Labor Market

Highlights Fed: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Nominal Treasuries: We project that Treasury securities will still deliver negative total returns, even if Fed liftoff is delayed until December 2022. Investors can protect returns by favoring the 2-year note (long 2yr over cash/10yr barbell) and 20-year bond (long 20yr over 10yr/30yr barbell). TIPS: Investors should short 2-year TIPS outright in anticipation of falling short-dated inflation expectations during the next 12 months. The Taper Is Done, Now Onto Liftoff The Fed announced a tapering of its asset purchases last week and the details of the tapering plan were consistent with what had already been signaled to the public. The Fed will purchase $70 billion of Treasuries this month (compared to $80 billion in October) and $35 billion of agency MBS (down from $40 billion in October). It will then reduce monthly Treasury and MBS purchases by $10 billion and $5 billion each month, respectively, until it reaches net zero asset purchases by June of next year (Chart 2). The Fed didn’t give specific guidance on what will happen with the balance sheet after June, but it’s highly likely that it will follow the pattern of the last tightening cycle and keep the balance sheet flat for a long time, until the fed funds rate is well above the zero bound. The Fed also gave itself the option to increase or decrease the pace of purchases if such changes are warranted by the economic outlook, but it would take a major shock to knock the Fed off its pre-set course. Chart 1The Market's Liftoff Expectations The Market's Liftoff Expectations The Market's Liftoff Expectations Chart 2Net Purchases Will Reach Zero By June Net Purchases Will Reach Zero By June Net Purchases Will Reach Zero By June With the tapering announcement out of the way, the Fed can now turn to the more important question of when to start lifting interest rates. Jay Powell made it clear at last week’s press conference that the committee hasn’t yet formally taken up the issue, but that didn’t stop reporters from pressing the Chairman to provide more details about when the Fed will hike. None of that should be too surprising. There’s intense market interest and a great deal of uncertainty about the timing of Fed liftoff. Two months ago, markets were pricing-in no rate hikes at all in 2022. Now, markets are looking for Fed liftoff at the September 2022 FOMC meeting and are discounting a 90% chance of 2 rate hikes by the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s Thinking On Liftoff So, what did we learn from last week’s FOMC Statement and press conference about how the Fed is thinking about the liftoff date? First, we know from previous comments that the Fed would prefer to reduce net asset purchases to zero before it starts lifting rates. This means that the July 2022 FOMC meeting is the first “live meeting” where a rate hike could possibly occur, and the fed funds futures market is already pricing-in a 74% chance that liftoff will occur at that meeting (Chart 1). We aren’t so sure. In fact, we don’t see the Fed lifting rates until December 2022, and Chair Powell’s comments about inflation at last week’s press conference only increased our confidence in that view. On inflation, Powell echoed comments by Fed Governor Randal Quarles that we flagged in a recent report.1 Both Powell and Quarles put less emphasis on the length of time that inflation remains above the Fed’s target and more emphasis on the causes of that inflation and whether it’s appropriate for the Fed to lean against it. Here’s Powell from last week (emphasis added): Supply constraints have been larger and longer lasting than anticipated. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the drivers of higher inflation have been predominantly connected to dislocations caused by the pandemic, specifically the effects on supply and demand from the shutdown, the uneven reopening, and the ongoing effects of the virus itself. Our tools cannot ease supply constraints. Like most forecasters, we continue to believe that our dynamic economy will adjust to the supply and demand imbalances, and that as it does, inflation will decline to levels much closer to our 2 percent longer-run goal. Of course, it is very difficult to predict the persistence of supply constraints or their effects on inflation. Global supply chains are complex; they will return to normal function, but the timing of that is highly uncertain.2 Essentially, Powell is pointing out that it would be a mistake for the Fed to tighten policy to bring down inflation only to find out that the economy’s natural supply side response was about to do so anyways. The Fed would have dragged down aggregate demand for no reason. So what would cause the Fed to lift rates? We see two potential triggers. The first liftoff trigger would be an assessment by the FOMC that the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. This is the liftoff condition that the Fed has officially set for itself. The second liftoff trigger would be an uncomfortable increase in long-dated inflation expectations. A spike in long-dated inflation expectations would be worrying enough that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” goal and tighten earlier. The “Maximum Employment” Trigger Chart 3How Far From "Maximum Employment"? How Far From "Maximum Employment"? How Far From "Maximum Employment"? The concept of “maximum employment” brings a whole host of other issues along with it. How will the Fed know if the labor market is at “maximum employment”? We’ve discussed this topic at length ourselves and have come to a few helpful conclusions.3 First, we can infer from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that the Fed views an unemployment rate of 3.8% as roughly consistent with “maximum employment”. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Fed will even consider declaring victory on its employment goal until the unemployment rate is in the vicinity of 3.8%, down from its current 4.6% (Chart 3). Second, there are good reasons to believe that the aging of the US population and the recent sharp increase in retirements will prevent the labor force participation rate from re-gaining its pre-pandemic level. However, FOMC participants seem to agree that the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate should be close to its February 2020 level for the “maximum employment” condition to be satisfied (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chair Powell even specifically referenced the prime-age participation rate at last week’s press conference. Chart 4 We think a declaration of “maximum employment” will only occur once the unemployment rate is near 3.8% and the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is near its February 2020 level of 82.9%, up from its current 81.7%. It’s unlikely that these conditions will be met in time for a July 2022 rate hike. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios for the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and participation rates by specific future dates. Our scenarios use the overall participation rate (not the prime-age one), but we think the scenarios derived from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers come close to capturing reasonable conditions for “maximum employment”. Based on those scenarios, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 602k to 733k is required to reach “maximum employment” by June 2022. Conversely, average monthly payroll growth of only 379k to 455k is required to reach “maximum employment” by December 2022. We see the latter as easily achievable and the former as more of a stretch. On the topic of employment growth, it’s worth noting that both monthly nonfarm payroll growth and the prime-age labor force participation rate were dragged down by the spread of the Delta variant during the past few months (Chart 4). With new COVID cases falling, we should see stronger payroll growth and a higher prime-age part rate in the months ahead. Relatedly, falling COVID cases will also help alleviate some the constraints on labor supply as workers grow less fearful of the virus and more confident about re-entering the labor force. This will not only push prime-age participation higher, but it will also take some of the sting out of wage growth. Wage growth has been extremely high recently as the number of job openings has far outpaced the number of new hires (Chart 5). Fading COVID fears should increase the pace of hiring and slow wage growth. This will give the Fed even more confidence that it should stay the course. Chart 5Peak Wage Growth? Peak Wage Growth? Peak Wage Growth? The Inflation Expectations Trigger Chart 6Inflation Expectations Are Well-Anchored Inflation Expectations Are Well-Anchored Inflation Expectations Are Well-Anchored We noted above that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” liftoff condition if long-dated inflation expectations rose to uncomfortably high levels. Specifically, we like to track the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate relative to a target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 6). As long as the 5-year/5-year breakeven rate stays within that range or below, the Fed will be guided by its “maximum employment” goal. However, if that rate were to break above 2.5% for a significant period of time, the Fed would be sufficiently worried about an expectations-driven inflationary spiral that it would abandon its “maximum employment” trigger and bring forward the liftoff date. We don’t expect to see a breakout above 2.5% in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate anytime soon. The rate has stayed well contained throughout the past few months even as inflation skyrocketed. It would be strange for it to suddenly spike after inflation has already peaked.4 Bottom Line: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Treasury Market Positioning For A December 2022 Liftoff To determine how we should position within the Treasury market, we translate our above views on the timing of Fed liftoff into fair value estimates for different segments of the Treasury curve. Specifically, we assume a scenario where the Fed starts hiking in December 2022 and then lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a terminal rate of 2.08%. That 2.08% terminal rate is based on an expected target range of 2%-2.25% that is inferred from responses to the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers. We assume that the effective fed funds rate will trade 8 bps above the lower-bound of its target range, as it does currently. Table 1 shows expected 12-month total returns for each Treasury maturity, assuming the market moves to fully price-in our expected funds rate path during the next year. Table 1Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.08% Terminal Rate A Rate Hike Next Summer? Don’t Count On It. A Rate Hike Next Summer? Don’t Count On It. The first observation that jumps out is that, except for the 2-year and 20-year maturities, expected Treasury returns are negative across the board. This justifies sticking with our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Second, our expectation that liftoff will be delayed relative to current market expectations gives the 2-year note slightly better expected returns, particularly relative to the 10-year note. As a result, we advise investors to hold 2/10 yield curve steepeners. Specifically, investors should go long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and cash. Third, the 20-year bond looks to be priced cheaply on the curve. It offers expected 12-month returns of +79 bps while the 10-year note and 30-year bond are both projected to lose money. We recommend taking advantage of this situation by going long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This proposed trade offers positive carry of 20 bps (Chart 7). Further, the 10/20 slope is stuck in the middle of where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, panel 2). The 20/30 slope, meanwhile, is inverted and well below where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our 20 over 10/30 trade will profit as the 20/30 slope re-steepens, even if the 10/20 slope doesn’t move that much. Chart 7Buy 20s Versus 10s30s Buy 20s Versus 10s30s Buy 20s Versus 10s30s It could be argued that our recommend trades are all predicated on a fed funds rate scenario that embeds too low of a terminal rate. In fact, the median projection of FOMC participants would place the terminal rate closer to 2.5% than to 2%. If we alter our scenario by increasing the terminal rate assumption from 2.08% to 2.58%, it only improves the outlook for our recommended positions (Table 2). Table 2Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.58% Terminal Rate A Rate Hike Next Summer? Don’t Count On It. A Rate Hike Next Summer? Don’t Count On It. In the new scenario, expected Treasury returns are more negative – especially at the long-end. However, the 2-year note is still expected to earn a small profit. Our 20 over 10/30 trade performs slightly worse in this second scenario compared to the first one (+1.79% versus +1.95%), but it is still expected to make money.  TIPS Chart 8A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields We have one final government bond recommendation based on our expectation that Fed liftoff will be delayed until December 2022. That trade is to go short 2-year TIPS. Alternatively, investors could enter 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners. Our base case economic outlook is that supply side constraints (both in global supply chains and in the labor market) will loosen during the next 12 months. This will push down short-dated inflation expectations while long-dated inflation expectations stay relatively close to the Fed’s target. If we assume that both the 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates trend towards the middle of the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range during the next 12 months and that the nominal 2-year and 10-year yields follow the paths predicted by the fair value scenario presented in Table 1, then we see that the 2-year real yield has a lot of upside (Chart 8). This is true both in absolute terms and relative to the 10-year real yield. We advise investors to short 2-year TIPS outright. Alternatively, 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners will also perform well during the next 12 months. Bottom Line: We suggest four different ways that bond investors can profit from the Fed delaying liftoff until December 2022. Investors should keep portfolio duration low, enter 2/10 nominal curve steepeners, buy the 20-year T-bond versus a 10/30 barbell and short 2-year TIPS.  Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.7% and a participation rate of 62.7%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +455k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Image Image Image Image Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20211103.pdf 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 4 For more details on our inflation outlook please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

