business and consumer confidence, but this can cut both ways if an easing in policy is interpreted as a sign of worsening economic conditions rather than as a reason for optimism.

Highlights We now recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds. We still believe that the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but we are less convinced that this is true than we were a few months ago. The fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand in the form of a sharp decline in real wages – are currently present or soon will be. In addition, the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Headline inflation has seemingly been a more impactful driver of long-term inflation expectations than core measures, implying that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints in order to contain rising inflation expectations. That would be clearly negative for economic growth and is potentially recessionary in nature. We see no compelling signs of an acceleration in European or Chinese growth that could act as a ballast to support the global economy. The European energy situation is worsening, China’s post-lockdown rebound has so far been tepid, and market-based indicators of Chinese economic growth are deteriorating. The US equity market is not priced for a typical “income-statement” recession induced by monetary policy. We expect the S&P 500 to fall to 3100 in a recession scenario, driven mostly by declining earnings. In a recession scenario, we do not expect long-maturity government bond yields to fall enough to offset a likely increase in the equity risk premium. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we soon see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Downgrading Risky Assets To Neutral Every month, BCA strategists hold a house view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. As highlighted in a recent Special Alert from our Global Investment Strategy service,1 BCA strategists voted at our June meeting to change our House View to a neutral asset allocation stance towards equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. Table I-1We Now Recommend More Conservative Positioning Than We Did In May July 2022 July 2022 The view of the Bank Credit Analyst service is in line with the consensus of BCA strategists on this issue, and we consequently recommend a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds (Table I-1). We noted in our April report2 – when the S&P 500 index stood at 4530 – that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and that investors should maintain at most a very modest overweight toward equities in a global multi-asset portfolio. A formal downgrade to neutral is thus not a large change in our recommended positioning, but it reflects what we view as a legitimate increase in the odds of a US recession over the coming year. It is not yet our view that a US recession is a probable outcome, but it is important to distinguish between one’s forecast of the economic outlook and the appropriate investment strategy. The unique inflationary pressure created by the COVID-19 pandemic has created a large confidence interval around our forecast, underscoring that an aggressive stance towards risky assets is not warranted. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. But as we will discuss below, that slowdown will have to materialize soon in order for us to recommend an overweight risky asset stance. Reviewing Our Previously Constructive View On US Economic Growth Chart I-1Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Concerns about a potential US recession have been growing since the Fed’s hawkish pivot in November, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previously, these concerns centered around two core issues: the aggressive pace at which the Fed communicated it would raise the policy rate, and the fact that the 2-10 yield curve flattened sharply in the first quarter and finally inverted (based on closing prices) on April 1st (Chart I-1). We had pushed back against those concerns, for several reasons. Our deeply-held view is that recessions typically occur when a significant shock to aggregate demand emerges against the backdrop of tight monetary policy. Sometimes the debt-service and credit demand impact of high interest rates itself is the shock. In other cases, recessions have been triggered in an environment of restrictive monetary policy by a sudden change in key input costs (such as oil prices), the bursting of a financial asset bubble, or a major shift in fiscal spending (typically following a period of war). But the core point is that recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is easy, even when shocks to aggregate demand occur. We abstract here from special cases such as the recession that occurred during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. That event saw the introduction of government policies that purposely arrested economic activity, which in our view would have caused a recession under any conceivable fiscal and/or monetary policy alignment. As a business cycle indicator, the yield curve is significant for investors because it essentially represents the bond market’s assessment of the monetary policy stance. The 2-10 yield curve inversion in early April occurred, in part, because of the speed at which the Fed signaled it would raise interest rates, but also because the 10-year Treasury yield stood just under 2.4% at the point of inversion. This level of long-maturity bond yields reflected the view of both the Fed and most investors that the neutral rate of interest permanently fell following the 2008/2009 global financial crisis (GFC), a view that we have argued against in several previous reports.3 As such, the first reason we pushed back against earlier recessionary concerns is that we believe that the natural/neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed and investors believe (even though we warned that a recessionary scare was quite likely). Chart I-2A Large Portion Of Currently Elevated Inflation Is Due To Supply-Side And Pandemic-Related Factors July 2022 July 2022 The second reason that we had pushed back against recessionary concerns was our view that a meaningful portion of currently elevated US inflation is a function of supply-side and pandemic-related factors that will eventually abate. Chart I-2 highlights credible estimates showing that roughly half of the year-over-year change in the headline PCE deflator is the result of supply-side factors, versus 40-50% for core inflation. It has been and remains our view that a substantial portion of these supply-side and pandemic-related factors will dissipate as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, with several price categories likely to deflate outright. Chart I-3Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Finally, we have argued in several reports that US goods spending has been well above-trend and is likely to slow, but also that services spending is far too low and is likely to rise. Chart I-3 highlights that close to $3 trillion in excess savings have accrued during the pandemic, which formed because of a combination of rising disposable income and falling services spending. We noted that the continued transition of the US and global economies towards a post-pandemic state would boost services spending, providing (an admittedly atypical) source of support for overall aggregate demand.   