We will be holding our quarterly webcasts next Monday, November 15th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time and Tuesday, November 16th at 8:00 a.m. Hong Kong time in lieu of publishing a Weekly Report. Please join us with your questions to make it a fully interactive event. We will resume our regular publication schedule on the 22nd. Highlights Economy – Wages could be on the rise if workers are able to exploit the considerable leverage they now enjoy: The labor market currently has no slack. Workers’ ability to derive a lasting advantage from today’s shortages will determine if the extended decline in labor’s share of income will reverse. Markets – Lengthy agreements in labor’s favor could give inflation an additional impetus: Investors are not prepared for a shift in the balance of power from management to labor and a range of assets will have to reprice if workers can achieve some durable victories. Strategy – Keep an eye on labor agreements, which could hasten a shift to more defensive positioning: The current economic backdrop, along with accommodative monetary and fiscal policy, support risk-friendly portfolio positioning, but a labor revival could prompt the Fed to engage in a disruptive tightening cycle that would halt the bull markets in equities and credit and possibly also short-circuit the expansion. Feature At the end of 2019, tiring of the market debates du jour, we began haunting the New York Public Library, reading all we could about US labor relations history. Several books and rolls of microfilm later, we published a three-part Special Report on workers’ past, present and future. While we concluded that organized labor would not regain the influence it wielded in the fifties, sixties and seventies, we thought that investors were underestimating the potential for workers to reverse the grinding decline in their fortunes that began in the early eighties. Public opinion seemed to be shifting in workers’ favor, especially among the young; the coming election held promise for the Democrats; and the pendulum had swung so far, for so long, that there was little scope for management to gain any more ground. We looked forward to countering the view that organized labor was as dead as a doornail, only to have COVID-19 render the topic irrelevant. Nearly two years later, however, dislocations caused by the pandemic have pushed negotiations over wages and labor conditions to the fore. Amidst a recent flurry of strikes against S&P 500 constituents, clients have been asking what the labor future holds. We refresh the themes we identified in our initial analysis, noting how conditions have shifted since early 2020. The investment takeaway is that increasing labor muscle could stoke inflation and push long-run inflation expectations higher, forcing the Fed to tighten monetary policy more abruptly than markets expect. The 2020 Election Went Labor’s Way A review of the historical record makes it crystal clear that employees cannot gain ground if government sides with employers. The 2020 election, which delivered both the White House and the Senate to Democrats, put some unexpected wind in labor’s sails. They did not mark a revival of the New Deal, however, as Democrats’ legislative majorities are precariously thin and unlikely to survive the 2022 midterms, their control of the presidency may not extend beyond 2024, and the federal judiciary will be inclined to see things management’s way for some time thanks to past conservative appointments. At the state level, the executive and legislative branches remain firmly in Republican control. A friendly executive branch can do a lot to reset the scales nonetheless. The Biden Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Department of Justice are certain to enforce existing worker protection laws more vigorously than their recent predecessors, while more actively challenging business combinations. Joe Biden began his election campaign at a Pittsburgh union hall and returned to the Steel City to end it, promising to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen.” Labor leaders have generally given him high marks since taking office for supporting legislation to make it easier for workers to organize and he publicly offered moral support to John Deere’s UAW workers when they went on strike last month, saying, “My message is they have a right to strike and they have a right to demand higher wages.” Public Opinion Has Continued To Shift Toward Labor We noted two years ago that young Democratic voters overwhelmingly favored Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s candidacies, suggesting that solidarity with workers might be on the rise. It is no surprise that students would be the most avid supporters of progressive campaigns, but Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Generation Z might be viewed as the Inequality Generations, having entered the workforce after China’s admittance to the WTO, which coincided with a peak in labor’s share of income (Chart 1). Their lives have spanned the September 11th attacks, the financial crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic and three equity market crashes, and many of them started adulthood with onerous student debt burdens and dim earnings prospects. They might find the notion of a union buffer from market forces especially alluring and therefore view unions favorably. The 2019 Gallup poll found that public approval for unions had reached nearly 20-year highs; two years on, it’s up to levels last reached over 50 years ago (Chart 2). Chart 1Workers' Share Of The Pie Shrank For 15 Years Workers' Share Of The Pie Shrank For 15 Years Workers' Share Of The Pie Shrank For 15 Years Chart 2Extreme Makeover Extreme Makeover Extreme Makeover Public opinion is crucially important to the outcome of labor negotiations because for-profit employers will seek the most favorable terms they can get, to the extent that they are socially acceptable. In our schematic of the 1980s vicious circle that initiated unions’ 40-year decline, public opinion made it possible for the Reagan administration to take a hard line against the air traffic controllers’ union and emboldened private employers to take more aggressive measures as well (Figure 1). Beyond the private sector, elected officials reliably deliver what their constituents want, and the courts do, too, albeit with a longer lag. The median voter theory advanced by our geopolitical strategists doesn’t just predict future outcomes, it directly influences them. Chart Striketober Another key takeaway from our original study was that successful strikes beget strikes. Strikes are the most potent weapon in workers’ arsenal – withholding their labor threatens to reduce their employer’s output and may halt it altogether – but they are fraught with risk for individual employees. Striking workers don’t get paid beyond the partial support that may be provided by their union strike fund and may find themselves entirely out of work if the strike fails. Workers should only strike when they have a good chance of winning or when their situation has become so intolerable that they have little to lose. Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative position, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, and when both parties recognize that relative bargaining positions are fluid, they are likely to exercise it. Viewing labor negotiations through a game theory lens, we posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Labor (L) can believe it is way stronger than Management (M), L >> M; stronger than Management, L > M; roughly equal, L ≈ M; weaker than Management, L < M; or way weaker than Management, L << M. Management also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure 2 displays only the outcomes consistent with labor’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of management’s potential perceptions, but we deem the three away from the extremes to be most likely. Record job openings and job quits rates (Chart 3) should disabuse even the most rabidly anti-union managements from thinking they hold all the cards. On the other hand, four consecutive decades of victories will make it hard for all but the most objective management negotiators to believe that the tables have completely turned and that labor is fully in control. Chart Chart 3It's A Labor Seller's Market ... It's A Labor Seller's Market ... It's A Labor Seller's Market ... Strike outcomes turn on which side has overestimated its leverage. The broad factors we use to assess leverage are overall labor market slack; economic concentration; regulatory and legal trends; and the sustainability of either side’s accumulated advantage, which we describe as the labor-management rubber band. Other factors that matter on a case-by-case basis, but are beyond the scope of our analysis, include industry-level slack, a labor input’s susceptibility to automation, and the degree of labor specialization/skill involved in that input. For these micro-level factors, a given group of workers’ leverage is inversely related to the availability of substitutes for their input. Labor Market Slack Though we hold the view that labor force participation is likely to revive in coming months because inequality and a comparatively thin social safety net will compel many lower-income workers to return to the work force, no one knows for sure where the workers have gone or when they will return, if at all. It is abundantly clear from accelerating wage gains (Chart 4), the openings and quits rates, and small businesses’ historic inability to fill job openings (Chart 5) that the labor market is extremely tight right now. A difference of opinion about whether and how long the worker shortages will persist could make finding common ground in contract negotiations a challenge. Chart 4... As Rising Wages ... ... As Rising Wages ... ... As Rising Wages ... Chart 5... And Frantic Employers Confirm ... And Frantic Employers Confirm ... And Frantic Employers Confirm Economic Concentration We previously noted that the trend toward economic concentration has strengthened management’s hand in labor negotiations as it has made an increasing share of local labor markets tend toward monopsony. A monopsony is a market with a single buyer, the mirror image of a monopoly, which is a market with a single seller. Unfortunately for labor, monopsonies restrain prices just as monopolies inflate them. The trend toward economic concentration is well established and we think the probability that it will reverse is low – Congress may shake its fist at Big Tech and the Biden Justice Department will more vigorously contest mergers on anti-trust grounds, but there is an ocean of liquidity available to support acquisitions and robust CEO confidence suggests it will be deployed. Regulatory And Legal Trends Over the last four decades, unions have endured a near-constant drubbing from statehouses, federal agencies and the courts, as union and labor protections have been under siege from all sides. But the regulatory and legal tide has been such a huge benefit for employers since the beginning of the Reagan administration that it simply cannot continue to maintain its pace. Furthermore, as our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have observed, the Republican party’s lurch toward populism may leave Big Business without a champion in Washington, DC. The regulatory and legal winds are shifting and management teams that have spent their entire careers in an environment in which labor has perpetually been on the back foot may be the last to know, leading to an uptick in the number and contentiousness of labor disputes. A change in Fed policy, as unveiled in the August 2020 revision to the FOMC’s statement on longer-run monetary policy goals, has also tilted the playing field in workers’ favor. The Fed has sworn off preemptively tightening monetary policy when the labor market appears to be getting tight. The new direction contrasts with 40-plus years of Fed policy that were predicated on taking away the punch bowl before upward wage pressures could build momentum. The tacit pledge in the revised statement on monetary policy implies that the Fed will prioritize its full employment mandate over its price stability mandate in the near term. That’s not an unalloyed positive for workers, who will only be better off if their nominal wage gains outpace inflation, but it will help give them more of a head start than they would have gotten if the FOMC had stuck with the proposition that tight labor markets stoke inflation. The Labor-Management Rubber Band Employees and employers have a deeply symbiotic relationship, and we like to think of labor and management as being linked by an elastic tether with a finite range. Since neither side can indefinitely thrive if the other is suffering, the tether pulls the two sides closer together when the gap between them threatens to become too wide. When labor does too well for too long at management’s expense, profit margins shrink and the company’s viability as a going concern is threatened. When management does too well, deteriorating living standards drive the best employees away, undermining productivity and profitability. One does not have to be a card-carrying socialist to believe that the band is near its limit and that some sort of mean reversion is inevitable, given how badly real hourly wages have lagged gains in hourly output over the last 50 years (Chart 6). Chart 6Testing How Far The Labor-Management Rubber Band Can Stretch Testing How Far The Labor-Management Rubber Band Can Stretch Testing How Far The Labor-Management Rubber Band Can Stretch What Comes Next Steady concentration across industries and a persistently hospitable legal and regulatory climate has given management the upper hand for four decades. Going forward, however, labor should see its fortunes improve as the legal and regulatory climate cannot get materially better for employers, and the labor-management rubber band becomes less stretched in management’s favor (Figure 3). Chart The major uncertainty pertains to the ongoing level of slack in the labor market and how employment agreements should account for it. All parties recognize there is no slack right now and employers are duly offering generous inducements to attract workers. Sign-on bonuses for new employees in unskilled services positions are ubiquitous and negotiations with unionized employees include ratification bonuses for signing new contract packages. Because wages are sticky on the downside – it’s difficult to get employees to swallow outright pay cuts – employers prefer making one-time concessions like bonuses to increasing wage rates across the board, which is tantamount to locking in higher long-term input costs. The duration of concessions appears to be a sticking point in the negotiations to settle the current strikes. Over the last two decades, several large companies with unionized workforces have instituted a two-tier employment track distinguishing legacy employees from new hires. The legacy employees remain on their existing salary path and retain their retirement and health insurance benefits, while new employees are subject to a lower salary scale and are entitled to fewer benefits, if any. The result has been to bend the human resources cost curve lower in the future as natural attrition shrinks the share of employees on the more costly legacy path. The two-tier employment classification has proven to be an effective way for employers to bend the cost curve to their liking, as it protects the interests of a considerable majority of employee voters at the expense of a largely hypothetical future employee constituency. It is presumably difficult to empathize with workers who aren’t yet coming to the plant every day and legacy employees haven’t dwelled on their plight when participating in contract ratification votes. An interesting feature of the ongoing John Deere strike is that the UAW rejected what appeared to be a strikingly generous package partially in the interest of defending current and future employees who have no path to reach legacy employees’ all-in compensation level. The recent strikes against S&P 500 constituents have been concentrated in industries that faced demand spikes during the pandemic. The bakery worker’s union (BCTGM) representing Kellogg’s workers struck against Frito-Lay (owned by Pepsi) for three weeks in July and Nabisco (a unit of Mondelez) for five weeks in August and September. A significant motivation for the BCTGM workers’ actions seemed to be frustration over intense pandemic workloads. Their plants ramped up capacity to fill kitchen cabinets while consumers were cooped up at home and they are now seeking redress for the emergency hours they were asked to work. (All of the bakery workers who struck, as well as the John Deere workers, were considered essential workers.) Management, on the other hand, might take the view that their employees’ sacrifices are in the past, and are not likely to be repeated if product demand settles back into its pre-pandemic trend. Viewing ongoing negotiations from our game theory perspective, there is ample room for divergent perceptions of relative negotiating strength, based on differing opinions about the persistence of pandemic trends. The divergence might make for increasingly contentious labor negotiations going forward, with strikes exacerbating supply bottlenecks and ramping up near-term inflation pressures. If ongoing rounds of labor negotiations result in workers achieving longer-term victories, it will pressure corporate profit margins. Labor gains will also potentially feed into inflation if capacity is not poised to meet the ensuing increase in aggregate demand. We will keep close tabs on labor negotiations as the economy works its way back to a post-pandemic steady state.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. Unlike in the late 1990s, when rising wages were counterbalanced by robust productivity gains, most of the recent rebound in US productivity growth will prove to be illusory. US inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory. We are currently at the top of those two steps, but rising unit labor costs will eventually drive inflation higher. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted. Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. Go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world. The Bank of England will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer. The eventual re-emergence of supply-side pressures will catalyze more investment spending. This will bolster industrial stocks. The Supply Side Matters, Again Savings glut, secular stagnation; call it what you will, but for the better part of two decades, the global economy has faced a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand. Times are changing, however. The predominant problem these days is not a lack of spending; it is a lack of production. Unlike during the Global Financial Crisis – when worries about moral hazard complicated efforts to bail out homeowners and banks – the victims of the pandemic elicited sympathy. As a result, governments in developed economies rolled out a slew of measures to support workers and businesses. Thanks to bountiful fiscal transfers, households in the US have accrued $2.2 trillion in income since the start of the pandemic, about $1.2 trillion more than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 1). With many services unavailable, consumers diverted spending towards manufactured goods. At first, sellers were able to dip into their inventories to meet rising demand. By early this year, however, inventories had been depleted (Chart 2). Shortages began to pop up across much of the global supply chain. Chart 1Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Chart 2The Pandemic Depleted Inventories The Pandemic Depleted Inventories The Pandemic Depleted Inventories While today’s empty warehouses can be largely attributed to surging demand for goods, supply-side disruptions have also played an important role. Four disruptions stand out: 1) semiconductor shortages; 2) transportation bottlenecks; 3) inadequate energy supplies; and 4) reduced labor force participation. Let us examine all four in turn. Semiconductor Shortages Chart 3Car Prices Have Jumped Car Prices Have Jumped Car Prices Have Jumped The global supply chain was not equipped to handle the dislocations caused by the pandemic. The combination of just-in-time inventory systems and far-flung supplier networks ensured that bottlenecks in one part of the global economy quickly filtered down to other parts of the economy. Few industries are as important as semiconductors. The auto sector has felt the brunt of the chip shortage. Both new and used vehicle prices have soared as dealer lots have emptied out (Chart 3). The drop in vehicle spending alone shaved 2.4 percentage points off US real GDP growth in the third quarter. Semiconductor makers have ramped up production to meet growing demand. The US Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization showed that semiconductor plants operated an average of 73 hours per week in the first half of this year, up from around 45-to-50 hours prior to the pandemic (Chart 4). Chip production in Northeast Asia has rebounded (Chart 5). Southeast Asian production dropped in August due to Covid lockdowns, with semiconductor exports falling by over a third in Malaysia and Vietnam. Fortunately, since then, a decline in Covid cases and rising vaccination rates have spurred a recovery throughout the region. Chart 4Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chart 5Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Chart 6Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Commentary from semiconductor companies and automakers suggest that the chip shortage will ease over the coming months. In an auspicious sign, US auto sales jumped to 13.1 million in October from 12.3 million in September. Memory chip prices are also falling (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall chip market is unlikely to return to balance until 2023. Transportation Bottlenecks Unlike semiconductors and high-end electronics, which usually arrive by air, bulkier items such as furniture, sporting goods, and housing appliances typically arrive by sea. Port congestion, insufficient warehouse capacity, and a lack of truck chassis on which to place containers have all contributed to transportation bottlenecks. Chart 7Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? As with the semiconductor shortage, we are probably past the worst point in the shipping crisis. Drewry’s composite World Container Index has edged down 11% from its highs, although it is still up more than three-fold from mid-2020 levels (Chart 7). The easing in container shipping costs follows a dramatic 47% decline in the Baltic Dry Index since early October. The number of ships waiting to unload cargo off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach remains near record highs (Chart 8). Port congestion should ease over the next few months. US port throughput usually falls starting in the late fall and remains weak during the winter months, bottoming shortly after the Chinese New Year. If throughput remains elevated near current levels this year, this should be enough to clear much of the backlog. Looking further out, shipping costs could face additional downward pressure. Chart 9 shows that the number of container ships on order has risen to a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Chart 8Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Chart 9Shipbuilders Are Busy Shipbuilders Are Busy Shipbuilders Are Busy Inadequate Energy Supplies After a torrid rally since the start of the year, energy prices have come off their highs. The price of Brent oil has dipped 6% from its October peak. US natural gas prices have retreated 11%. Natural gas prices in Europe have fallen 37%. Chart 10 The biggest move has been in coal prices, which have dropped 36% over the past two weeks alone. Futures curves are pricing in further declines in key energy prices (Chart 10). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service expects energy prices to soften over the next 12 months, but not as much as markets are discounting. Their latest forecast calls for the price of Brent crude to average $81/bbl in 2021Q4, $80/bbl in 2022 (versus market expectations of $77/bbl), and $81/bbl in 2023 (versus market expectations of $71/bbl). As we discussed a few weeks ago, years of underinvestment have led to tight supply conditions across the entire energy complex (Chart 11). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade. Gas reserves followed a similar trajectory, increasing by only 5% between 2010 and 2020 compared to 30% over the prior ten years (Chart 12). Chart 11 Chart 12   With little spare capacity, energy markets have become increasingly vulnerable to shocks. A cold snap across the Northern Hemisphere this spring depleted natural gas supplies, while a lack of wind reduced energy production by European wind farms. Increased gas imports from Russia could have mitigated the problem, but the dispute over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline prevented that from happening. The pipeline is popular with German voters (Chart 13). BCA’s geopolitical team expects it to be approved, a welcome development given that La Niña is highly likely to lead to colder-than-normal temperatures across northern Europe this winter. Chart 13 China has also restarted 170 coal mines and will probably begin re-importing Australian coal. Beijing is also allowing utilities to charge higher prices, which should help stave off bankruptcies across the sector. These measures should help mitigate China’s energy crisis. Chart 14US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels A bit more oil production will also help. The US rig count, while still far below its 2014 highs, has doubled since last year (Chart 14). BCA’s commodity strategists expect output in the Lower 48 states to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. Nevertheless, shale producers are a lot more disciplined these days. Debt reduction and cash flow generation are now the top priorities. This implies that fairly high oil prices may be necessary to catalyze additional investment in the industry.  Reduced Labor Force Participation Despite the rapid economic recovery, US employment remains 5 million below its pre-pandemic peak. One would not know this from the survey data, however. A record 51% of small businesses expressed difficulty finding qualified workers in the October NFIB survey. The share of households reporting that jobs are plentiful versus hard-to-get has returned to its 2000 highs. Both the quits rate and the job openings rate are well above their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 15). A wave of early retirement accounts for some of the apparent labor market tightness. About 1.3 million more workers have retired since the pandemic began than one would have expected based on demographic trends. Yet, there is more to the story than that. The labor force participation rate for workers aged 25-to-54 has not fully recovered; the employment-to-population ratio for that age cohort is still 2.5 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 16). Chart 15 Chart 16Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise   There is considerable uncertainty about how many workers will re-enter the labor force over the coming months. On the one hand, the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits could prod more workers into the job market. Diminished anxiety about the virus should help. While the number has fallen by half, there are still 2.5 million people not working due to concerns about getting or spreading Covid-19 (Chart 17). According to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, the retirement rate rose more for older lower-income workers than higher-income workers (Chart 18). Some of these retirees may decide to re-enter the labor force. Chart 17Less Anxiety About The Coronavirus Should Increase Labor Supply Poorer Older Workers Were More Likely To Retire Last Year Poorer Older Workers Were More Likely To Retire Last Year Chart 18   On the other hand, the imposition of vaccine mandates could reduce labor supply. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether the pandemic will lead to permanent changes in peoples’ perspectives on the optimal work/life balance. High burnout rates (especially in the health care sector), a reluctance to restart the daily commute to the office, and the desire to spend more time with family have all contributed to what some commentators have dubbed The Great Resignation. Ultimately, the deciding factor may be wages. Wage growth accelerated during the late 1990s as the labor market tightened (Chart 19). This drew a lot of people – especially less-skilled workers – into the labor force. Recently, wage growth has exploded at the bottom end of the income distribution, and our guess is that this will entice more people to seek employment (Chart 20). Chart 19Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Chart 20Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly     Will Higher Productivity Growth Mitigate Supply-Side Pressures? The late 1990s saw a resurgence in productivity growth. This helped restrain unit labor costs in the face of rising wages. Chart 21 While US productivity did jump during the pandemic, we are sceptical of claims that this can be attributed to efficiency gains from digitalization and work-from-home practices. A recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. It is telling that productivity outside of the US generally declined during the pandemic (Chart 21). This suggests that last year’s productivity gains stemmed mainly from increased operating leverage, a common feature of post-recession US recoveries (Chart 22). Supporting this view is the fact that productivity growth slowed from 4.3% in Q1 to 2.4% in Q2 on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis. Productivity declined by 5% in Q3, leading to an 8.3% increase in unit labor costs. Chart 22US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions Chart 23Capital Goods Orders Have Soared Capital Goods Orders Have Soared Capital Goods Orders Have Soared The only saving grace is that core capital goods orders have soared (Chart 23). This should translate into increased business capital spending next year and higher productivity down the road. Investment Implications Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. This is consistent with our “two steps up, one step down” projection for US inflation. We are probably near the top of those two steps at present. This implies that the next move for inflation is to the downside, even if the longer-term trend is still to the upside. The US 10-year Treasury yield should stabilize at around 1.8% in the first half of 2022, before moving higher later in the year. As we discussed last week, markets are understating the true level of the neutral rate of interest. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted (Chart 24). Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, as of this week, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. We would also go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. The Bank of England’s “surprising hold” knocked the yield down 14 basis points to 0.93%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world (Chart 25). Growth is strong and will remain buoyant as Brexit headwinds fade. The BoE will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Chart 24Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Chart 25UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World   Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 26 shows that there has been a close correlation between the US 30-year Treasury yield and the relative performance of global value versus growth stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer (Chart 27). Chart 26Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Chart 27     The re-emergence of supply-side pressures could affect companies in a variety of unexpected ways. For example, Facebook and Google both rely heavily on revenue from advertising. But what is the point of trying to boost demand for your product if you already cannot produce enough of it? Companies such as Hershey and Kimberly-Clark are already cutting ad spending in response to supply-chain bottlenecks. Finally, tight supply conditions will catalyze more investment spending. This will benefit industrial stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Chart 28 Special Trade Recommendations The Supply Side Strikes Back The Supply Side Strikes Back Current MacroQuant Model Scores Chart 29

Highlights Japan’s long-term weaknesses – a shrinking population, low productivity growth, excess indebtedness – are very well known. However, it still punches above its weight in the realm of geopolitics. Abenomics – sorry, Kishidanomics – can still deliver some positive surprises every now and then. As the global pandemic wanes, and China faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks, investors should begin buying the yen on weakness. Japanese industrials also are an attractive play in a global portfolio. While the yen will likely fare better than the dollar over the next 6-9 months, it will lag other procyclical currencies. Feature Japan has always been an “earthquake society,”  in which things seem never to change until suddenly everything changes at once. The good news for investors is that that change occurred in 2011 and the latest political events reinforce policy continuity. Why “Abenomics” Remains The Playbook Over ten years have passed since Japan suffered a triple crisis of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. In fact, the Fukushima nuclear crisis merely punctuated a long accumulation of national malaise: the country had suffered two “Lost Decades” and was in the thrall of the Great Recession, a rare period of domestic political change, and a rise in national security fears over a newly assertive China. The nuclear meltdown marked the nadir. The result of all these crises was a miniature policy revolution in 2012 – Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) returned to power and initiated a range of bolder policies to whip the country’s deflationary mindset and reboot its foreign and trade relations. The new economic program, “Abenomics,” consisted of easy money, soft budgets, and pro-growth reforms. It succeeded in changing Japan. Both private debt and inflation, which had fallen during the lost decades, bottomed after the 2011 crisis and began to rise under Abe (Chart 1). By the 2019 House of Councillors election, however,  Abe was running out of steam. Consumption tax hikes, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 thwarted his plans of national revival. In particular, Abe hoped to capitalize on excitement over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to hold a popular referendum on revising the constitution. Constitutional revision is necessary to legitimize the Self-Defense Forces and thus make Japan a “normal” nation again, i.e. one that can maintain armed forces. But the global pandemic interrupted. Until the next heavyweight prime minister comes along, Japan will relapse into its old pattern of a “revolving door” of prime ministers who come and go quickly. For example, the only purpose of Abe’s immediate successor, Yoshihide Suga, was to tie off loose ends and oversee the Olympics before passing the baton (Chart 2). Chart 1Abenomics Was Making Progress Abenomics Was Making Progress Abenomics Was Making Progress Chart 2 The next few Japanese prime ministers will almost inevitably lack Abe’s twin supermajority in parliament, which was exceptional in modern history (Chart 3). It will be hard for the LDP to expand its regional grip given that it holds a majority in all 11 of the regional blocks in which the political parties contend for seats based on their proportion of the popular vote (Table 1). Chart 3 Table 1LDP+ Komeito Regional Performance Japan: Foreign Threats, Domestic Reflation Japan: Foreign Threats, Domestic Reflation Short-lived, traditional prime ministers will not be able to create a superior vision for Japan and will largely follow in Abe’s footsteps.   In September Prime Minister Fumio Kishida replaced Suga – a badly needed facelift for the ruling Liberal Democrats ahead of the October 31 election. The LDP retained its single-party majority in the Diet, so Kishida is off to a tolerable start (Chart 4). But he is far from charismatic and will not last long if he fumbles in the upper house elections in July 2022. This gives him a little more than half a year to make a mark. Chart 4 Kishida will oversee a roughly 30-40 trillion yen stimulus package, or supplemental budget, by the end of this year. Japanese stimulus packages are almost always over-promised and under-delivered. However, given the electoral calendar, he will put together a large package that will not disappoint financial markets. His other goal will be to build on recent American efforts to cobble together a coalition of democracies to counter China and Russia. Japan’s Grand Strategy In Brief Chart 5Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan’s grand strategy over centuries consists of maintaining its independence from foreign powers, controlling its strategic geographic approaches to prevent invasion, and stopping any single power from dominating the eastern side of the Eurasian landmass. Originally the hardest part of this grand strategy was that it required establishing unitary political control over the far-flung Japanese archipelago. However, since the Meiji Restoration, Tokyo has maintained centralized government. Since then Japan has focused on controlling its strategic approaches and maintaining a balance among the Asian powers. During the imperialist period it tried to achieve these objectives on its own. After World War II, the United States became critical to Japan’s grand strategy. Through its broad alliance with Washington, Tokyo can maintain independence, make sure critical territories are not hostile (e.g. Taiwan and South Korea), and deter neighboring threats (North Korea, China, Russia). It can at least try to maintain a balance of power in Eurasia. Yet these constant national interests underscore Japan’s growing vulnerabilities today: China’s economy is now two-times larger than Japan’s and Japan is more dependent on China’s trade than vice versa (Chart 5). Under Xi Jinping, Beijing is actively converting its wealth into military and strategic capabilities that threaten Japan’s security. Rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait are fueling nationalism and re-armament in Japan.  