Why The Odds Of A US Recession Have Increased We still believe that the US will more likely than not avoid a recession over the coming year, but it is true that the strength of all three of the arguments presented above has weakened. Regarding the stance of monetary policy, Charts I-4 and I-5 highlight that it is still true that the Fed funds rate and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain below our estimate of the neutral rate (nominal potential GDP growth). However, Chart I-6 highlights that the sharp rise in consumer price inflation has caused a substantial reduction in real wage growth, which certainly constitutes a non-monetary aggregate demand shock. Chart I-4The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are Chart I-5Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand... Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand... Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand...       Chart I-6...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages ...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages ...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages Panel 2 of Chart I-4 also shows that the 30-year mortgage rate in the US is now at neutral levels, in contrast to government bond yields and the US policy rate. Chart I-7 highlights that our models for US home sales and starts, featured in last month’s report,4 are still not pointing to a severe slowdown in the housing market. However, the fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means that it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand – are currently present or soon will be. On the question of services spending acting as a support for US economic growth as goods spending slows, we continue to believe that services spending will recover back towards its pre-pandemic trend – funded by excess savings that accrued during the pandemic. However, Chart I-8, presented by my colleague Arthur Budaghyan in a recent Emerging Markets Strategy report,5 underscores the extent of the wealth destruction that has occurred because of the joint effect of falling stock and bond prices. At least some of the services-boosting effect of excess savings will likely be blunted by a negative wealth effect stemming from these financial market losses, especially since the remaining excess savings in the US are likely held by middle-to-upper income households – who are the disproportionate holders of publicly-traded financial assets. Chart I-7No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present Chart I-8A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic   On the inflation front, the May CPI release – and the Fed’s reaction to it – underscores that the US economy is at risk of a recession unless supply-side inflation dissipates quickly. Chart I-9 highlights that the May CPI release directly contradicted the view that the monthly rate of change in inflation has peaked. In addition, Chart I-10 presents a breakdown of the percent change in May’s headline consumer price index, with each bar in the chart representing the contribution of that category to headline CPI rising faster than 4% (annualized). The note next to each bar highlights our view of the main driver of that price category, and the color of the bars denotes how probable it is that we will soon see a significant easing in price pressure. Chart I-9The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative Chart I-10Some Elements Of Outsized CPI Will Dissipate Soon. Others May Not. July 2022 July 2022     The chart makes it clear that certain price categories that have been strongly contributing to outsized headline inflation are likely to peak or even turn deflationary over the next few months. Gasoline and fuel oil inflation is clearly being driven by the trend in crude oil prices, which in our view will likely be flat for the rest of the year. In addition, motor vehicles and parts inflation continues to be driven by the impact of supply-chain shortages on vehicle production. Over the past year, the volume of industrial production of motor vehicle assemblies has averaged just 83% of its pre-pandemic level, which we noted in last month’s report now finally seems to be normalizing (Chart I-11). And while airlines have experienced legitimate cost increases due to rising fuel prices and COVID-related labor shortages, panel 2 of Chart I-11 highlights that real airfares have risen well above their pre-pandemic level. This underscores that a moderation in airfares is quite likely over the coming several months. However, Chart I-10 also highlights that there are several price categories that are less likely to ease quickly. Outsized food and energy services inflation has recently been tied to natural gas prices, given that natural gas is used to generate electricity and is a key element used in the production of fertilizer. Chart I-12 highlights that food inflation has been strongly correlated with the producer price index for pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals, and that there is no sign yet of the latter abating. Despite the fact that global wheat prices have recently been falling, the recent increase in European natural gas prices is likely to exacerbate US food inflation, as fertilizer is used to produce all major planted crops. In addition, European energy insecurity has created an even stronger link between the US and European natural gas markets than what prevailed prior to the Ukrainian war, because of what is likely to be permanently higher LNG demand from Europe. Chart I-11Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Chart I-12Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time   On top of what is likely to be persistent food and energy services inflation, shelter inflation is likely to stay elevated for some time – a point highlighted by my esteemed former colleague, Martin Barnes, in Section 2 of this month’s report. The unemployment rate and house prices are the two main drivers of shelter inflation, and the effect of the latter clearly lags because owner’s equivalent rent is a surveyed measure. The fact that mortgage rates have risen so significantly points to a meaningful slowdown in house price appreciation and possibly even mild deflation, so shelter inflation will eventually slow. The Federal Reserve has made it clear, however, that they are now focused on quickly bringing down consumer prices, even at the cost of a recession. The justification for the Fed’s impatience comes straight from the Modern-Day Phillips Curve, which we discussed in great detail in our January 2021 Special Report.6 Economic theory dictates that inflation should be “normal” when the economy is in equilibrium – defined as economic growth in line with potential growth, no economic/labor market slack, and no supply-side shocks affecting prices. In the minds of many investors, “normal” inflation means the central bank’s target for inflation, but that is not necessarily the case. The experience of the 1970s highlighted that “normal” inflation is the rate that is expected by households and firms, and that the Fed will only succeed at achieving target inflation under normal economic conditions if inflation expectations are consistent with its target. The Fed’s failure to prevent inflation expectations from shifting higher on a structural basis led to two debilitating recessions in the early 1980s, and a prolonged period over which the Fed had to maintain comparatively tight monetary policy. This is a mistake that the Fed does not want to make again. Chart I-13Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Consistent with that view, Jerome Powell made it clear during the June FOMC meeting press conference that the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Powell implicitly referenced the University of Michigan’s 5-10 year median household inflation expectations survey during the press