Russia’s post-Soviet resurgence entails an ever-closer Russo-Chinese partnership. It also entails Russian conflicts with the US that periodically upset any attempts at Russo-Japanese détente. North Korea’s asymmetric war capabilities and nuclearization pose another security threat. South Korea’s attempts to engage with the North and China, and compete with Japan, are unhelpful.    All of these realities drive Japan closer to the United States. Even the US is increasingly unpredictable, though not yet to the point of causing serious doubts about the alliance. If the US were fundamentally weakened, or abandoned the alliance, Japan would either have to adopt nuclear weapons or accommodate itself to Chinese hegemony to meet its grand strategy. Nuclearization would be the more likely avenue. The stability of Asia depends greatly on American arbitration. Japan’s Strategy Since 1990 Beneath this grand strategy Japan’s ruling elites must pursue a more particular strategy suited to its immediate time and place. Ever since Japan’s working population and property bubble peaked in the early 1990s, the country’s relative economic heft has declined. To maintain stability and security, the central government in Tokyo has had to take on a very active role in the economy and society. The first step was to stabilize the domestic economy despite collapsing potential growth. This has been achieved through a public debt supercycle (Chart 6). Unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy largely stabilized demand, at the cost of the world’s highest net debt-to-GDP ratio. The economic adjustment was spread out over a long period of time so as to prevent a massive social and political backlash. Unemployment peaked in 2009 at 5.5% and never rose above this level. The ruling elite and the Liberal Democrats maintained control of institutions and government. The second step was to ensure continued alliance with the United States. Japan could deal with its economic problems – and the rise of China – if it maintained access to US consumers and protection from the US military. To maintain the alliance required making investments in the American economy, in US-led global institutions, and cooperating with the US on various initiatives, including controversial foreign policies. As in the 1950s-60s, Japan would bulk up its Self-Defense Forces to share the burden of global security with the United States, despite the US-written constitution’s prohibition on keeping armed forces. The third step was to invest abroad and put Japan’s excess savings to work, developing materials and export markets abroad while employing foreign workers and factories to become Japan’s new industrial base in lieu of the shrinking Japanese workforce (Chart 7).  Chart 6Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Chart 7 Japan’s post-1990 strategy has staying power because of the massive pressures on Japan listed above: China’s rise, Russo-Chinese partnership, North Korean threats, and American distractions. Investors tend to underrate the impact of these trends on Japan. Unless they fundamentally change, Japan’s strategy will remain intact regardless of prime minister or even ruling party. Russia’s role is less clear and could serve as a harbinger of any future change. President Vladimir Putin and Abe had the best chance in modern memory to resolve the two countries’ territorial disputes, build on mutual interests, and maybe even sign a peace treaty. But Russia’s clash with the West  proved an insurmountable obstacle. New opportunities could emerge at some later juncture, as Japan’s interest in preventing China from dominating Eurasia gives it a strong reason to normalize ties with Russia. Russia will at some point worry about overdependency on China. But this change is not on the immediate horizon.  Japan’s Tactics Since 2011 Chart 8 Japan is nearly a one-party state. Brief spells of opposition rule, in 1993 and 2009-11, are exceptions that prove the rule. The Liberal Democrats did not fall from power so much as suffer a short “time out” to reflect on their mistakes before voters put them right back into power. However, these timeouts have been important in forcing the ruling party to adjust its tactics for changing times, as with Abenomics. Kishida will not have enough political capital to change direction. The emphasis will still be on defeating deflation and rekindling animal spirits and corporate borrowing (as opposed to relying exclusively on public debt). Kishida has talked about a new type of capitalism and a more active redistribution of wealth, in keeping with the current zeitgeist among the global elite. However, Japan lacks the impetus for dramatic change. Wealth inequality is not extreme and political polarization is non-existent (Chart 8). The LDP is wary of losing votes to the populist Japan Innovation Party, or other regional movements, but populism does not have as fertile ground in countries with low inequality.  The desire to boost wages was a central plank of Abenomics (Chart 9) and an area of success. It will come through in Kishida’s policies as well. But the ultimate outcome will depend on how tight the labor market gets in the upcoming economic cycle. Similarly Kishida can be expected to encourage, or at least not roll back, women’s participation in the labor force, as labor markets tighten (Chart 10). As the pandemic wanes it is also likely that he will reignite Abe’s loose immigration policy, which saw the number of foreign workers triple between 2010 and 2020. This inflow is perhaps the surest sign of any that insular and xenophobic Japan is changing with the times to meet its economic needs.  Chart 9Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Chart 10Women Off To Work But Fertility ##br##Relapsed Women Off To Work But Fertility Relapsed Women Off To Work But Fertility Relapsed The only substantial difference between Kishidanomics and Abenomics is that Abe compromised his reflationary fiscal efforts by insisting on going forward with periodic hikes to the consumption tax. Kishida is under no such expectation. Instead he is operating in a global political and geopolitical context in which ambitious public investments are positively encouraged even at the expense of larger budget deficits (Chart 11). Yet interest rates are still low enough to make such investments cheaply. The stage is set for fiscal largesse. Chart 11Fiscal Largesse To Continue Fiscal Largesse To Continue Fiscal Largesse To Continue Kishida can be expected to promote large new investments in supply-chain resilience, renewable energy, and military rearmament. The US and EU may exempt climate policies from traditional budget accounting – Japan may do the same. Even more so than China and Europe, Japan has a national interest in renewable energy since it is almost entirely dependent on foreign imports for its fossil fuels. The green transition in Japan is lagging that of Germany but the Japanese shift away from nuclear power has gone even faster, creating an import dependency that needs to be addressed for strategic reasons (Chart 12). Monetary-fiscal coordination began under Abe and can increase under Kishida. What is clear is that public investment is the top priority while fiscal consolidation is not. Military spending is finally starting to edge up as a share of GDP, as noted above. For many years Japanese leaders talked about military spending but it remained steady at 1% of GDP. Now, at the onset of the US-China cold war, the Japanese are spending more and say the ratio will rise to 2% of GDP (Chart 13). Tensions with China, especially over Taiwan, will continue to drive this shift, though North Korea’s weapons progress is not negligible. Chart 12 Chart 13 The Biden administration is prioritizing US allies and the competition with China, which makes the Japanese alliance top of mind. Tokyo’s various attempts to talk with Beijing in recent years have amounted to nothing, with the exception of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is far from ratification and implementation. Japan’s relations with China are driven by interests, not passing attitudes and emotions. If Biden proves too dovish toward China – a big “if” – then it will be Japan pushing the US to take a more hawkish line rather than vice versa. Japan will take various strategic, economic, technological, and military actions to defend itself from the range of external threats it faces. These actions will intimidate and provoke China and other neighbors, which will help to entrench the “security dilemma” between the US and China and their allies. For example, Japan will eagerly participate in US efforts to upgrade its military and its regional alliances and partnerships, including via the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India and Australia. The Biden administration might force Japan to play nice with South Korea and patch up their trade war. But that is a price Japan can pay since American involvement also precludes any shift by South Korea fully into China’s camp. If China should invade Taiwan – which we cannot rule out over the long run – Japan’s vital supply lines and national security would fall under permanent jeopardy. Japan would have an interest in defending Taiwan but its willingness to war with China may depend on the US response. However, both Japan and the US would have to draw a stark line in defense of Japanese territory, not least Okinawa, where US troops are based. Both powers would mobilize and seek to impose a strategic containment policy around China at that point. Until The Next Earthquake … For Japan to abandon its post-1990 strategy, it would need to see a series of shocks to domestic and international politics. If China’s economy collapsed, Korea unified, or the US abandoned the Asia Pacific region, then Tokyo would have to reassess its strategy. Until then the status quo will prevail. At home Japan would need to see a split within the Liberal Democrats, or a permanent break between the LDP and their junior partner Komeito, combined with a single, consolidated, and electorally viable opposition party and a charismatic opposition leader. This kind of change would follow from major exogenous shocks. Today it is nowhere in sight – the last two shocks, in 2011 and 2020, reinforced the LDP regime. Theoretically some future Japanese government could adopt a socialist platform that relies entirely on public debt rather than trying to reboot private debt. It could openly embrace debt monetization and modern monetary theory  rather than trying to raise taxes periodically to maintain the appearance of fiscal rectitude. But if it tried to distance itself from the United States and improve relations with Russia and China, such a strategy would not go very far. It would jeopardize Japan’s grand strategy. For the foreseeable future, Japan’s economic security and national security lie in maintaining the American alliance and continuing an outward investment strategy focused on emerging markets other than China. Macroeconomic Developments The key message from an economic context is that fiscal stimulus is likely to be larger in Japan than the market currently expects. The IMF is penciling in a fiscal deficit of around 2% of potential GDP next year, which will be a drag on growth (Chart 14). More likely, Kishida will cobble together a slightly larger package to implement most of the initiatives he has proposed on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, a large share of JGBs are about to mature over the next couple of years, providing room for more issuance, which the BoJ will be happy to assimilate (Chart 15). Chart 14More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely Chart 15Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Real numbers on the size of the fiscal package have been scarce, but it should be around 30-40 trillion yen, spread over a few years. With Japan’s net interest expense at record lows (Chart 16), and a lot of the spending slated for worthwhile productivity-enhancing projects such as supply chains, green energy, education and some boost to the financial sector in the form of digital innovation and consolidation, we expect fiscal policy in Japan will remain moderately loose, with the BoJ staying accommodative. The timing of more fiscal stimulus is appropriate as Japan has managed to finally put the pandemic behind it. The number of new Covid-19 cases is at the lowest recorded level per capita, and Japan now  has more of its population vaccinated than the US. As a result, the manufacturing and services PMIs, which have been the lowest in the developed world, could stage a coiled-spring rebound. This will be a welcome fillip for Japanese assets (Chart 17). Chart 16Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Chart 17The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged Consumption could also surprise to the upside in Japan. With the consumption tax hike of 2019 and the 2020 pandemic now behind us, pent-up demand could finally be unleashed in the coming quarters. Rising wages and high savings underscore that Japan could see a vigorous rebound in consumption, as was witnessed in other developed economies. This will be particularly the case as inflation stays low. The big risk for Japan from a macro perspective is an external slowdown, driven by China. A boom in foreign demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth, especially amidst weak domestic demand. The risk is that this tailwind becomes a headwind as Chinese growth slows, especially as a big share of Japanese exports go to China. Our view has been that policy makers in China will be able to ring-fire the property crisis, preventing a “Lehman” moment. As such, while China’s slowdown is a reality and downside risks warrant monitoring, we also expect China to avoid a hard landing. Meanwhile, Japanese exports are also diversified, with other developed and emerging markets accounting for the lion’s share of total exports. For example, exports to the US account for 19% of sales while EU exports account for 9%. Both exports and foreign machinery orders remain quite robust, suggesting that the slowdown in China will not crush all external demand (globally, export growth remains very strong).  It is noteworthy that many countries now have “carte blanche” to boost infrastructure spending, especially in areas like renewable energy and supply chain resiliency. Japan continues to remain a big supplier of capital goods globally. This will ensure that an economic recovery around the world will buffer foreign machinery orders. Market Implications Japanese equities have underperformed the US over the last decade, and Kishidanomics is unlikely to change this trend. But to the extent that more fiscal stimulus helps lift aggregate demand, a few sectors could begin to see short-term outperformance. More importantly, the underperformance of certain Japanese equity sectors have not been fully justified by the improving earnings picture (Chart 18). This suggests some room for catch-up. Banks in particular could benefit from a steeper yield curve in Japan, rising global yields and proposed reform in the sector (Chart 19). We will view this as a tactical opportunity however, than a strategic call. Our colleagues in the Global Asset Allocation service have clearly outlined key reasons against overweighting Japan, and are currently neutral.  More importantly, industrials also look poised to see some pickup in relative EPS growth, as global industrial demand stays robust. An improvement in domestic demand should also favor small caps over large caps. Chart 18ADismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 18BDismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 19Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Foreigners have huge sway over the performance of Japanese assets, especially equities. Foreign holders account for nearly 30% of the Japanese equity float. This is important not only for the equity call but for currency performance as well since portfolio flows dominate currency movements. Historically, the yen and the Japanese equity market have been negatively correlated. This was due to positive profit translation effects from a lower currency. However, it is possible that Japanese domestic profits are no longer driven only by translation effects, but rather by underlying productivity gains. This could result in less yen hedging by foreign equity investors, which would restore a positive relationship between the relative share price performance and the currency. As for the yen, the best environment for any currency is when the economy can generate non-inflationary growth. Japan may well be entering this paradigm. Historically, now has been the exact environment where the yen tends to do well, as the economy exits deflation and enters non-inflationary growth (Chart 20). Chart 20The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth Markets have been wrongly focusing on nominal rather than real yields in Japan and the implication for the yen. Therefore the risk to a long yen view is that the Bank of Japan keeps rates low as global yields are rising. However, in an environment where global inflationary pressures normalize (say in the next 6-9 months) and temper the increase in global yields, this could provide room for short covering on the yen. In our view, the yen is already the most underappreciated currency in the G10, as rising global yields have led to a massive accumulation of short positions. Finally, from a valuation standpoint, the yen is the cheapest G10 currency according to our PPP models, and is also quite cheap according to our intermediate-term timing model (Chart 21). With the yen being a risk-off currency, it also tends to rise versus the dollar not only during recessions, but also during most episodes of broad-based dollar weakness. This low-beta nature of the currency makes it a good portfolio hedge in an uncertain world. Chart 21The Yen Is Undervalued The Yen Is Undervalued The Yen Is Undervalued Given the historic return of geopolitical risk to Japan’s neighborhood, as the US and Japan engage in active great power competition with China, the yen is an underrated hedge. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy chestern@bcaresearch.com