conference, which we have described in several previous reports as one of the most important macro data series for investors to monitor. The final reading for June came in materially lower than what was suggested by the preliminary report, but they were already at risk of a breakout even before the June release. In addition, Chart I-13 highlights that it is headline inflation (not core) that appears to be the main driver of rising long-term household inflation expectations, which raises a troubling point. If the Fed decides that inflation expectations need to be quickly reined in even at the cost of a higher unemployment rate, that decision implies that it is headline inflation that needs to return rapidly towards the Fed’s target, not just core. Given that some price categories shown in Chart I-10 are likely to be sticky for some time, and that the chart accounted for deviations in headline inflation from 4% (which itself is above the Fed’s target), the implication is that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints. That would be clearly negative for economic growth, and is potentially recessionary in nature. As a final point, it is not just the potential for future economic weakness that concerns us. The US economy was already slowing prior to the Fed’s hawkish pivot and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and important indicators for economic activity continue to deteriorate. Chart I-14 highlights that the S&P Global US manufacturing and services PMIs fell meaningfully in June, and Chart I-15 highlights that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator continues to deteriorate. In fact, the Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and the bottom panel of Chart I-15 highlights that four consecutive month-over-month declines have all essentially been associated with a recession. 2006 seemingly stands out as an exception to this rule, but given the fact that the housing market downturn began two years before the recession officially started, we simply regard this as an early recessionary signal rather than a false one. Chart I-14The US Is Losing Economic Momentum The US Is Losing Economic Momentum The US Is Losing Economic Momentum Chart I-15The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal     No Help From Europe Or China An overweight stance towards global equities might still be warranted in the face of a significant slowdown in US economic activity if economic growth in Europe or China were accelerating. However, the European outlook has been strongly tied to natural gas flows from Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, which tightened meaningfully in June in response to Europe’s oil ban, the looming expansion of NATO, and Europe’s success at replenishing its amount of natural gas in storage. Russia has not fully weaponized its natural gas exports and its actions so far have fallen well short of a complete cutoff, but prices have risen close to 70% over the past month, forcing Germany to trigger the alert level of its emergency gas plan. Aside from the negative impact that higher natural gas prices will have on headline inflation globally, this is obviously incrementally negative for European economic activity. Chart I-16 highlights that the German IFO business climate indexes have led the S&P Global Germany PMI lower over the past few months, and that they imply further manufacturing weakness. And while the services climate index for Germany ticked higher, it remains meaningfully below the levels that prevailed last summer and implies a deterioration in German services activity over the coming few months. In China, we see no compelling signs of a sustainable pickup in economic activity that will provide a ballast to slowing growth in the DM world. We have seen a bounce back in some activity indicators following the significant easing of restrictions in Shanghai and Beijing (Chart I-17). These indicators, however, are still quite weak, and it is likely that China will experience significant further COVID outbreaks over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-16Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Chart I-17China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid   While Chinese stocks have been rallying in absolute terms over the past few weeks, Chart I-18 highlights that this is essentially the only positive market-based signal about the pace of economic activity in China. The chart highlights that our market-based China Growth Indicator has experienced a renewed down leg, and that the diffusion index never rose above the boom/bust line earlier this year. The recent decline in industrial metals prices is also not a positive market-based signal for Chinese economic activity (Chart 19). Some investors have argued that weak metals prices reflect growth concerns outside of China, but even if that is the case, it implies that China’s reopening will not be forceful enough to offset slowing global ex-China growth. Chart I-18Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears   Has The US Equity Market Already Priced In A Recession? One very important question for investors to answer is how much further downside is likely to occur for US equities in the event of a US recession. At its worst point in mid-June, the S&P 500 fell close to 24% from its early January high, and many investors have since questioned whether the US equity market is already priced for a potential contraction in output. Chart I-20The S&P 500 Is Not Currently Priced For A US Recession July 2022 July 2022 We disagree with this perspective, and believe that the S&P 500 would fall close to 3100 in a typical recession scenario. Chart I-20 presents a range of estimates for the S&P 500 based on a Monte Carlo approach, using what we believe are feasible ranges for the US equity risk premium, real 10-year government bond yields, and the extent of the decline in 12-month forward earnings per share. The chart shows that the equity market only has a positive return at the 5th percentile, which can be interpreted as just a 5% chance that the US equity market has already priced in the impact of a recession. Charts I-21 and I-22 highlight the range of possible outcomes that we used when modeling the likely decline in stock prices in a recession scenario. We assume that the equity risk premium, defined here as the difference between the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield and 10-year TIPS yields, rises on average to its early-March level in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We assume that both 10-year nominal Treasury yields and 10-year breakeven inflation rates fall to 2%, reflecting an expectation that 10-year TIPS yields will not return to negative territory in a recessionary scenario. Finally, we expect that S&P 500 forward EPS will decline by 15% from current levels, which is in line with the historical average decline in 12-month trailing operating EPS during recessions. Chart I-21We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario Chart I-22We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession     One key takeaway from our analysis is that the likely recessionary equity market decline projected by our approach is fairly close to our estimate of the likely decline in earnings. One potential pushback against our view that earnings will fall in line with what usually occurs during recessions is the fact that nominal revenue growth may only mildly contract or may not contract at all in a recession that is occurring due to high rates of inflation (and thus higher prices charged by firms). Chart I-23 highlights that 12-month trailing S&P 500 sales per share growth