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, but data highlighting the economic consequences of the Delta wave grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, driven by lower car sales and a slowdown in services spending. The imminent vaccination of school-aged children, and signs that services activity and spending are increasing, will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Investors have the right bond view, but the wrong reason. Investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas it will likely do so because of a quicker return to maximum employment. Bond yields are likely to move higher over the coming year, but this will be driven by real yields, not inflation expectations. Once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and a gap between these two measures no longer makes sense. Stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. A benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis; stay overweight for now, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Feature Chart I-1The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta The Waning Impact Of Delta Over the past month, the focus of investors has shifted from day-to-day developments to the consequences of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Chart I-1 highlights that, while an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction rates in advanced economies has recently inched higher, it remains below one and hospitalizations continue to trend lower in most major economies. UK hospitalizations have increased over the course of the month, but remain at a level that is a quarter of their January peak – despite an elevated pace of confirmed cases. In the US, both these cases and hospitalizations continue to fall, trends that are likely to be reinforced by the vaccination of children over the coming weeks. A 50-60% vaccination rate for school-aged children would increase the US vaccination rate by 4-5 percentage points. Vaccinating all children at this rate would increase the total vaccination rate by 7-8 percentage points. In combination with a meaningful level of natural immunity, the vaccination of children is likely to bring the US very close to, if not above, the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity (or “NAHRI”).1 The Delta Hangover While the circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, the economic consequences grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, as highlighted by yesterday’s advance release. Chart I-2 highlights that durable goods spending subtracted almost three percentage points from Q3 growth, and that most other components of GDP contributed less to growth in Q3 than in Q2. Chart I-2 The significant slowdown in Q3 growth is disappointing, but several factors point toward the conclusion that it is not likely to be sustained: Chart I-3Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 The Delta wave very likely impacted services spending, which we have highlighted is likely to drive overall consumption over the coming year. Given the ongoing impact of semiconductor shortages on the availability of new cars, it is not surprising that a slowdown in services spending resulted in a significant slowdown in overall growth. After having declined significantly in Q3, Chart I-3 highlights that the US, UK, French, and Japanese October flash services PMI rose anew, underscoring that recent services weakness have been closely linked to the Delta variant of COVID-19 (whose impact is now waning). Chart I-3 also highlights that the US services PMI is currently at a level that has been historically consistent with solid real PCE growth. Finally, while it is true that manufacturing PMIs are being supported by supplier deliveries components, the October output component of the US Markit manufacturing index remained in expansionary territory, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and the UK (despite month-over-month declines in these components). Chart I-4 highlights that Q3’s real GDP reading was highly anomalous relative to the pace of jobs growth in the quarter, based on the relationship between the two since the global financial crisis. In quarters in which real GDP growth was 1% or less than implied by the trendline shown in Chart I-4, real GDP accelerated in the subsequent quarter 80% of the time. In conjunction with a pickup in services activity in October, this suggests that growth will be meaningfully stronger in Q4. Chart I-4 Chart I-5Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Chart I-5 shows our global Nowcast indicator, alongside our global LEI. Our Nowcast indicator is a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global LEI are declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. The global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart I-5 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not a major cyclical downturn. The expectation of a slowdown in growth in Q3 has significantly raised concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation in the minds of many investors. We address this topic in depth in this month’s Special Report, and conclude that, while investors cannot rule out the possibility of stagflation, there are important differences that point toward a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We note in our report that the risk of stagflation can be monitored in real time by tracking the Misery Index, which is the sum of headline PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. Currently, the Misery Index is elevated relative to the average of the past 30 years, but it is meaningfully lower than it was during the latter half of the 1970s. This also underscores that true stagflation is only likely to occur if the unemployment rate rises, which means that the economic and financial market outlook over the coming year is strongly tied to the pace of jobs growth (even more so than usual). Table I-1 presents an industry breakdown of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, sorted by industries with the largest gap. The table highlights that leisure and hospitality, government, and education and health services jobs continue to account for two-thirds of the five million jobs gap, with the latter two largely reflecting the same effect: 60% of the government jobs gap is accounted for by state and local government education-related employment. Chart I- Chart I-6Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate US education employment has been impacted by school and classroom closures, which we noted above are likely to end once school-aged children are vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-6 highlights that leisure and hospitality employment is clearly predicted by the US hotel occupancy rate, which wobbled over the past few months as a result of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Correspondingly, monthly growth in leisure and hospitality employment slowed in August and September. Taken together, the imminent vaccination of school-aged children and signs that services activity and spending are increasing will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. The Bond Market Outlook Chart I-7The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... A continued normalization of the labor market over the coming 6-12 months argues in favor of Fed rate hikes next year, which is a view that we have maintained for several months. Recently, investors have come to agree with us, by moving forward their expectations for the Fed funds rate (Chart I-7). However, Chart I-8 highlights that investors have the right view for the wrong reason. The chart highlights that US government bond yields have risen entirely due to inflation expectations and that real yields have fallen. This means that investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas we believe that they will do so because of a return to maximum employment. The implication for investors is that bond yields are still likely to rise over the coming year, but that higher yields are likely to occur alongside falling inflation expectations. This trend underscores that common hedges against inflation, such as precious metals and the relative performance of TIPS, are likely to underperform over the coming year. We have noted in previous reports that the fair value for long-maturity government bond yields implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections is not likely threatening for equity multiples, and certainly not for economic activity. A September 2022 rate hike, coupled with a pace of three hikes per year and a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, implies that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to 2.15% over the coming year, which would be only modestly higher than the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-8...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason ...But For The Wrong Reason Chart I-9Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year   However, once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and, while a gap between these two measures made sense in the years following the global financial crisis, this no longer appears to be the case. Chart I-10 highlights that real household mortgage liabilities began to contract sharply in 2006, and did not turn positive on a year-over-year basis until the end of 2016. It is likely that R-star was falling or weak during this period, but the correlation between the two series clearly shifted in the latter phase of the last economic cycle. Chart I-11 emphasizes this point by highlighting that the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s, underscoring the capacity that US consumers have to withstand higher interest rates. Chart I-10R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time Chart I-11Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates     We doubt that investor expectations for the terminal rate will rise significantly before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy, but it may happen. In addition, the Fed may begin raising interest rates next year as soon as late in the summer or early in the fall, which would locate the liftoff date within our 6-12 month investment time horizon. As such, our base case view is that a rise in interest rates over the coming year will not be threatening to the equity market, but this view may change at some point next year. Equities: Expect Modest Returns In 2022 A benign increase in long-maturity bond yields in 2022 suggests that equity multiples will neither contribute to, nor subtract from, equity returns. As such, return expectations for equities should be centered around expected earnings growth. Chart I- Table I-2 presents consensus estimates for nominal GDP growth, S&P 500 revenue growth, and earnings growth for 2022. The table highlights that expectations for revenue growth estimates appear to be reasonable, given that bottom-up analysts continue to expect an expansion in profit margins next year. Chart I-12 highlights that margins have already risen back above their pre-pandemic high, and that this is true for both tech and ex-tech sectors. Chart I-12US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels We doubt that further increases in profit margins will be sustained next year. It is possible that margins will actually decline – a view that was recently espoused by our US Equity Strategy service.2 Risks to profit margins underscore that stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. Within the equity market, we remain of the view that even a benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Chart I-13 highlights that the rolling one-year correlation between relative global growth versus value stock prices and the US 10-year Treasury yield has become increasingly negative over time, which bodes well for value. We also continue to recommend that investors favor small over large caps and cyclicals over defensives, although cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis as they are closing in on their 2018 highs (Chart I-14). We think it is too early to position against cyclicals, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Chart I-13Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-14Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives   Investment Conclusions Next month’s report will feature BCA’s 2022 outlook, as well as a transcript of our recently held annual discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X (who joined his family office a couple of years ago). Our annual outlook will provide a detailed walkthrough of our views for the upcoming year, as well as answers to sobering questions raised by Mr. X and Ms. X about the longer-term outlook. For now, we recommend that investors stick with a pro-cyclical view, favoring the following assets: Global stocks over bonds A short-duration position within a government bond portfolio Speculative-grade corporate bonds within a credit portfolio Global ex-US stocks vs US, focused on DM ex-US Global value versus growth stocks Cyclicals versus defensives, and small versus large caps Major currencies versus the US dollar Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2021 Next Report: November 30, 2021 II. Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Chart II-3 Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Chart II- Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.3 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Chart II-7 Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,4 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous $80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Chart II-13 Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,5 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.6 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,7 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II- Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises appear to have peaked, but there is not yet any meaningful sign of waning forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we would continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yield. The US 10-Year Treasury yield remains above its 200-day moving average after failing to break meaningfully below it. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is likely. However, most of the recent move higher in government bond yields has occurred due to rising inflation expectations, whereas the increase in yields over the coming year will likely occur in real terms. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they are still overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, may weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see Section 1 of the September 2021 Bank Credit Analyst for a detailed discussion of the US immunity level. 2  Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 7  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Increasing consumption should be a lot easier than increasing savings. After all, most people like to spend! It is getting them to work that should be challenging. Yet, the conventional wisdom is that deflation is a much tougher problem to overcome than inflation. It is true that the zero-bound constraint on interest rates makes it more difficult for central banks to react to deflationary forces. However, monetary policy is not the only game in town; fiscal policy becomes more effective as interest rates fall because governments can stimulate the economy without incurring onerous financing costs. When the borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the more profligate a government has been in the past, the more profligate it can be in the future, while still maintaining a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The pandemic banished the bond vigilantes. Governments ran massive budget deficits, but bond yields still dropped. While budget deficits will decline from their highs, fiscal policy will remain structurally more accommodative in the post-pandemic period. The combination of easier fiscal policy, increased household net worth, and other factors has raised the neutral rate of interest in the US and most other economies. This means that monetary policy is currently much more stimulative than widely believed. This is good news for equities and other risk assets in the near term, even if it does produce a major hangover down the road. New trade: Short US consumer discretionary stocks relative to other cyclicals. Consumer durable goods spending will slow as services spending and capex continue to recover. A Paradoxical Problem Economic pundits like to say that deflation is a tougher problem to overcome than inflation. We hear this statement so often that we do not think twice about it. In many respects, it is a rather strange perspective. Inflation results from too much spending relative to output, whereas deflation results from too little spending. Yet, people like to spend! One would think it would be much easier to get people to consume than to get them to work. The claim that deflation is a bigger problem than inflation is really just a statement about the limits of monetary policy. If the economy is overheating, central banks can theoretically raise rates as high as they want. In contrast, if the economy is in a deflationary funk, the zero-bound constraint limits how far interest rates can fall. Fortunately, there are other ways of stimulating the economy when interest rates cannot be cut any further. Most notably, governments can utilize fiscal policy by cutting taxes, spending more on goods and services, or increasing transfer payments. Getting Paid To Eat Lunch When interest rates are very low, not only is fiscal stimulus a free lunch, but you actually get paid for eating more. If the borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the more profligate a government has been in the past, the more profligate it can be in the future, while still maintaining a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. This sounds so counterintuitive that it is worth thinking through a simple example. Suppose you currently earn $100,000 per year and expect your income to rise by 8% per year. You have $100,000 in debt, which incurs an interest rate of 3%, and want to keep your debt-to-income ratio constant at 100% over time. Next year, your income will be $108,000, so you should target a debt level of $108,000. Thus, this year, you can spend $105,000 on goods and services, make $3,000 in interest payments, and take on $8,000 in additional debt. Now, suppose you have been spendthrift in the past and have accumulated $200,000 in debt. You still want to keep your debt-to-income ratio constant, but this time at 200%. How much can you spend this year? The answer is $110,000. If you spend $110,000 and pay an additional $6,000 in interest, your cash outflows will exceed your income by $16,000, taking your debt to $216,000 — exactly twice next year’s income. Notice that by maintaining a higher debt balance, you can actually spend $5,000 more while still keeping your debt-to-income ratio constant. Appendix A proves this point mathematically. One might protest that the interest rate you face would be higher if you had more debt. Fair enough, although in our example, the interest rate would need to rise above 5.5% for spending to decline. The more important point is that unlike people, governments which issue debt in their own currencies get to choose whatever interest rate they want. Granted, if central banks set interest rates too low, the economy will overheat, leading to higher inflation. But this just reinforces the point we made at the outset, which is that inflation and not deflation is the real constraint to macroeconomic policy. A Blissful Outcome For Stocks We would not have waded through this theoretical discussion if it did not serve a practical purpose. In April of last year, we wrote a controversial report asking if, paradoxically, the pandemic could turn out to be good for stocks. Chart 1 We noted that by combining monetary easing with fiscal stimulus, policymakers could steer equity markets towards a “blissful outcome” where the economy was operating at full capacity, yet interest rates were lower than they were before (Chart 1). If such a blissful state were reached, earnings would return to their pre-pandemic level, but the discount rate would remain below its pre-pandemic level, thus allowing stock prices to rise above their pre-pandemic peak. In the months following our report, the stock market played out this narrative.   From Blissful To Blissless? Chart 2Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate More recently, bond yields have risen, stoking fears that we are moving towards less auspicious conditions for equities. There is no doubt that many central banks are looking to normalize monetary policy. That said, what central banks regard as normal today is very different from what they thought was normal in the past. Back in 2012, when the Fed began publishing its “dot plot,” the FOMC thought the neutral rate of interest was around 4.25%. Today, it thinks the neutral rate is only 2.5%. And based on the New York Fed’s survey of market participants and primary dealers, investors believe the neutral rate is even lower than the Fed’s estimate (Chart 2). Even if the Fed did not face political pressure to keep interest rates low, it probably would not want to raise them all that much anyway. The same applies to most other central banks. Why The Neutral Rate Is Higher Than The Fed Believes There are at least four reasons to think that the neutral rate of interest is higher than what the Fed believes:   Reason #1: The drag on growth from the household deleveraging cycle is ending As a share of disposable income, US household debt has declined by nearly 40 percentage points since 2008. Debt-servicing costs are now at record low levels (Chart 3). The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey points to an increasing willingness to lend (Chart 4). The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index also remains in easing territory (Chart 5). Chart 3The Deleveraging Cycle Has Run Its Course The Deleveraging Cycle Has Run Its Course The Deleveraging Cycle Has Run Its Course Real personal consumption increased by only 1.6% in Q3. However, this was largely driven by a 54% drop in auto spending on the back of the semiconductor shortage. While vehicle purchases normally account for only 4% of consumer spending, the sector still managed to shave 2.4 percentage points off GDP growth in Q3. Chart 4Banks Are Easing Credit Standards Banks Are Easing Credit Standards Banks Are Easing Credit Standards Chart 5A Positive Signal For Credit Growth A Positive Signal For Credit Growth A Positive Signal For Credit Growth Spending on services rose by 7.9%, an impressive feat considering the quarter saw the peak in the Delta variant wave.   Reason #2: Fiscal policy is likely to remain accommodative in the post-pandemic period The combination of lower real rates and higher debt levels has increased the budget deficit consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the US and most developed markets (Chart 6). This point has not been lost on governments. While the flow of red ink will abate, the IMF estimates that the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit will be 3% of GDP larger in 2022-26 than it was in 2014-19. The IMF also expects most other advanced economies to run larger budget deficits (Chart 7). Chart 6 Chart 7 Chart 8A Record Rise In Household Net Worth A Record Rise In Household Net Worth A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Reason #3: Higher asset prices will bolster spending According to the Federal Reserve, US household net worth rose by over 113% of GDP between 2019Q4 and 2021Q2, the largest six-quarter increase on record (Chart 8). Empirical estimates of the wealth effect suggest that households spend about 5-to-8 cents on goods and services for every additional dollar of housing wealth, and 2-to-4 cents for every additional dollar of equity wealth. Based on the latest available data, we estimate that US homeowner equity has increased by $5 trillion since the start of 2020, while household equity holdings have increased by $15.8 trillion. Together, this would translate into 2.5%-to-4% of GDP in additional annual consumption. And this does not even include any spending arising from the $2.4 trillion in incremental bank deposits that households have amassed since the start of the pandemic.    Chart 9Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Occurred Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Occurred Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Occurred Reason #4: Population aging will drain savings Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 9 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.8% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.5% over the next few decades. The average age of the US capital stock is now the highest on record (Chart 10). Whereas real business fixed investment is 6% below its pre-pandemic trend, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capex – are 17% above trend. Capex intentions remain near multi-year highs (Chart 11). All this suggests that investment spending is unlikely to fall much in the future. Chart 10The Average Age Of The US Capital Stock Is Now The Highest On Record The Average Age Of The US Capital Stock Is Now The Highest On Record The Average Age Of The US Capital Stock Is Now The Highest On Record Chart 11Capex Intentions Remain At Lofty Levels Capex Intentions Remain At Lofty Levels Capex Intentions Remain At Lofty Levels Chart 12 In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 12). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall. UnTaylored  Monetary Policy The Taylor Rule prescribes the Fed to hike rates by between 50-to-100 bps for each percentage point that output rises relative to its potential. Over the past decade, the Fed has favored the higher output gap coefficient, meaning that a permanent one percentage-point increase in aggregate demand should translate, all things equal, into a one percentage-point increase in the neutral rate of interest. Taken at face value, the combination of increased household wealth and looser fiscal policy may have raised the neutral rate in the US by more than five percentage points since the pandemic. This estimate, however, does not consider feedback loops: A higher term structure for interest rates would depress asset prices, thus obviating some of the wealth effect. Higher rates would also reduce the incentive for governments to run large budget deficits. Taking these feedback loops into account, a reasonable estimate is that the neutral rate in the US is about 2% in real terms, or slightly over 4% in nominal terms based on current long-term inflation expectations. This is close to the historic average for real rates, although well above current market pricing. The implication for investors is that US monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely believed. This is the good news. The bad news is that in the absence of fiscal tightening, the Fed will eventually be forced to raise rates by more than investors are discounting. Higher Inflation Won’t Force The Fed’s Hand… Just Yet When will the Fed be forced to move away from its baby-step approach to monetary policy normalization and adopt a more aggressive stance? Our guess is not for another two years. Last week, we argued that inflation in the US and many other countries is likely to follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows over the remainder of the decade. We are currently near the top of those two steps: Most of the recent increase in inflation has been driven by surging durable goods prices (Chart 13). Considering that durable goods prices usually fall over time, this is not a sustainable source of inflation. Chart 13ADurable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (I) Durable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (I) Durable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (I) Chart 13BDurable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (II) Durable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (II) Durable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (II) In modern service-based economies, structurally high inflation requires rapid wage growth. While US wage growth has picked up recently, most of the increase in wages has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 14). The Fed welcomes this development, given its expanded mandate to pursue “inclusive growth.” At some point in the future, long-term inflation expectations could become unmoored. However, that has not happened yet, whether one looks at market-based or survey-based expectations (Chart 15). Thus, for now, investors should remain constructive on stocks. Chart 14Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Chart 15   New Trade: Short Consumer Discretionary Stocks Relative To Other Cyclicals We continue to favor cyclical stocks over defensives. Within the cyclical category, however, we are cautious on consumer discretionary names. Spending on consumer durable goods still has further to fall in order to return to trend. Durable goods prices will also come down, potentially squeezing profit margins. Go short the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY) versus an S&P 500 sector-weighted basket of the Industrial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLI), the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE), and the Materials Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLB). Appendix A Image Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Image Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Image Current MacroQuant Model Scores Image

Highlights Bank of Canada: Rising inflation, high capacity utilization, and monetary policy constraints will force the Bank of Canada to taper further and move up the timing of its first rate hike to H1/2022. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global government bond portfolios. Also, upgrade Canadian real return bonds to neutral within the underweight allocation to better reflect the mixed signals from our suite of Canadian inflation breakeven indicators. Bank of England: Markets have aggressively shifted UK interest rate expectations, with a rate hike now expected before year-end. We expect that outcome to occur, but the vote will be close. Stay underweight UK Gilts in global bond portfolios. Maintain a curve steepening bias that would win if a hike is delayed to 2022 or, counterintuitively, even if the Bank of England does indeed hike in November or December - longer-term UK yields are still too low relative to the likely peak in Bank Rate. Feature Chart of the WeekAn Inflation Shock For Bond Yields An Inflation Shock For Bond Yields An Inflation Shock For Bond Yields Steadily climbing inflation expectations, fueled by rising energy prices and persistent supply-chain disruptions, remain a thorn in the side of global bond markets. 10-year US TIPS breakevens have climbed to a 15-year high of 2.7%, while breakevens on 10-year German inflation-linked bonds are at a 9-year high of 2%. Rising inflation expectations are keeping upward pressure on nominal bond yields in the major developed economies, as markets start to slowly reprice the pace and timing of future interest rate increases (Chart of the Week). Market expectations on interest rates, however, can adjust much more quickly when policymakers change their tune. We have already seen that recently in smaller countries like Norway and New Zealand. Rate hikes delivered by the Norges Bank and Reserve Bank of New Zealand over the past month - which were telegraphed well in advance by the central banks – were a negative shock that pushed up bond yields in those countries. The next central bank “liftoff” within the developed economies is expected to occur in the UK and Canada, according to pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves (Table 1). In this report, we consider the outlook for monetary policy and government bond yields in both countries, which represent two of our highest conviction underweight recommendations. Table 1Markets Are Pulling Forward Rate Hikes UK & Canada: Next Up For A Rate Hike? UK & Canada: Next Up For A Rate Hike? Canada: Watch For A Bond Bearish Policy Shift In Canada, given the economic backdrop and policy constraints, we believe the Bank of Canada (BoC) will have to deliver on the hawkish market-implied path for interest rates, which calls for an initial rate hike to occur in Q2/2022 – much sooner than the central bank’s current messaging on liftoff. Chart 2ACanadian Inflation Not Looking So "Transitory" Anymore Canadian Inflation Not Looking So 'Transitory' Anymore Canadian Inflation Not Looking So 'Transitory' Anymore First on the BoC’s mind is inflation. Canadian CPI inflation came in at 4.4% year-over-year in September, blowing through analyst expectations and hitting an 18-year high (Charts 2A and 2B). The CPI-trim, a measure of core inflation which strips out extreme price movements, hit 3.4% year-over-year, the highest reading since 1991. All eight major components of the CPI rose on a yearly basis. On an annualized monthly basis, the energy-driven Transportation aggregate declined and less volatile components like Shelter (+1.1%) and Clothing (+0.7%) led the pack in terms of their contribution to the overall figure.   