never turned negative in the 1970s, even following the 1970 and 1974 recessions. Chart I-23Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... There are two counterpoints to this argument. First, the current risk of a recession mostly stems from the Fed’s determination not to repeat the mistakes that it made during the 1970s, meaning that inflation expectations are unlikely to rise to the level that they did during that period in advance of a recession. That implies that actual inflation, and thus corporate pricing power, will come down significantly during a recession. Second, even in a scenario in which a recession occurs and S&P 500 revenue growth contracts less aggressively than it has during previous recessions, Chart I-24 highlights that the mean-reversion risks to earnings from falling profit margins are quite high. The chart shows that even if profit margins were merely to return to their pre-pandemic levels during a recession (which would actually be a comparatively mild decline given the historical behavior of margins during recessions), it would imply close to a 20% contraction in earnings if sales per share growth were flat. Given this, we feel that our assumption of a 10-20% decline in earnings per share in a recessionary scenario is reasonable. Chart I-24But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts There is another important takeaway from our analysis, which is that the decline in bond yields that will occur in a recessionary scenario will likely be more than offset by a rise in the equity risk premium. Another potential pushback against our view that the US equity market has already priced in a recession is focused on our assumption that the 10-year US Treasury yield will only fall back to 2%, and that real 10-year yields will not return to negative territory. For some investors, this assumption seems far too high, given the structural decline in long-maturity bond yields over the past decade and the fact that the 10-year yield stood below 2% at the beginning of the year when the odds of a recession were lower than they are today. In response to this, we offer three points for structurally-bullish bond investors to consider. The first is that the decline in the nominal 10-year US Treasury yield to 0.5% in 2020 was extremely irregular and it occurred because of the extent of the essentially unprecedented economic weakness wrought by the pandemic. This is absolutely the wrong yield benchmark to use in a typical recession scenario, because the Fed’s response to the recession will be much less aggressive. The second point is related to the first, in that negative real 10-year government bond yields have been heavily driven by the secular stagnation narrative and the general view that the natural/neutral rate of interest has permanently fallen. We agree that the neutral rate of interest fell for a time following the global financial crisis, but we believe strongly that it rose in the latter half of the last economic expansion as US households aggressively deleveraged their balance sheets. Academic estimates of R-star, such as that derived from the previously popular (but now discontinued) Laubach-Williams model, continued to point to a low neutral rate from 2015-2019 because of the deflationary impact of an energy-driven decline in long-term inflation expectations on actual inflation, a factor that is clearly no longer present. Chart I-25We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs Finally, we agree that the existence of the Fed’s asset purchase program has likely had some impact on the 10-year term premium over the past decade. We doubt that the Fed would resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in response to a conventional recession, implying that the term premium will not fall as low as it has over the past decade when growth slowed or contracted. Chart I-25 highlights one important reason for this. Since 2008, the Fed’s use of asset purchases has been part of a strategy to ease monetary policy further when the policy rate had already fallen to zero, to meet its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. The chart highlights that even just prior to the pandemic, a persistent gap existed between the headline and core PCE deflator and the level that would have prevailed if both deflators had grown at a 2% annual rate since the onset of the 2008 recession. The chart makes it clear that this gap will completely disappear within the next 12 months for both the headline and core deflator, if the recent pace of change in prices is sustained. In effect, Chart I-25 highlights that the entire post-GFC missed inflation-target era is almost over, which severely undercuts the idea that the Fed will resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in a recession scenario unless the contraction is very severe as it was in 2008 and 2020. We doubt that this will be the case if a recession does occur, implying that both a deeply negative term premium and a significant decline in the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield in a typical recession scenario is unlikely. Investment Conclusions Wayne Gretsky’s famous quotation, that he “skate[s] to where the puck is going, not where it has been” is often invoked by BCA strategists. Successful active investing requires anticipation rather than reaction, and it is legitimate for investors to ask whether downgrading risky assets at the current juncture represents the latter rather than the former. We are cognizant of that risk, but we are also mindful of the importance of capital preservation. When we wrote our annual outlook last year, we believed fairly confidently that inflation would peak and specifically that supply-side inflation would wane. We still believe that pandemic-related effects on consumer prices will eventually dissipate, and it is still possible that inflation is in the process of peaking. Recent evidence, however, about the pace of price advances, the clear impact that high inflation is having on real wage growth, and the Fed’s desire to see consumer prices fall quickly back toward its target, means that the cyclical economic outlook is now highly dependent on the speed at which prices normalize – not just whether it will occur. To us, that implies that investors need to have a high-conviction view that supply-side inflation will normalize soon in order to stay overweight risky assets, and that the Fed will look through elevated housing-related inflation that is likely to persist for several months. At least in the case of supply-side inflation, we think normalization is probable but we no longer have high conviction about the speed of adjustment. As such, we recommend that investors maintain no more than a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds, as part of an overall shift towards more defensive positions. In terms of other important asset class allocations, we recommend the following: Within a global equity portfolio, maintain a neutral regional allocation, a neutral stance toward cyclicals versus defensives, and a neutral stance towards small-cap stocks versus their large-cap peers. Modestly favor value stocks over growth stocks, as most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Within a fixed-income portfolio, a modestly short stance is warranted over the coming 6- to 12-months. Extremely stretched technical and valuation conditions point to a bearish view towards the US dollar over the coming 6- to 12-months, but USD will likely remain well-bid over the nearer-term. We are only likely to upgrade our cyclical USD call in a scenario in which we recommend underweighting global equities within a multi-asset portfolio. As noted above, financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 30, 2022 Next Report: July 28, 2022 II.  