Chart 2 The data show that inflationary pressures are clearly broadening out in the Great White North, no longer constrained to “transitory” sectors. The effect of this inflationary pressure is also starting to make its mark on consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment Rising Inflation Expectations Are Hurting Canadian Consumer Sentiment According to the BoC Survey of Consumer Expectations, the 1-year-ahead forecast of inflation reached a series high of 3.7% in Q3/2021 (Chart 3). While longer-term inflation expectations are more subdued, that doesn’t mean that inflation is not a worry for the Canadian consumer. With inflation expected to run much higher than expected wage growth (+2%) over the next year, consumers expect a decline in their real purchasing power. Correspondingly, consumer confidence is taking a hit—the Bloomberg/Nanos consumer sentiment index has fallen 7.3 points since the July peak. Canadian businesses are much more upbeat. The overall summary indicator from the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey for Q3/2021 climbed to the highest level in the 18-year history of the series (Chart 4). Firms reported continued expectations of strong demand, but with capacity constraints starting to weigh on sales - a quarter of firms surveyed reporting that a lack of capacity and skills will have a negative impact on sales over the next twelve months. In response, more companies are planning on increasing capital expenditure and hiring over the next year (Chart 4, middle panel). More than half of firms surveyed by the BoC indicated that investment spending will be higher over the next two years compared to typical pre-pandemic levels. Chart 4Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints Canadian Businesses Are Brushing Up Against Capacity Constraints However, hiring plans will likely face difficulty, given the large share of firms (64%), reporting more intense labor shortages (Chart 4, bottom panel). A net 50% of respondents now expect wage growth to accelerate over the coming year, driven by a need to attract and retain workers amid strong labor demand. With regards to inflation, the BoC Business Outlook Survey measures the share of respondents that expect inflation over the next two years to fall within four different ranges—below 1%, between 1% and 2%, between 2% and 3%, and above 3% (Chart 5). We can “back out” a point estimate of expected inflation for Canadian firms by assigning a specific level to each of these ranges – 0.5, 1.5%, 2.5%, and 3.5%, respectively – and using the shares of respondents to calculate a weighted average expected inflation rate for the next two years.1 Based on this estimate, Canadian business inflation expectations have bounced rapidly since the 2020 trough and are now at all-time highs. The BoC has already begun to respond to the normalization of the economy and rising inflationary pressures indicated by its business survey by tapering the pace of its bond buying program. The Bank is now targeting weekly bond purchases of C$2bn, down from C$5bn at the start of the program and with another reduction expected at this week’s policy meeting (Chart 6). The size of the balance sheet has also fallen in absolute terms, driven by the Bank drawing down its holdings of treasury bills to virtually zero while also ending pandemic emergency liquidity programs. Chart 5Putting A Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Putting a Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Putting a Number To Canadian Business Inflation Expectations Chart 6The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC Is Moving Towards Normalizing Policy The BoC now owns a massive 36.5% of Canadian government bonds outstanding – a share acquired in a very short time for this pandemic-era stimulus program. Thus, tapering now is not only necessary from a forward guidance perspective, signaling an eventual shift to less accommodative monetary policy and rate hikes, but also to ensure liquidity in the Canadian sovereign bond market. The remaining BoC tapering will be fairly quick, setting up the more important shift to the timing of the first rate increase. The Canadian OIS curve is currently pricing in BoC liftoff in April 2022, ahead of the BoC’s current guidance of a likely rate hike in the second half of the year (Chart 7). Given the developments on the inflation front, we are inclined to side with the market’s assessment of an earlier hike. Chart 7 In the longer run, rates might even be able to rise further than discounted in swap curves. The real policy rate, calculated as the policy rate minus the BoC’s CPI-trim measure, is negative and a significant distance from the New York Fed’s Q2/2020 estimate of the natural real rate of interest (R-star) for Canada of 1.4%. Admittedly, those estimates have not been updated by the New York Fed for over a year, given the uncertainties over trend growth and output gap measurement created by the pandemic shock. The BoC’s own estimates for the neutral nominal policy interest rate - last updated in April 2021 and therefore inclusive of any structural impacts of the pandemic on potential growth - range from 1.75% to 2.75%.2 The OIS forward curve expects the BoC to only lift rates to 2% in the next hiking cycle, barely in the lower end of the BoC’s neutral range of estimates. After subtracting the mid-point of the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target, presumably a level of inflation consistent with a neutral policy rate, the BoC’s implied real policy rate range is -0.25% to +0.75%. The current level of the real policy rate is near the bottom of that range. Thus, real rates, and the real bond yields that track them over time, have room to rise if the BoC begins to hike rates at a faster pace, and to a higher level, than the market expects. We see this as a likely outcome given the extent of the Canadian inflation overshoot and the robust optimism evident in Canadian business sentiment, thus justifying our current negative view on Canadian government bonds. To think about this mix of rising inflation expectations and increased BoC hawkishness down the road, and its implication for the Canadian inflation-linked bond market, we turn to our Canadian comprehensive breakeven indicator (Chart 8). This indicator combines three measures, on an equal-weighted and standardized basis, to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Going forward, we will be using the Canadian Business Outlook Survey measure of inflation expectations, introduced in Chart 5, for this indicator. Chart 8Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Upgrade Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds To Neutral Two out of three measures point towards Canadian breakevens having further upside. Firstly, they are cheap under our fair value model, where the rise in breakevens has lagged the yearly growth in oil prices. Secondly, breakevens are a long distance away from the survey-based business inflation expectations. However, both forces are more than counteracted with Canadian headline inflation nearly two standard deviations from the BoC’s target, which indicates that the central bank must step in to address high realized inflation. Given these diverging signals on the upside potential for breakevens, we see a neutral allocation to Canadian linkers as more appropriate for the time being Bottom Line: Rising inflation, high capacity utilization, and monetary policy constraints will force the Bank of Canada to taper further and move up the timing of its first rate hike to H1/2022. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in global government bond portfolios. Also, upgrade Canadian real return bonds to neutral within the underweight allocation to better reflect the mixed signals from our suite of Canadian inflation breakeven indicators. Will The BoE Actually Hike By December? Chart 9UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness UK Gilts Have Been Hammered By BoE Hawkishness We downgraded our recommended stance on UK government bonds to underweight on August 11 and, since then, Gilts have severely underperformed their developed market peers (Chart 9).3 We had anticipated that the Bank of England (BoE) would be forced to shift their policy guidance in a less dovish direction because of rising UK inflation expectations. Yet we have been surprised by how quickly the BoE has shifted to an open discussion about the potential for imminent interest rate hikes. The BoE’s new chief economist, Huw Pill, commented in the Financial Times last week that UK inflation will likely hit, or even exceed, 5% by early next year, and that the November 4 Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) was “live” with regards to a potential rate hike.4 This followed BoE Governor Andrew Bailey’s comment that the Bank “will have to act” to contain rising inflation expectations. Mixed signals on economic momentum are not making the BoE’s decisions any easier. The preliminary October Markit PMIs ticked higher for both manufacturing and services, but remain below the peak seen last May. At the same time, UK consumer confidence has fallen since August, thanks in part to rapidly rising inflation that has reduced the perceived real buying power of UK consumers. High Inflation Might Last Longer Chart 10Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation Why The BoE Is More Worried About Inflation The BoE’s last set of economic forecasts, published in August, called for headline inflation to temporarily climb to 4% by year-end, before gradually returning to the central bank’s 2% target level in 2022. Yet the BoE’s newfound nervousness over inflation is well-founded, for a number of reasons (Chart 10): The domestic economic recovery has led to a robust labor market, with job vacancies relative to unemployment fully recovering to pre-COVID levels. The 3-month moving average of wage growth remains elevated at 6.9%, although the BoE believes some of that increase could be due to compositional issues related to the pandemic. The BoE is projecting that the UK output gap is narrowing rapidly and would be fully closed in the second half of 2022. This suggests growing underlying inflation pressures were already in place before the latest boost to inflation from global supply-chain disruptions. UK energy costs are soaring, particularly for natural gas which remains the main source for UK electricity production. UK natural gas inventories are the lowest within Europe, yet the supply response from major providers has been slow to develop – most notably, Russia, which is seeking regulatory approval to begin shipping gas through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. While natural gas prices have stopped rising, for now, inadequate supplies during an expected cold UK winter could keep the upward pressure on UK inflation from energy. UK house price inflation remains well supported, even with the recent expiration of the stamp duty reductions initiated as a form of pandemic economic stimulus. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the ratio of UK home sales to inventories is still quite elevated (bottom panel). Given a still-favorable demand/supply balance, and low borrowing costs, UK house price inflation will likely not cool as much as the BoE would prefer to see. Stay Defensive On UK Rates Exposure The combination of rising UK inflation and increasingly hawkish BoE comments has resulted in a rapid upward repricing of UK interest rate expectations over the past few months (Chart 11). Markets now expect the BoE to raise Bank Rate to 1%, from the current 0.1%, by late 2022. More interesting is what is discounted after that. The OIS curve is pricing in no additional rate increases in 2023 and a rate cut in 2024. In other words, the market now believes that the BoE is about to embark on a policy mistake with rate hikes that will need to be quickly reversed. Chart 11Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error Markets Are Pricing In A BoE Policy Error We think there is a risk of a more aggressive-than-expected BoE tightening cycle. The surge in UK inflation expectations is not trivial nor “transitory”. Looking at survey-based measures of expectations like the YouGov/Citigroup survey, or market-based measures like CPI swaps, inflation is expected to reach at least 4% both in the short-term and over the longer-run (Chart 12). If Bank Rate were to peak at a mere 1%, as indicated in the OIS curve, that would still leave UK real interest rates in deeply negative territory even if there was a pullback in inflation expectations. We expect the votes on whether to hike rates at either the November or December MPC meetings to be close. There will be a new Monetary Policy Report published for the November 4 meeting, which will include a new set of economic and inflation forecasts that will give the BoE a platform to signal, or deliver, a rate hike. In the end, we think that the senior leadership on the MPC has already revealed too much of its hawkish hand, and a rate hike will occur by year-end. Looking beyond liftoff into 2022, we still see markets pricing in too shallow a path for Bank Rate over the next couple of years, leaving us comfortable to maintain our underweight stance on UK Gilts. With regards to positioning along the Gilt yield curve, however, we see the potential for more curve steepening even if after the BoE begins to lift rates. The implied path for UK real interest rates, taken as the gap between the UK OIS forwards and CPI swap forwards, shows that markets expect the BoE to keep policy rates well below expected inflation for well into the next decade (Chart 13). At the same time, the wide current gap between the actual real policy rate (Bank Rate minus headline inflation) and the New York Fed’s most recent estimate of the UK neutral real rate (r-star) suggests that the Gilt curve is far too flat (bottom panel). Chart 12The BoE Cannot Ignore This The BoE Cannot Ignore This The BoE Cannot Ignore This Perversely, this creates a situation where the UK curve steepeners can be an attractive near-term hedge to an underweight stance on UK Gilts. Chart 13 If the BoE does not deliver on the strongly hinted rate hike in November or December, the Gilt curve can steepen as shorter-maturity Gilt yields fall but longer-dated yields remain boosted by high inflation expectations.However, if the BoE does hike and more tightening is signaled, longer-term yields will likely rise more than shorter-term yields as the market prices in a higher future trajectory for policy rates. Bottom Line: Stay underweight UK Gilts in global bond portfolios, but maintain a curve steepening bias that would win if a hike is delayed to 2022 or, counterintuitively, even if the Bank of England does indeed hike in November or December - longer-term UK yields are still too low relative to the likely peak in Bank Rate. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For this calculation, we exclude firms that did not provide a response to the BoC Business Outlook Survey. 