Inflation Whipsaw Ahead Dear Client, This month’s Special Report has been written by Martin Barnes, BCA’s former Chief Economist. Martin, who retired from BCA Research last year after a long and illustrious career, discusses the long-run outlook for inflation. The views expressed in this report are his, and may not be consistent with those of the Bank Credit Analyst or other BCA Research services. But Martin’s warning of future stagflation is sobering, and I trust you will find his report both interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Overly stimulative policies meant that inflation was set to rise even before the disruptions caused by the pandemic and Ukraine conflict. Inflation should decline sharply over the coming year in response to weaker economic growth and an easing in supply problems. But it will be a temporary respite. Central banks will not have the stomach to keep policy tight enough for long enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. Price pressures will return as economies bottom and the environment will become one of stagflation. Financial assets will rally strongly when inflation fears subside but subsequent stagflation will not be bullish for markets. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once defined price stability as existing when “households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions”. Until recently, that state of affairs was the case for much of the past 30 years and for many, inflation was quiescent during their entire working lives. But inflation is now back as a huge issue and there is massive debate and uncertainty about whether it will be a temporary or lasting problem. I lean toward the latter view. Major changes in the economic and/or financial environment more often are identified in hindsight than in real time. It is easier to attribute large trend deviations to temporary factors than to make bold predictions about structural shifts. Obviously, the pandemic and conflict in Ukraine have had a significant impact on the near-term inflation picture via massive supply-side disruptions and represent temporary events. Thus, inflation will retreat from current elevated levels as those disruptions diminish. But the conditions for higher inflation were already in place before those two unfortunate events occurred. Specifically, central banks have been erring on the side of stimulus for several years and they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. Inflation has moved from a non-issue to the most important factor driving markets. Over the next year, the next big surprise might be how fast inflation retreats and investors and policymakers will then breathe a big sigh of relief. However, this will prove to be a temporary respite because it will not take long for inflation to move back up and remain stubbornly above central bank targets. In other words, a whipsaw is in prospect over the next few years as inflation goes from up, to down, and to up again. The Current Inflation Problem The biggest increases in consumer prices have occurred in areas most affected by supply problems, with energy attracting the most attention. Nevertheless, in most countries, inflation has risen across the majority of goods and services. The core inflation rate (i.e. consumer prices excluding food and energy) in the G7 economies climbed from 2% to 4.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean measure of US consumer price inflation has spiked dramatically higher, consistent with a broad-based acceleration in inflation.7 The rise in underlying inflation is a bigger problem in the US, UK and Canada than in Japan or the Euro Area. Chart II-2 shows current core inflation rates relative to the target rate of 2% pursued by most central banks. That geographical divergence will be touched on later and in the meantime, the focus will be on the US situation. Chart II-1A Broad-Based Pickup In Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation Chart II-2The US, UK And Canada Have A Bigger Inflation Problem July 2022 July 2022   The latest US inflation data for a range of goods and services is shown in Table II-1. The table shows the three- and six-month annualized changes in prices because 12-month rates can be affected by a base effect given the impact of pandemic-related shutdowns and disruptions a year ago. Also, a comparison of the three- and six-month rates shows if momentum is building or fading. The trends are not encouraging in that momentum has accelerated, not diminished in many key areas. Table II-1Selected Inflation Rates In The US CPI July 2022 July 2022 Even if the data show a moderation in core inflation in the months ahead, it is important to note that rent inflation – the CPI component with the biggest weight – is seriously underestimated. This is one of the few items where prices are collected with a lag and real estate industry reports highlight that rent inflation is running at double-digit rates in the major cities. According to one report, average rents nationally increased by more than 25% in the year to May.8 The CPI data will eventually catch up with reality, providing at least a partial offset to any inflation improvements in other areas. Another problem for inflation is the acceleration in wage growth against the backdrop of an unusually tight labor market. Currently, the number of unfilled vacancies is almost twice the number of unemployed and it is thus no surprise that wage growth has picked up sharply (Chart II-3). The Atlanta Fed’s measure of annual wage inflation has risen above 6%, its highest reading since the data began in 1997. Wage growth is unlikely to suddenly decline absent a marked rise in the unemployment rate. There is much debate about whether the US economy is on the verge of recession, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of whether the technical definition of recession is met (at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), the pace of activity is set to slow sharply. Plunging consumer and business confidence, contracting real incomes and a peaking in housing activity all point to a significant weakening in growth, even if the labor market stays healthy (Chart II-4). Chart II-3A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market Chart II-4The US Economy Is In Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble   Softer economic growth eventually will take the edge off inflationary pressures in many goods and services. Combined with an easing in supply-side disruptions, the inflation rate is certain to decline in the coming year, even if oil prices move higher in the short run. Currently, the Fed is talking tough about dealing with inflation and there is little doubt that further rate hikes are on the way. However, policymakers will have little stomach for inflicting enough economic pain to completely squeeze inflation out of the system. Once there are clear signs of a significant economic slowdown, the Fed will back off quickly. What Causes Inflation Anyway? Economics 101 teaches that prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service exceeds supply, then prices will rise to bring things back into balance. Seems simple enough but, unfortunately, this leaves many unanswered questions. How much must prices rise and for how long in order to restore balance? What if there are structural impediments to supply? What if there are monopolies in key commodities or services? What if policy interferes with the operation of market-clearing solutions? And, finally, what measure of inflation should we be looking at? Chart II-5Inflation Is A 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue For much of economic history, deflation was just as prevalent as inflation, with the latter only being a problem during periods of war (Chart II-5). As the pre-WWII world pre-dated fiat money, automatic stabilizers (e.g. the welfare state), and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, economies were prone to regular depressions that served to wash out financial and economic excesses and any inflationary pressures. But those days are long gone and free market forces should not be expected to keep inflation under wraps. I rather like the simple explanation of inflation’s roots as being “too much money chasing too few goods”. In that sense, the control of inflation lies firmly at the door of central banks. In the “old days” (i.e. before the 1990s), it was possible to use the growth in the money supply to gauge the stance of policy because there was a fairly stable and predictable relationship between monetary and economic trends. That all ended when financial deregulation and the explosion in non-bank financial activities meant that monetary trends ceased to be a reliable indicator of economic growth and inflation. As a result, the Fed stopped setting monetary growth targets more than 20 years ago and since then, money supply data has rarely been mentioned in FOMC discussions. Chart II-6A Simple Measure Of The Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance Fortunately, all is not lost. The gap between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth is a reasonably good proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Conditions are easy when rates are persistently below GDP growth and vice versa when they are above. As can be seen in Chart II-6, rates were below GDP growth during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when inflation rose sharply. And inflation fell steadily in the 1980s into the first half of the 1990s when the Fed kept interest rates above GDP growth. And look at what has happened in the past decade: rates have been significantly below GDP growth, suggesting an aggressively easy monetary stance. It was only a matter of time before inflation picked up, even without the recent supply-side disruptions. The FOMC’s latest projections show long-run growth of 3.8% in nominal GDP while the fed funds rate is expected to average only 2.5%. That implies a continued accommodative stance, yet inflation is forecast to be in line with the 2% target. That all seems very unlikely. Fed policymakers spend a lot of time trying to figure out the level of the equilibrium real interest rate – the level consistent with steady non-inflationary economic growth. It would be very helpful to have this number but coming up with an accurate measure is a largely futile exercise. It cannot be measured empirically and its estimation requires a lot of assumptions, explaining why there is no broad agreement on what the right number is. I think there is a case for the simpler approach of using the nominal growth in GDP as a proxy for where rates should be in normal circumstances. As noted above, that suggests monetary policy was excessively accommodative for an extended period. If US Policy Was Too Easy, Why Was Inflation Low For So Long? The Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation is the change in the personal consumption deflator, excluding food and energy. In the 25 years to 2019, inflation by this measure averaged only 1.7%, compared to the Fed’s desired level of 2%. Thus, even though the level of interest rates implied very accommodative policy over that period, inflation remained tame. This leads to an important caveat. The stance of monetary policy plays the key role in driving inflation, but it is not everything. Offsetting forces on inflation (in both directions) can mute or even swamp the impact of policy. There were several disinflationary forces in operation during the past 25 years. Specifically: In the second half of the 1990s, the explosive growth of the internet and accompanying boom in technology spending led to a marked pickup in productivity growth. The entry of China into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 unleashed a wave of offshoring and downward pressure on traded goods prices. A series of deflationary shocks hit the US and global economy including the 1998 financial crisis in South-East Asia and Russia, the bursting of the tech bubble after 2000, and of course the global financial meltdown in 2007-09. Unstable economic conditions undermined labor’s bargaining power, keeping a tight lid on wage growth. This was highlighted by the dramatic decline in labor’s share of income after 2000. Importantly, the above forces are no longer in place and in some cases are reversing. The key technological advances of the past decade have not been particularly good for productivity. Indeed, one could argue that the activities of most so-called FANG stocks – especially those involved in social media - have had a negative impact on productivity. Time spent on FaceBook, Twitter and Netflix do not have obvious benefits for increased economic efficiency. Chart II-7Globalization In Retreat Globalization in Retreat Globalization in Retreat Even before the pandemic’s impact on supply chains, there were signs that globalization had peaked (Chart II-7). Indeed, BCA first suggested in 2014 that globalization was running out of steam. More recently, the interruption to supply chains has highlighted the downside of relying excessively on overseas production for key goods such as semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals. Onshoring rather than offshoring will become more common with higher prices being the cost for greater control over supply. Globalization is not dead, but, at the margin, it no longer is a powerful source of disinflation. US import prices from China are back to their highest level in a decade after falling steadily during the eight years to 2020. The inflationary impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine via supply-side disruptions are more than offsetting any disinflationary effects of softer economic growth. In other words, they have represented stagflationary rather than deflationary shocks. Finally, with regard to income shares, the pendulum has swung more in favor of labor. Demographic trends (e.g. slow growth in the working-age population) suggest that the labor market will remain relatively tight in the years ahead, notwithstanding short-term weakness as the economy slows. Profit margins are likely to weaken and labor’s share of income will rise. The bottom line is that easy money policies will no longer be offset by a number of powerful external forces that served to keep consumer price inflation under wraps in the pre-pandemic period. And this raises another important point. If monetary policy is too easy, then it will show up somewhere, even if consumer price inflation is under control. There Is More Than One Kind Of Inflation Inflation most commonly refers to the change in the prices of consumer goods and services. That is understandable because consumer spending accounts for more than half of GDP in the major developed economies (and almost 70% in the US). And because consumers are the ones who vote, it is the inflation rate that politicians care most about. However, there are other kinds of inflation. If there are structural impediments to increased consumer prices, then excessively easy monetary policy most likely will show up in higher asset prices. This is a very different kind of inflation because it is welcomed by the owners of assets and by politicians. Nobody is happy to face higher prices for the goods and services they buy, but asset owners love the wealth-boosting effect of higher prices for homes and shares.  Consumer inflation may have been subdued in the pre-pandemic decade, but the same is not true for asset prices. During the period that the Fed ran accommodative policies, there were several periods of rampant asset inflation such as the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s, the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the bond bubble of 2016-2020. And both equity and home prices surged in response to monetary stimulus triggered by the pandemic. Central banks may fret about the potential financial stability implications of surging asset prices, but in practice they do not act to curb them. Policymakers argue that it is hard to determine when an asset bubble exists and even when one is obvious, monetary policy is a crude tool to deal with it. If rising asset prices occur alongside an economy that is characterized by stable growth and moderate inflation, then acting to burst a bubble could inflict unnecessary economic damage. That is an understandable position, but it means ignoring the longer-term problems that occur when bubbles inevitably burst. This was highlighted by the economic and financial chaos after the US housing bubble burst in 2007. The reality is that central banks have been forced to rely more heavily on asset inflation as a source of monetary stimulus. An easing in monetary policy affects economic conditions in three primary ways: boosting credit demand and supply, raising asset prices, and lowering the exchange rate.9 Historically, the credit channel was by far the most important. BCA has written extensively about the Debt Supercycle and the role of monetary policy in fueling ever-rising levels of private sector indebtedness (see the Appendix for a brief description of the Debt Supercycle). Chart II-8No Releveraging Cycle In Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt The environment changed dramatically after the 2007-09 financial meltdown. The collapse of the credit-fueled housing bubble drove a stake through the heart of the household sector’s love affair with debt. The ratio of household debt to income peaked in early 2009 and ten years later it was back to the levels of 2001 (Chart II-8). Even an extended period of record low interest rates has failed to trigger a new leveraging cycle. If the Fed can’t persuade consumers and businesses to fall back in love with debt, then it must rely on the other two transmission channels for monetary policy – asset prices and the exchange rate. And the Fed really has limited control over the latter channel given that it also depends on the actions of other central banks. The deleveraging of the household sector in the post-2009 period could have been very bearish for the economy, but the Fed’s easy money policies underpinned the stock market, allowing household net worth to revive. There was an explosive rise in household net worth in 2020-21 as surging house prices added to stock market gains. Between end-2019 and end-2021, the household sector’s direct holdings of equities plus owner’s equity in real estate increased in value by around $20 trillion, equal to more than one year’s personal disposable income. The recent decline in equity prices has reversed some of the gains, but net worth remains elevated by historical standards. The bottom line is that it was wrong to suggest that the Fed’s accommodative stance did not create inflation. Consumer price inflation was tame in the pre-pandemic period, but there was lots of asset inflation and that gathered pace in 2020 and 2021. There was always going to be some leakage of this into more generalized inflation but this was accelerated by the double whammy of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Strange Case Of Japan If higher inflation in the US has seemed inevitable, how can one explain the situation in Japan? In contrast to other developed countries, Japan’s annual core inflation rate was only 0.2% in May. While this was an increase from the average -1.3% rate in the prior six months, it is impressive given the country’s continued highly stimulative monetary policy and the same exposure to supply disruptions as elsewhere. Most importantly, Japan has suffered structural deflation for so long that inflation expectations are totally dormant for both consumers and businesses. In other words, raising prices is seen as a desperate measure and something to be avoided. Japan’s poor demographics may also have played a role. A sharply declining labor force and rapidly aging population are disinflationary rather than inflationary influences and help reinforce the corporate sector’s reluctance to raise prices. While Japan seems an outlier, it is worth noting that core inflation also has remained relatively subdued in many European countries. For the overall Euro area, the latest core inflation rate is 3.8%, well below that of the US and UK. Two common features of the higher inflation countries are that they tended to have more aggressively-easy fiscal policies in recent years and greater asset inflation – especially in real estate. Unfortunately, inflation expectations and business pricing behavior in the US and other Anglo-Saxon economies have not followed Japan’s example. Employees have become more aggressive in demanding higher wages, and most companies have no problem in passing on higher costs to their customers. The UK is facing a wave of public sector strikes over pay the likes of which have not been seen for decades. The Outlook Chart II-9A Peaking In Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? Inflation may prove sticky over the next few months, but as noted earlier, it should move significantly lower over the coming year. Crude oil prices have risen by around 75% in the past year and that pace of rise cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, while shipping rates remain historically high, they are down sharply from earlier peaks (Chart II-9). Together with a revival in Chinese exports, this suggests some easing in supply chain problems. And as mentioned above, the pace of economic activity is set to slow sharply. But a return to pre-pandemic inflation levels is not in the cards. The Fed currently is talking tough and further rate hikes are on the way. But the tightening will end as soon as it becomes clear that the economy is heading south. A deep recession is not likely because there are not the worrying imbalances such as excessive consumer debt or inventories that typically precede serious downturns. However, policymakers will not take any risks and policy will return quickly to an accommodative stance, even though inflation is unlikely to return to the desired 2% level. On a positive note, inflation may be the highest in 40 years in many countries, but we are not facing a return to the destructive high-inflation environment of the 1970s. Inflation back then was institutionalized and a self-feeding cycle of higher wages and rising prices was deeply embedded. I was working as an economist for BP in London in the 1970s and remember receiving large quarterly pay rises just to compensate for inflation. In the absence of inflation-accounting practices, companies seriously underestimated the destruction that inflation was creating to balance sheets and profitability, making them complacent about the problem. Moreover, there were not the same global competitive pressures that exist today. Inflation in the US likely will form a new base of 3% to 4% over the medium term, with occasional fluctuations to 5% or above. An environment of stagflation is in prospect: growth will not be weak enough to suppress inflation and not strong enough to allow the Fed to maintain a restrictive stance. This puts the Fed in a difficult spot as it will be reluctant to admit defeat by raising the inflation target from its current 2%, even though that level will be out of reach in practical terms. A counter view is that I am too pessimistic by underestimating the disinflationary effects of technological advances. A sustained improvement in productivity would certainly help lower inflation but how likely is this? Technological advances are occurring all the time, but in recent years they largely have been incremental in nature and it is hard to think of any new breakthrough productivity-enhancing technologies. There is a difference between new technologies that simply represent better ways to do existing tasks (3D printing would fall into that category) and general purpose technologies that completely change the way economies operate (e.g. electricity and the internet). While businesses are still exploiting the benefits of the digital world, we await innovations that will trigger a new sustained upsurge in productivity. A game changer would be the development of unlimited cheap energy (cold fusion?) but that does not seem likely any time soon. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind about the potential for productivity to surprise on the upside, despite my current skepticism. Chart II-10Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher What does all this mean for the markets? Not surprisingly, shifts in market expectations for future inflation are highly correlated with the current rate and have thus spiked higher in recent months, hurting both bonds and stocks (Chart II-10). Obvious inflation hedges would be inflation-protected bonds and resources, but neither group currently is attractively priced. The good news is that the current panic about inflation is setting the scene for a buying opportunity in both stocks and bonds. The exact timing is tricky to predict but both stocks and bonds will rally strongly later this year when inflation expectations retreat as it becomes clear that the economy is weakening and the Fed softens its hawkish tones. The bad news is that this bullish phase will not last much more than a year because a re-emergence of inflationary pressures will bring things back to earth. The long-run outlook is one of stagflation and that will be a tough environment for financial assets. Martin H. Barnes Former Chief Economist, BCA Research mhbarnes15@gmail.com   Appendix: A Primer On The Debt Supercycle The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance-sheet liquidity and rise in indebtedness during the post-WWII period. Economic expansions have always been associated with a buildup of leverage. However, prior to the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as the welfare state and deposit insurance, balance-sheet excesses tended to be fully unwound during economic downturns, albeit at the cost of severe declines in activity. The pain of the Great Depression led governments to intervene to smooth out the business cycle, and their actions were given legitimacy by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Fiscal and monetary reflation, together with the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy, but the downside was that balance-sheet imbalances and financial excesses built up during each expansion phase were never fully unwound. Periodic "cyclical" corrections to the buildup of debt and illiquidity occurred during recessions, but these were never enough to reverse the long-run trend. Although liquidity was rebuilt during a recession, it did not return to its previous cyclical high. Meanwhile, the liquidity rundown during the next expansion phase established new lows. These trends led to growing illiquidity, and vulnerability in the financial markets. The greater the degree of illiquidity in the economy, the greater is the threat of deflation. Thus, the bigger that balance-sheet excesses become, the more painful the corrective process would be. So, the stakes became higher in each cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to reflate demand, by whatever means were available. The Supercycle process was driven over time by the building tension between rising underlying deflationary risks in the economy, and the ability of policymakers to create inflation. The Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic and financial meltdown, with the authorities reaching the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more leverage. This forced the government to leverage itself up instead, representing the Debt Supercycle's final inning. III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators paint a bearish picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is now at its weakest in almost three decades and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still overvalued, albeit less so than they were last year. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have now broken down very significantly, and are not yet providing a contrarian buy signal. The odds of a US recession over the next 12 months have recently risen, and we now recommend a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being significantly revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are still too rosy. Although earnings growth is still likely to be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. Within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should stay modestly short duration. The increase in commodity prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cooled, and prices are now rolling over significantly on the back of global growth concerns. Our composite technical indicator has dropped meaningfully, indicating that commodities are now no longer overbought. Our base-case view is that oil prices have peaked, but there some risk to that view given the current geopolitical situation. In addition, the recent rise in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation could remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals, but metals prices are likely to decline further until recessionary concerns abate. US and global LEIs have rolled over significantly and are now edging towards negative territory. The Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and four consecutive month-over-month declines have historically been associated with a recession. Our global LEI diffusion index has bottomed, but we are not convinced that this heralds a major upturn in the LEI itself. 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 Content 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 Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop   ECONOMY: 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 Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert "Hard Or Soft Landing? BCA Strategists Debate The Question," dated June 21, 2022, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see Emerging Markets Strategy "A Conversation With Ms. Mea: Navigating An Inflation Storm," dated June 16, 2022, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     This trimmed mean measure excludes the top 8% of CPI components with the largest monthly price gains and the bottom 8% with the smallest monthly gains. 8     Rent.com, https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/, June 2022. 9    A fourth channel can be via a psychological boost to business and consumer confidence, but this can cut both ways if an easing in policy is interpreted as a sign of worsening economic conditions rather than as a reason for optimism.