2 The Bank of Canada’s Staff Analytical Note on neutral rate estimation can be found here: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/04/staff-analytical-note-2021-6/ 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy and European Investment Strategy Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4https://www.ft.com/content/bce7b1c5-0272-480f-8630-85c477e7d69 Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Treasuries: Bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and continue to short the 5-year note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. For those investors who want to take an outright long position in US Treasuries, the 2-year Treasury note looks like the best security to choose. Municipal Bonds: This week we upgrade our recommended allocation to municipal bonds from overweight (4 out of 5) to maximum overweight (5 out of 5). Investors who can take advantage of the muni tax exemption should favor municipal bonds over Treasuries and over corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. In particular, we recommend that investors focus on long-maturity municipal bonds. Fed: Given our view that inflation will fall during the next 12 months, we still view December 2022 as the most likely liftoff date. However, we will continue to monitor our Five Factors For Fed Liftoff to see if our forecast needs to be revised. Feature Chart 1 Our call for a bear-flattening of the US Treasury curve has worked out well during the past few weeks. Long-maturity Treasury yields have almost risen back to their March highs, and the short-end of the curve has also participated in the recent bout of selling (Chart 1). In light of these moves, it makes sense to re-evaluate our nominal Treasury curve positioning. First, we consider whether, at current yield levels, it still makes sense to run below-benchmark portfolio duration. Second, we consider whether our current recommended yield curve trade (short the 5-year note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell) remains the best way to extract returns from changes in the yield curve’s shape. The next section of this report answers these questions by looking at forecasted returns for different Treasury maturities across a variety of plausible economic and monetary policy scenarios. Later in the report we look at municipal bond valuation and provide a quick update on last week’s Fedspeak. Forecasting Treasury Returns Chart 2 Three sources of Treasury bond return need to be considered when creating a forecast. Income Return: The return earned from the bond’s coupon payments. Rolldown Return: The return that a bond accrues simply by moving closer to its maturity date in an unchanged yield curve environment. Capital Gains/Losses: The return earned by a bond due to changes in the level and slope of the yield curve. We like to combine the income and rolldown return into one measure called “carry”. The carry can be thought of as the return an investor will earn in a specific bond if the yield curve remains unchanged throughout the investment horizon. Though carry is not the be all and end all of bond returns, it can be illuminating to look at the yield curve in terms of carry instead of the typical yield-to-maturity. Chart 2 shows the usual par coupon yield curve alongside the 12-month carry for each Treasury security. At present, the steepness of the 3-7 year part of the curve means that bonds of those maturities benefit a lot from rolldown. In fact, we see that a 7-year Treasury note will earn more than a 10-year Treasury note during the next 12 months if the curve remains unchanged. After calculating carry, the next step is to calculate capital gains/losses for each bond. To do this, we create some possible scenarios for future changes in the fed funds rate and assume that the yield curve moves to fully price-in that funds rate path over the course of a 12-month investment horizon.1  Next, we calculate the capital gains/losses for each bond based on the new shape of the yield curve in each scenario. Tables 1A-1D show the results from four different scenarios where the Fed starts to lift rates in December 2022. We then assume that the Fed will lift rates at a pace of 75-100 bps per year and that the funds rate will level-off at a terminal rate of either 2.08% or 2.58%. The 2.08% terminal rate corresponds to the median estimate of the long-run neutral fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants. The 2.58% terminal rate corresponds to the median forecast from the Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections.2  Chart Chart Chart Chart The scenario shown in Table 1B is the closest to our base case. In this scenario, some short-maturity bonds deliver positive returns, but returns are negative for the 5-year maturity and beyond. Also, the 5-year note delivers the worst total return of all the maturities we examine. Unsurprisingly, expected returns for the longer maturities drop significantly if we raise our terminal rate assumption to 2.58% (Tables 1C & 1D). Therefore, any call to short the 5-year note versus the long-end relies on an assumption that the market will trade as though the terminal rate is closer to 2% than to 2.5% during the next 12 months. This is in line with our expectation. Finally, we observe that slowing our pace assumption from 100 bps per year to 75 bps raises expected returns across the board, but the 5-year still performs worse than the other maturities (Table 1A). Due to our expectation that inflation will fall during the next 12 months, a December 2022 liftoff remains our base case.3  However, the market has recently moved to price-in an earlier start to rate hikes. As of last Friday’s close, the fed funds futures curve was priced for liftoff in September 2022 and for a total of 49 bps of tightening by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Market Priced For September 2022 Liftoff Market Priced For September 2022 Liftoff Market Priced For September 2022 Liftoff Tables 2A-2D incorporate these recent market moves into our forecast by looking at the same scenarios as in Tables 1A-1D but assuming a September 2022 liftoff instead of December. The results are not all that different. Expected returns are worse across the board, but the 5-year still looks like the worst spot on the curve unless the market starts to price-in a higher terminal rate. Chart Chart Chart Chart Investment Conclusions Most of the scenarios we examined had negative expected returns for most maturities. We therefore still think it makes sense to keep portfolio duration low. Further, in every scenario the best expected returns can be found in the shorter maturities. In fact, the 2-year Treasury note offers positive returns in every scenario we examined. An outright long position in the 2-year Treasury note looks like a decent trade for investors forced to hold bonds. As for the yield curve, our results suggest that we should continue with our current positioning: short the 5-year note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. The 5-year note performs worst in every scenario that assumes a 2.08% terminal rate. While it’s conceivable that investors will eventually push their terminal rate expectations higher, we think this is more likely to occur once the Fed has already lifted rates a few times. Bottom Line: Bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and continue to short the 5-year note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. For those investors who want to take an outright long position in US Treasuries, the 2-year Treasury note looks like the best security to choose. The Duration Drift In Municipal Bond Valuations One under-discussed aspect of municipal bonds is that the securities tend to pay higher coupons than other bonds. That is, the bonds will often be issued with coupon rates well above prevailing yields. Investors therefore must pay a higher price to purchase the bonds, but they receive more return in the form of coupon payments. This feature of municipal bonds has important implications for how we should value them. For example, while the average maturity of the Municipal Bond index is much higher than the average maturity of the Treasury index, the muni index’s higher coupon rate makes its average duration significantly lower (Chart 4). This means that any valuation measure that compares a municipal bond’s yield with the yield of another bond with the same maturity will be unflattering for the muni. Chart 4Munis Pay High Coupons, Have Low Durations Munis Pay High Coupons, Have Low Durations Munis Pay High Coupons, Have Low Durations Further, since Treasury securities and corporate bonds tend to issue at par, the coupon rates paid by those securities have fallen alongside yields during the past few decades. Meanwhile, municipal bond coupons have been relatively stable (Chart 4, panel 3). This means that, over time, municipal bond durations have fallen significantly compared to the durations of other US bond sectors. A fair valuation measure would compare municipal bond yields with equivalent-duration Treasury yields and that is exactly what we’ve done. Chart 5A shows the spread between General Obligation (GO) muni bond yields and equivalent-duration Treasury yields. Chart 5B shows the spreads expressed as percentile ranks. For example, a percentile rank of 50% means that the spread is at its historical median, a percentile rank of 10% means the spread has only been tighter 10% of the time. Chart 5AGO Muni/Treasury Spreads I GO Muni/Treasury Spreads I GO Muni/Treasury Spreads I Chart 5BGO Muni/Treasury Spreads II GO Muni/Treasury Spreads II GO Muni/Treasury Spreads II The first thing that jumps out from our analysis is that municipal bonds are not that expensive. Shorter-maturity spreads were tighter than current levels as recently as 2019/20 and the long-maturity (17-year+) spread is positive, despite the muni tax exemption. In terms of percentile rank, spreads for all GO maturity buckets are only just below the historical median. However, spreads traded much tighter prior to the 2008 financial crisis and it may not be reasonable to expect munis to return to those tight mid-2000 valuations. Charts 6A and 6B repeat the exercise from Charts 5A and 5B but for Revenue bonds instead of GOs. The message is similar. Muni valuations are not that stretched compared to history, and investors can earn a before-tax spread pick-up in munis versus Treasuries if they focus on the long maturities. Chart 6ARevenue Muni/Treasury Spreads I Revenue Muni/Treasury Spreads I Revenue Muni/Treasury Spreads I Chart 6BRevenue Muni/Treasury Spreads II Revenue Muni/Treasury Spreads II Revenue Muni/Treasury Spreads II In fact, municipal bonds offer a before-tax yield advantage versus Treasuries for Revenue bonds beyond the 12-year maturity point and for GO bonds beyond the 17-year maturity point. Further, the breakeven tax rate for 12-17 year GOs versus Treasuries is a mere 1% and the breakeven tax rate for 8-12 year Revenue bonds is only 8%. Investors facing a tax rate above the breakeven rate will earn an after-tax yield pick-up in munis versus duration-matched Treasuries (Table 3). Table 3Muni/Treasury And Muni/Credit Yield Ratios The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve Of course, municipal bonds also carry a small credit risk premium relative to duration-matched Treasuries. The GO and Revenue indexes have average credit ratings of Aa1/Aa2 and Aa3/A1, respectively, compared to a Aaa rating for US Treasuries. But we can control for credit risk as well by comparing municipal bonds to the US Credit Index and matching both the duration and credit rating. Even this comparison looks favorable for municipal bonds. Once again, long-maturity munis offer a before-tax yield advantage compared to credit rating and duration-matched US Credit. Meanwhile, breakeven tax rates for other maturities are low enough to attract most investors. Bottom Line: This week we upgrade our recommended allocation to municipal bonds from overweight (4 out of 5) to maximum overweight (5 out of 5). Investors who can take advantage of the muni tax exemption should favor municipal bonds over Treasuries and over corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. In particular, we recommend that investors focus on long-maturity municipal bonds, noting that the relatively low duration of these bonds makes them attractive relative to other bonds with similar risk profiles. Five Fed Factors A lot of Fedspeak hit the tape last week. Of particular interest were an interview with Chair Jay Powell on Friday and speeches by Fed Governors Randy Quarles and Chris Waller on Wednesday and Tuesday. One takeaway from their remarks is that a tapering announcement at the next FOMC meeting is very likely, with net asset purchases expected to hit zero by the middle of next year. The market, however, seems to have already taken the taper announcement on board. The more interesting aspects of the speeches were the discussions about how the Fed will decide when to lift rates and how elevated inflation readings may or may not influence that decision. We’ve noted in prior reports that five factors will determine when the Fed finally decides to lift rates, and last week’s comments gave us confidence that we’re on the right track. We run through our Five Factors For Fed Liftoff below, with some additional comments on why each factor is important (Table 4). Table 4Five Factors For Fed Liftoff The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve 1. The Unemployment Rate The Fed has officially pledged through its forward guidance not to lift rates until “maximum employment” is reached. While the exact definition of “maximum employment” can be debated, there is widespread agreement that it includes an unemployment rate below its current adjusted level of 4.9%.4 More specifically, we inferred from the September Summary of Economic Projections that most FOMC participants view an unemployment rate of around 3.8% as consistent with “maximum employment” (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" We expect that the Fed will refrain from lifting rates until the unemployment rate reaches 3.8%. 2. Labor Force Participation We explored the debate about labor force participation in a recent report.6 In short, there are some policymakers who believe that “maximum employment” cannot be achieved until the labor force participation rate has returned to pre-COVID levels. There are others, however, who think that an aging population and the recent uptick in retirements make such a return impossible. Randy Quarles, for example: I expect that as conditions normalize, [the labor force participation rate] will pick up, but it is unlikely to return to its February 2020 level. One reason is that a disproportionate number of older workers responded to the initial shock of the COVID event by retiring, which may be an area where participation and employment struggle to retrace lost ground.7 In his speech, Governor Waller also mentioned “2 million jobs” that will be lost forever due to retirements.8 While many policymakers cite increased retirements as a reason why the overall labor force participation rate will remain permanently lower, there is much broader agreement that a reasonable definition of “maximum employment” should include the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate being much closer to its February 2020 level (Chart 7, bottom panel). We think the Fed will refrain from lifting rates until the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is close to its February 2020 level. 3.  Wage Growth Accelerating wages are a tried-and-true signal that the labor market is running hot. While wage growth is rising quickly right now (Chart 8), there is a strong sense that this is due to pandemic-related labor supply shortages and that wage growth will moderate as pandemic fears (and labor shortages) wane. Chart 8Wage Growth Wage Growth Wage Growth What will be more important is what wage growth looks like when the unemployment rate is close to the Fed’s target of 3.8%. At that point, accelerating wages will give the Fed a strong signal that a 3.8% unemployment rate really does constitute “maximum employment”. 4.  Non-Transitory Inflation Of our five factors, this is admittedly the most difficult to pin down. However, Governor Quarles did a good job of explaining non-transitory inflation in last week’s speech: The fundamental dilemma that we face at the Fed now is this: Demand, augmented by unprecedented fiscal stimulus, has been outstripping a temporarily disrupted supply, leading to high inflation. But the fundamental productive capacity of our economy as it existed just before COVID – and, thus, the ability to satisfy that demand without inflation – remains largely as it was, constraining demand now, to bring it into line with a transiently interrupted supply, would be premature. Essentially, Quarles is saying that the Fed does not want to respond to a pandemic-related supply shock by lifting rates and curtailing aggregate demand. The Fed only wants to tighten policy if it sees an increase in broad-based inflationary pressures that will not be contained naturally by a return to more normal aggregate supply conditions. Accelerating wages would be one signal of such broad-based inflationary pressures, as would be measures of core inflation excluding those sectors that have been most impacted by the pandemic supply disruptions (Chart 9). Lastly, we could also look at indicators of inflation’s breadth across its different components, which have recently spiked to concerning levels (Chart 10). Chart 9Non-Covid Inflation Non-Covid Inflation Non-Covid Inflation Chart 10CPI Breadth Has Spiked CPI Breadth Has Spiked CPI Breadth Has Spiked 5.  Inflation Expectations Inflation expectations are also critical to monitor. While all Fed participants seem to agree that inflation will fall during the next year, there is also widespread agreement that if high inflation causes inflation expectations to rise to uncomfortably high levels, then the Fed will be forced to act. Chris Waller: A critical aspect of our new framework is to allow inflation to run above our 2 percent target (so that it averages 2 percent), but we should do this only if inflation expectations are consistent with our 2 percent target. If inflation expectations become unanchored, the credibility of our inflation target is at risk, and we likely would need to take action to re-anchor expectations at our 2 percent target. At present, inflation expectations remain well-anchored near levels consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 11). In particular, we like to track the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% as consistent with the Fed’s target. Incidentally, Governor Waller also flagged TIPS breakeven inflation rates as his “preferred” measure of inflation expectations in last week’s speech.  Chart 11Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Anchored Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Anchored Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Anchored The Fed will move much more quickly toward rate hikes if the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate moves above 2.5%. Bottom Line: Given our view that inflation will fall during the next 12 months, we still view December 2022 as the most likely liftoff date. However, we will continue to monitor our Five Factors For Fed Liftoff to see if our forecast needs to be revised.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 All of our scenarios use a 12-month investment horizon and assume a term premium of 0 bps. 2 In both cases we assume that the fed funds rate trades 8 bps above its lower-bound, as is currently the case. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021. 4 We adjust the unemployment rate for distortions in the number of people employed but absent from work. Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overreaction”, dated July 13, 2021 for further details. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20211020a.htm 8 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20211019a.htm Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns