Market Returns

Executive Summary Turkey is staring into an abyss: economic crisis that will morph into political crisis in the June 2023 election cycle. President Erdoğan will pursue populist economic policies and foreign policy adventurism to try to stay in power, leading to negative surprises and “black swan” risks over the coming 9-12 months. While Erdoğan and the ruling party are likely to be defeated in elections, which is good news, investors should not try to front-run the election given high uncertainty. Neither Turkey’s economy and domestic politics nor the global economy and geopolitics warrant a bullish view on Turkish assets. GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY  Recommendation (TACTICAL) Initiation Date Return LONG JPY/TRY 2022-09-23     Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Bottom Line: The Lira will depreciate further versus the dollar. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Feature Turkey – now technically Türkiye – is teetering on the verge of a national meltdown. The inflation rate is the fastest in G20 countries, both because of a domestic wage-price spiral and soaring global food and fuel prices. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been in power since 2002, making them highly vulnerable to demands for change in the general election slated for June 18, 2023. Yet Erdoğan is a strongman who won a popular vote to revise the constitution in 2017 and increase his personal power over institutions. His populist Islamist movement is starkly at odds with the country’s traditional elite, including the secular military establishment. Given the poor state of the economy, Erdoğan will likely lose the 2023 election but he could refuse to leave office … or he could win the election and be ousted in a coup d'état, as happened in Turkey in 1960, 1971, and 1980.1 Meanwhile Turkey is beset by foreign dangers – including war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East. Erdoğan will try to use foreign policy to bolster his popular standing. Turkey has inserted itself in various regional conflicts and could instigate conflicts of its own. While global investors are eager to buy steeply discounted Turkish financial assets ahead of what could be a monumental change in national policy in 2023, the country is extremely unstable. It is a source of “black swan” risks. The best bet is to remain underweight Turkish assets unless and until a pro-market election outcome shakes off the two-decade trend toward economic ruin. Turkish Grand Strategy Turkey is permanently at a crossroads. The land-bridge between Europe and Asia, it is secular and cosmopolitan but also Islamist and traditional. Its past consists of the greatness of empires – Byzantine, Ottoman – while its present consists of a frustrating search for new opportunities in a chaotic regional context. The core of the country consists of the disjointed coastal plains around the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and the Sea of Marmara, where Istanbul is located. The Byzantine and Ottoman empires were seated on this strategic location at the juncture of the world’s east-west trade. To secure this area, the Turks needed to control the larger Anatolian peninsula – Asia Minor – to prevent roving Eurasian powers from invading, just as they themselves had originally invaded from Central Asia. During times of greatness the Turks could also expand their empire to control the Balkan peninsula and Danube river valley up to Vienna, Crimea and the Black Sea coasts, and the eastern Mediterranean island approaches. During the Ottoman empire’s golden days Turkish power extended all the way into North Africa, Mesopotamia, the Nile river valley, and Mecca and Medina. The empire – and the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate – collapsed in 1924 after centuries of erosion and the catastrophes of World War I. Subsequently Turkey emerged as a secular republic. It adapted to the post-WWII world order by allying with the United States and NATO, in conflict with the Soviet Union which encircled the Turks on all sides. The Russians are longstanding rivals of Turkey, notably in the Black Sea and Crimea, and Stalin wanted to get his hands on the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits. Hence alliance with the US and NATO fulfilled one of the primary demands of Turkish grand strategy: a navy that could defend the straits and Turkish interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to usher in an era of opportunity for Turkey. Turkey benefited from democratization, globalization, and foreign capital inflows. But then America’s wars and crises, Russia’s resurgence, and Middle Eastern instability created a shatter-belt surrounding Turkey, impinging on its national security. In this context of limited foreign policy options, Turkey’s domestic politics coalesced around Erdoğan, the AKP, political Islam, and investment-driven economic growth. Erdoğan and the AKP represent the Anatolian, religious, and Middle Eastern interests in Turkey, as opposed to the maritime, secular, and Euro-centric interests rooted in Istanbul. This point can be illustrated by observing that the poorer interior regions have grown faster than the national average over the period of AKP rule, whereas the more developed coastal regions have tended to lag (Map 1). Voting patterns from the 2018 general election overlap with these economic outcomes. The AKP has steered investment capital into the interior to fund infrastructure and property construction while currency depreciation, rather than productivity enhancement, has merely maintained the status quo with the manufacturing export sector in the coastal regions (Chart 1). Map 1Turkey’s Anatolian Model And The Struggle With The Coasts Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Chart 1Turkey's Export Competitiveness Turkey's Export Competitiveness Turkey's Export Competitiveness Today Turkey faces three distinct obstacles to its geopolitical expansion: Russian aggression: Russia’s resurgence, especially with the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and broader invasion of Ukraine in 2022, threatens Turkey’s interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. Turkey must always deal with Russia carefully but over the past 14 years Russia has become belligerent, forcing Turkey to come to terms with Putin while maintaining the NATO alliance. Today Erdoğan tries to mediate the conflict as it does not want to encourage Russian aggression but also does not want NATO to provoke Russia. For instance, Turkey is willing to condone Finland and Sweden joining NATO but only if the West grants substantial benefits to Turkey itself. Ultimately Turkish ties with Russia are overrated. For both economic reasons and grand strategic reasons outlined above, Turkey will cleave to the West (Chart 2). Chart 2Turkey Still Linked To The West Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan ​​​​​ Chart 3Turkish Energy Ties With Russia Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Western liberal hegemony: The EU and NATO foreclosed any Turkish ambitions in Europe. The EU has consolidated with each new crisis while rejecting Turkish membership. This puts limits on Turkish access to European markets and influence in the Balkans. Turkey has guarded its independence jealously against the West. After the Cold War the US expected Turkey to serve American interests in the Middle East and Eurasia. The EU expected it to serve European interests as an energy transit state and a blockade against Middle Eastern refugees. But Turkish interests were often sidelined while its domestic politics did not allow blind loyalty to the West. This led Turkey to push back against the West and cultivate other options, such as deeper economic ties with Russia and China. Turkish dependency on Russian energy is substantial and Turkey has tried to play a mediating role in Russia’s conflict with NATO (Chart 3). Recently Turkey offered to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a military alliance of Asian powers. However, as with trade, Turkish defense and security ties with the Russo-Chinese bloc are ultimately overrated (Chart 4).  There is room for some cooperation but Turkey is not eager to abandon American military backing in a period in which Russia is threatening to control the Black Sea rim, cut off grain exports arbitrarily, and use tactical nuclear weapons. Chart 4Turkey’s Defense Alliance With The West Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Middle Eastern instability: The Middle East is a potential area for Turkey to increase influence, especially given the AKP’s embrace of political Islam. Turkey benefits from regional economic development and maintains relations with all players. But the region’s development is halting and Turkey is blocked by competitors. The US toppled Iraq in 2003, which strengthened Iran’s regional clout over the subsequent decades. But Iran is not stable and the US has not prevented Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capacity. Turkey cannot abide a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, the US continues to support Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies, which oppose Turkey’s combination of Islam and democratic populism. Russia propped up Syria’s regime in league with Iran, which threatens Turkey’s border integrity. Developments in Syria, Iraq, and Iran have all complicated Turkey’s management of Kurdish militancy and separatism. Kurds make up nearly 20% of Turkey’s population and play a central role in the country’s political divisions. Erdoğan’s Anatolian power base is antagonistic toward the Kurds and regional Kurdish aspirations. China’s strategic rise brings both risks and rewards for Turkey but China is too distant to become the focus of Turkish strategy: China’s dream of reviving the Silk Road across Eurasia harkens back to the glory days of Ottoman power. The Belt and Road Initiative and other investments help to develop Central Asia and the Middle East, enabling Turkey to benefit once again as the middleman in east-west trade (Chart 5). Chart 5Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade But insofar as China’s Eurasian strategy is successful, it could someday impinge on Turkish ambitions, particularly by buttressing Russian and Iranian power. In recent years Erdoğan has experimented with projecting Turkish power in the Middle East (Syria), North Africa (Libya), the Caucasus (Armenia), and the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus). He cannot project power effectively because of the obstacles outlined above. But he can manipulate domestic and foreign security issues to try to prolong his hold on power. Bottom Line: Boxed in by Russian aggression, western liberal hegemony, and Middle Eastern instability, Turkey cannot achieve its geopolitical ambitions and has concentrated on internal development over the past two decades. However, the country retains some imperial ambitions and these periodically flare up in unpredictable ways as the modern Turkish state attempts to fend off the chaotic forces that loom in the Black Sea, Middle East, North Africa, and Caucasus. The Erdoğan regime is focused on consolidating Anatolian control of Turkey and projecting military power abroad so that the military does not become a political problem for his faction at home. Erdoğan’s Domestic Predicament President Erdoğan has stayed in power for 20 years under the conditions outlined above but he faces a critical election by June 18, 2023 that could see him thrown from power. The result will be extreme political turbulence over the coming nine months until the leadership of the country is settled by hook or by crook. Erdoğan has pursued a strongman or authoritarian leadership style, especially since domestic opposition emerged in the wake of the Great Recession. By firing three central bankers, he has pressured the central bank into running an ultra-dovish monetary policy, producing a 12% inflation rate prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and an 80% inflation rate today. He has also embraced populist fiscal handouts and foreign policy adventurism. Taken together his policies have eroded the country’s political as well as economic stability. From the last general election in 2018 to the latest data in 2022: Real household disposable income  growth has fallen from -7.4% to -18.7% (Chart 6). Chart 6Real Incomes Falling Real Incomes Falling Real Incomes Falling ​​​​​​ Chart 7Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election ​​​​​ The manufacturing PMI has fallen from 49.0 to 47.4 (Chart 7). Consumer confidence has fallen from 92.1 to 72.2 (Chart 8). Chart 8Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election ​​​​​​ Chart 9Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan ​​​​​​ Bad economic news is finally altering public opinion, with polls now shifting against the president and incumbent party: Since the pandemic erupted, Erdoğan’s approval rating has fallen from a peak of 57% to 40% today. Disapproval has Erdoğan’s risen to 54%, leaving him a net negative job approval (Chart 9). Bear in mind that Erdoğan won the election with 52.6% of the vote in 2018, only slightly better than the 51.8% he received in 2014 and well below the 80% that his AKP predecessor received in 2007. Meanwhile the AKP, which never performs as well as Erdoğan himself, has fallen from a 45% support rate to 30% today in parliamentary polls, dead even with the main opposition Republican People’s Party (Chart 10). The AKP won 42.6% of the vote in 2018, down from 49.5% in the second election of 2015, 49.8% in 2011, and 46.6% in 2007. Chart 10Justice And Development Party Neck And Neck With Republican Opposition Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan The gap between Erdoğan and his Republican rivals has narrowed sharply since the global food and fuel price spike began to bite in late 2021 (Chart 11). Chart 11Erdoğan Faces Tough Re-Election Race Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan However, the 2023 election is not straightforward. There are several caveats to the clear anti-incumbent tendency of economic and political data: Soft Economic Landing? The election takes place in nine months, enough time for surprises to salvage Erdoğan’s presidential campaign, given his and his party’s heavily entrenched rule. For example, it is possible – not probable – that Russia will resume energy exports, enabling Europe to recover, and that central banks will achieve a “soft landing” for the global economy. Turkey’s economy would bounce just in time to help the incumbent party. This is not what we expect (see below) but it could happen. Foreign Policy Victories? Erdoğan could achieve some foreign policy victories. He has negotiated a tenuous deal with Russia and Ukraine, along with the UN, to enable grain exports out of Odessa. He could build on this process to negotiate a broader ceasefire in Ukraine. He could also win major concessions from the US and NATO to secure Finnish and Swedish membership in that bloc. If he did he would come off looking like a grand statesman and might just buy another term in office. Unfortunately what is more likely is that Erdoğan will pursue an aggressive foreign policy in an attempt to distract voters from their bread-and-butter woes, only to destabilize Turkey and the region further. Stolen Election? Erdoğan revised the constitution in 2017 – winning 51.4% of the votes in a popular referendum – to give the presidency substantial new powers across the political system. Using these powers he could manipulate the election to produce a favorable outcome or even cling to power despite unfavorable election results. He does not face nearly as powerful and motivated of a liberal establishment as President Trump faced in 2020 or as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces in 2022. As noted Erdoğan has a contentious relationship with the Turkish military, so while investors cannot rule out a stolen election, they also cannot rule out a military coup in reaction to an attempted stolen election. Thus the election could produce roughly four outcomes, which we rank below from best to worst in terms of their favorability for global investors: 1.  Best Case: Decisive Opposition Victory – 25% Odds – A resounding electoral defeat for the AKP would reverse its unorthodox economic policies in the short term and serve as a lasting warning to future politicians that populism and economic mismanagement lead to political ruin. This outcome would also provide the political capital and parliamentary strength necessary to impose tough reforms and restore a semblance of macroeconomic stability. 2.  Good Case: Narrow AKP Defeat – 50% Odds – A narrow or contested election would produce a weak new government that would at least put a stop to the most inflationary AKP policies. It would improve global investor sentiment around Turkey’s eventual ability to stabilize its economy. The new government would lack the ability to push through structural reforms but it could at least straighten out the affairs of the central bank so as to ensure a cycle of monetary policy tightening, which would stabilize the currency. 3.  Bad Case: Narrow AKP Victory – 15% Odds – A narrow victory would force the AKP to compromise with opposition parties in parliament and pacify social unrest. Foreign adventurism would continue but harmful domestic policies would face obstructionism. 4.  Worst Case: Decisive AKP Victory – 10% Odds – A resounding victory for the ruling party would vindicate Erdoğan and his policies despite their negative economic results, driving Turkey further down the path of authoritarianism, populism, money printing, currency depreciation, and hyper-inflation. He could also be emboldened in his foreign adventurism. Bottom Line: We expect Erdoğan and the AKP to be defeated and replaced. However, Turkey is in the midst of an economic and political crisis and the next 12 months will bring extreme uncertainty. The election could be indecisive, contested, stolen, or overthrown. The aftermath could be chaotic as well as the lead-up. If the AKP stays in power then investors will abandon Turkey and its economy will suffer a historic shock. Therefore investors should underweight Turkey – at least until the next phase in the economic downturn confirms our forecast that the AKP will fall from power. Macro Outlook: Fade The Equity Rally Chart 12Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM The Turkish economy is beset by hyper-inflation. Headline consumer prices are rising at upwards of 80% and core inflation is 65%. Yet Turkish government 10-year bond yields are low and falling: they are down to 11% currently, from a high of 24% at the beginning of the year. Turkish stocks have also outperformed their Emerging Markets counterparts this year in common currency terms even though the lira has been the worst performing EM currency (Chart 12). So, what’s going on in this market? The answer is hidden in the slew of unorthodox policies adopted by the authorities. These measures caused massive distortions in both the economy and the markets. Specifically, late last year, despite very high inflation, the central bank began to cut policy rates encouraging massive loan expansion. As a result, both local currency loans and money supply surged. Which, in turn, completely unhinged inflation (Chart 13). As inflation rose, so did government bond yields. In a bid to keep government borrowing costs low, policymakers changed several bank regulations to force commercial banks to buy government bonds.2  The upshot was that the bond yields stopped tracking inflation and instead began to fall even as inflation skyrocketed. The rampant inflation meant Turkish non-financial firms’ nominal sales skyrocketed. Indeed, sales of all MSCI Turkey non-financials companies have risen by 40% in US dollar terms and 200% in local currency (Chart 14). Chart 13Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation This was at a time when policy rates were being cut. The policy rate has fallen to 12% today from 19% a year earlier. Firms’ local currency real borrowing costs have fallen deeply into negative territory (Chart 15). It helped reduce firms’ costs significantly. Chart 14Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits ​​​​​ Chart 15Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc ​​​​​ Chart 16Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation ​​​​​ Meanwhile, even though wage growth accelerated, it still fell short of inflation, and therefore of nominal sales of the firms (Chart 16). Firms’ wage costs did not rise as much as their prices. All this boosted non-financial firms’ margins. Total profits have risen by 35% in US dollar terms from a year earlier (200% in lira terms). ​​​​​​​ Chart 17The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket ​​​​​​​ On their part, listed financials’ profits have surged by 50% in USD terms and 220% in local currency terms. They benefited both from surging interest income due to rapid loan growth and from massive capital gains on their holding of government securities (see Chart 14 above). All this is reflected in Turkish companies’ earnings per share as well. The spike in EPS has propped up Turkish stocks for past few months. Over the past year, not only have corporate profits and share prices surged, but also house prices have skyrocketed by 170% in local currency terms and 30% in USD terms (Chart 17). In sum, the abnormally low nominal and deeply negative real borrowing costs have produced a money/credit deluge, which has generated a massive inflationary outbreak and has inflated revenues/profits as well as various asset prices. The Lira To Depreciate Further This macro setting is a recipe for a major currency sell-off.  First, Europe – the destination of 90% of Turkish exports – will likely slide into recession over the coming year (Chart 18).  Chart 18A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A fall in exports will widen Turkey’s current account deficit. Notably, imports will not fall much since the authorities are pursuing easy money policy. Second, the lack of credible macro policies as well as political crisis will assure that foreign capital escapes Turkey. Turkey will find the current account deficit nearly impossible to finance. Third, the country’s net foreign reserves, after adjusting for the central bank’s foreign currency borrowings and commercial banks’ deposits with the central bank, stand at minus 30 billion dollars. In other words, the central bank now has large net US dollar liabilities. As such, it has little wherewithal to defend the currency. There are very high odds that the lira depreciation will accelerate in the months ahead. Fourth, the slew of unorthodox measures taken by the Turkish authorities will encourage banks to buy more government local currency bonds to suppress the government’s borrowing costs. When commercial banks buy government securities from non-banks, they create money “out of thin air.” Hence, the ongoing money supply deluge will continue. This is bearish for the currency. Notably, the economy will likely enter into recession next year – and yet core inflation will stay very high (30% and above). Recent unorthodox bank regulations are meant to encourage a certain kind of lending – loans to farmers, exporters, and small and medium-sized businesses – while discouraging other kinds. Consequently, the overall loan growth will likely slow in nominal terms. There are already signs that credit is decelerating on the margin (Chart 19). Given the very high inflation, slower credit growth will likely lead to a liquidity crunch for many businesses – forcing them to curtail their activity.  Chart 19Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations ​​​​​​ Chart 20Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP ​​​​​​ Indeed, in real terms (deflated by core CPI), local currency loan growth has already slipped into negative territory. This is a bad omen for the overall economy: contracting real loan growth is a harbinger of recession (Chart 20). In short, Turkey is looking into an abyss: a recession amid high inflation (i.e., stagflation) as well as a brewing political crisis (with Erdoğan likely doubling down on unorthodox and populist policies). All this point to another period of a large currency depreciation. While the country will likely change direction to avoid the abyss, investors should wait to allocate capital until after the change in direction is confirmed.    Investment Takeaways The Turkish lira will fall much more vis-à-vis the US dollar in the year ahead. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Turkey is involved in an economic crisis that will devolve into a political crisis over the election cycle. While Erdoğan and the AKP are likely to fall from power as things stand today, they are heavily entrenched and will be difficult to remove, creating large risks of an indecisive or contested election in 2023 that will increase rather than decrease policy uncertainty and the political risk premium in Turkish assets. As a strongman leader Erdoğan has consolidated political power in his own hands, so there is no one to take the blame for the country’s economic mismanagement – other than foreigners. Hence there is a distinct risk that his foreign policy adventurism will escalate between now and next year, resulting in significant military conflicts or saber-rattling. These will shake out western investors who try to speculate on the likelihood that the election or the military will oust Erdoğan and produce sounder national and economic policies. That outcome is indeed likely but Erdoğan is not going without a fight. Our Geopolitical Strategy also recommends tactically shorting the lira versus the Japanese yen in light of global slowdown, extreme geopolitical risk, and the Bank of Japan’s desire to prevent the yen from falling too far.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Consulting Editor Footnotes 1      Sinan Ekim and Kemal Kirişci, “The Turkish constitutional referendum, explained,” Brookings Institution, April 13, 2017, brookings.edu. 2     The central bank replaced an existing 20% reserve requirement ratios for credits with a higher 30% treasury bond collateral requirement. Lenders will have to cut interest rates on commercial loans (except for loans to farmers, exporters, and SMEs). Otherwise, banks will have to maintain additional securities. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary This report looks back at seven recent Fed tightening cycles and summarizes evidence concerning how the US Treasury curve behaves relative to the length and magnitude of the tightening cycle. We document a few consistent relationships. For example, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the tightening cycle. We also notice that the Treasury slope is usually inverted by the time it troughs and that the 5-year/30-year slope tends to trough before the 2-year/5-year slope. Given our view that the peak fed funds rate may not occur until the second half of 2023, we expect another leg higher in bond yields before we reach the cyclical peak. We also anticipate further flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury curve.   Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being and should position in 5-year/30-year curve flatteners by selling the 10-year bullet versus a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. While we maintain neutral portfolio duration for now, our bias is to be short duration on a medium-to-long run horizon and we may re-evaluate our recommended duration positioning after this month’s important CPI release and September FOMC meeting. Feature BCA’s Annual Investment Conference was held last week, and we heard a wide variety of views about the outlook for US bonds. Unsurprisingly, the main difference between those with bond-bullish and bond-bearish views was that the bullish panelists anticipated a much quicker end to the Fed’s tightening cycle prompted by a US recession starting late this year or early next year. This week’s report takes a more formal look at the historical linkages between Fed tightening cycles and trends in US Treasury yields. Our goal is to provide some firm evidence that investors can use to translate their views about the length and magnitude of the Fed tightening cycle into concrete positions across the US Treasury curve. Specifically, we look at seven Fed tightening cycles – the five most recent cycles and the two periods of tightening that occurred during the inflationary surge of the early-1980s. The 1977-80 Cycle Chart 1The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The Fed raised the funds rate by 11.75% between August 1977 and March 1980 in response to sky-high inflation. Then, despite core CPI inflation still running at 12%, it cut rates by 5.5% in 1980 in response to an unemployment rate that had climbed above 6%. This proved to be only a brief reprieve from monetary tightening. With inflation still a problem, the Fed pivoted back to rate hikes later in 1980 even as the unemployment rate continued its ascent. Turning to markets, we see that the Treasury index lost 22% versus a position in cash during the 1977-80 tightening cycle and that index returns troughed in March 1980, around the same time as the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked one month before the last rate hike at 12.72%, 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate that would be attained one month later (Chart 1). As for the shape of the yield curve, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope troughed at -201 bps one month before the last rate hike of the cycle (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year Treasury slope troughed at -132 bps in the same month as the peak in the funds rate and the 5-year/30-year slope troughed at -123 bps, one month before the last hike (bottom panel). The 1980-81 Cycle After a brief period of cuts in mid-1980, having still not conquered inflation the Fed changed course and lifted the funds rate to a new high in 1981. It did this even with the unemployment rate above 7%. One interesting aspect of this tightening cycle is that the bond market continued to sell off even after the Fed delivered its last rate increase. While the period of Fed tightening spanned from October 1980 until May 1981, excess Treasury index returns versus cash continued to fall until September 1981, losing 20% in the process (Chart 2). The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months after the last rate hike at 15.84%, 316 bps below the peak funds rate that was attained four months earlier. Chart 2The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle Looking at the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed at -132 bps three months after the last rate hike (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed three months after the last rate hike, at -62 bps and -133 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1988-89 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 6.5% in March 1988 to 9.8% in May 1989. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 7.7% versus cash during this period but returns did trough two months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 9.32%, 48 bps below the peak fed funds rate (Chart 3). Chart 3The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -43 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at -20 bps and -42 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1994-95 Cycle The Fed doubled the funds rate from 3% in February 1994 to 6% in February 1995. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 9.4% versus cash during this period but returns did trough three months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 7.91%, 191 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 4). Chart 4The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at +15 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at +14 bps and +6 bps, respectively (bottom panel). In contrast to earlier cycles, it’s notable that the yield curve never inverted during the 1994-95 tightening cycle and that the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at a level significantly above the fed funds rate. The most likely reason for this is that the Fed’s pivot from rate hikes to cuts in early 1995 occurred abruptly and came as a surprise to market participants. A quick look at the economic data makes it easy to see why. The core PCE and core CPI inflation rates were elevated at the time, at 2.3% and 3.0% respectively, and the unemployment rate was significantly down from a year earlier. The 1999-2000 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 4.75% in June 1999 to 6.5% in May 2000. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 8.2% versus cash during this period but returns did trough four months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months before the last rate hike at 6.68%, 18 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 5). Chart 5The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -47 bps (panel 4). The 5-year/30-year slope troughed one month before the last rate hike at -59 bps but the 2-year/5-year slope didn’t trough until three months after the last rate hike at -15 bps (bottom panel). The 2004-06 Cycle The Fed lifted rates in steady increments of 25 bps per meeting from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 5.3% versus cash during this period and returns troughed around the same time as the funds rate reached its peak. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred at the same time as the peak in the funds rate, though the peak 10-year was 10 bps below the peak funds rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed five months after the last rate hike of the cycle at -16 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed five months after the last rate hike at -20 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, four months before the last rate hike at -10 bps (bottom panel). The 2015-18 Cycle Finally, in the most recent tightening cycle before the current one, the Fed lifted rates off the zero-lower-bound in December 2015, went on hold for 12 months and then delivered a string of rate hikes bringing the funds rate up to 2.5% by December 2018. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 6.7% versus cash during this period and returns troughed two months before the peak in the fed funds rate. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred two months before the last rate hike at 3.15%, 65 bps above the peak funds rate (Chart 7). Chart 7The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed eight months after the last rate hike of the cycle at 0 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed eight months after the last rate hike at -17 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, five months before the last rate hike at +23 bps (bottom panel). Summarizing The Evidence Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data from the seven tightening cycles that we examined. Four main points jump out. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Table 2Fed Tightening Cycles: Peak And Trough Levels A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles First, both the level of the 10-year Treasury yield and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Excess Return Index tend to hit inflection points around the time of the last rate hike of the cycle. On average, the 10-year Treasury yield peaks 1.3 months before the last rate hike of the cycle, and it has always hit its peak within a window spanning four months before the last hike and four months after. The timing of the trough in index excess returns versus cash looks similar. Second, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope also tends to trough near the end of the Fed tightening cycle, but the timing of this inflection point varies a lot more than the timing of the peak in yields. In fact, during the last two cycles the 2-year/10-year slope didn’t trough until well after the last rate hike. Third, the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope always troughs at the same time or earlier than the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope. This is consistent with our intuition that the long end of the yield curve will respond more quickly to changes in the economic outlook than the front end of the curve, which remains more tied to the current policy rate. Fourth, there isn’t much consistency in where the 10-year Treasury yield peaks relative to the peak fed funds rate. On average, the 10-year yield tops out 120 bps below the peak fed funds rate, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 10-year yield peaked 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate in the 1977-80 tightening cycle and it peaked 65 bps above the peak fed funds rate in the 2015-18 cycle. The same holds true for the slope of the Treasury curve. The trough in the slope exhibits a wide range of outcomes, though it is fair to say that we typically expect the slope to be negative when it bottoms. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope only failed to invert in two tightening cycles (1994-95 and 2015-18) and in both of those cases the Fed was not expected to deliver a large number of rate cuts. In fact, it could have easily been argued that rate cuts were unnecessary based on the inflation and employment data at the time. Investment Implications In applying the lessons from this analysis to the current environment, the first conclusion we reach is that we should only look to extend portfolio duration to above-benchmark when we think that the last rate hike of the cycle will occur in 1-2 months. Currently, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to peak in June 2023 and we expect that peak could occur even later (Chart 8). For this reason, we anticipate another significant leg higher in Treasury yields before the cyclical peak is reached. Chart 8Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Our historical analysis of past tightening cycles also supports our recommended short 10-year bullet, long 5-year/30-year barbell positioning along the Treasury curve.1 Given that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope has always troughed within a window spanning five months before the last rate hike and three months after, it makes sense to position for another leg down. This is a particularly attractive trade on the 5-year/30-year portion of the curve because that slope remains in positive territory.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Please note that there will no US Bond Strategy publication next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 6th with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for September. Executive Summary This report describes a framework for implementing long/short positions in the TIPS market relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. The framework is modeled after the Golden Rule of Bond Investing that we use to implement portfolio duration trades. The TIPS Golden Rule states that investors should buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries when their 12-month headline inflation expectations are above those priced into the market, and vice-versa. We demonstrate a method for forecasting headline CPI inflation and conclude that it will fall into a range of 2.4% to 4.8% during the next 12 months, with risks to the upside. This suggests a high likelihood that headline inflation will exceed current market expectations. The TIPS Golden Rule’s Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record Bottom Line: We see value in TIPS on a 12-month investment horizon but anticipate that an even better entry point to get long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries will emerge during the next couple of months as headline CPI weakens. We recommend a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, though we are looking for a good opportunity to increase exposure. Feature Regular readers will no doubt be familiar with our Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, the framework we use to think about our portfolio duration recommendations. In brief, the Golden Rule states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. Our research shows that this investment strategy has a strong historical track record.1 The thing we like most about the Golden Rule framework is that it provides us with a good method for filtering incoming information. Does this new piece of news or economic data change our 12-month rate expectations? If not, then we probably don’t want to assign much weight to it when setting our portfolio duration. In this Special Report we demonstrate that the same Golden Rule logic that we apply to duration trading can also be applied to the TIPS market. Specifically, it can be applied to long/short positions in TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Developing The TIPS Golden Rule Before diving into the TIPS Golden Rule, it’s worth running through the logic that underpins this investment strategy. The logic starts with the Fisher Equation – the well-known formula that relates nominal bond yields to real bond yields. Simply, the Fisher Equation can be stated as follows:     Nominal Yield = Real Yield + The Cost Of Inflation Protection In financial market terms, we can re-write the equation as:     Nominal Treasury Yield = TIPS Yield + TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate Two of the three variables in this equation have what we call valuation anchors. The nominal Treasury yield’s valuation is anchored by expectations about the future path for the federal funds rate. Put differently, if you buy a 5-year Treasury note and hold it until maturity, your excess returns versus a position in cash are purely determined by the path of the federal funds rate over that 5-year investment horizon. Similarly, the TIPS breakeven inflation rate’s valuation is anchored by expectations about CPI inflation. If held to maturity, the profits from an inflation protection position (long TIPS/short nominals or short TIPS/long nominals) are purely determined by the path of CPI inflation during the investment horizon. It’s worth noting that, unlike the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate, the TIPS yield has no independent valuation anchor. Within our framework, the best way to forecast the TIPS yield is to follow a 3-step process: Forecast the nominal yield based on a view about the fed funds rate. Forecast the TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on a view about inflation. Use the Fisher Equation to combine the results from steps 1 and 2 into a forecast for the TIPS yield. As an aside, while our framework relies on viewing the nominal Treasury yield and the TIPS breakeven inflation rate as reflective of expectations for the fed funds rate and CPI inflation respectively, we do not argue that those bond yields can be used to accurately forecast the fed funds rate or CPI inflation. In fact, history tells us that bond markets are usually poor predictors of future outcomes for the fed funds rate and for CPI inflation. Chart 1 shows that there is only a loose correlation (R2 = 22%) between 12-month bond-market implied expectations for the change in the fed funds rate and the actual change in the fed funds rate. Similarly, Chart 2 shows that there is hardly any correlation (R2 = 3%) between market-implied inflation expectations and the 12-month rate of change in headline CPI. Chart 1Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of The Fed Funds Rate The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart 2Market Prices Are A Poor Predictor Of Inflation The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing In other words, it’s more advisable to view the expectations priced into bond markets as a breakeven threshold for trading, not as a tool for forecasting. Stating The TIPS Golden Rule To apply the TIPS Golden Rule, investors should follow these three steps: Calculate market-implied expectations for what headline CPI inflation will be over the next 12 months. This can be done by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate or the 1-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate.2 Develop an independent forecast for 12-month headline CPI inflation. We demonstrate one method for doing this later in the report.3 Compare your own headline CPI forecast with the forecast that is priced in the market. If your own forecast is higher, then you should go long TIPS/short nominal Treasuries. If your own forecast is lower, then you should go short TIPS/long nominal Treasuries. Testing The TIPS Golden Rule Chart 3 shows the historical track record of the TIPS Golden Rule going back to 2005.4 The top panel shows 12-month excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays TIPS index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. The bottom panel shows whether inflation surprised market expectations to the upside or to the downside during the investment horizon. We can see that, visually, it looks as though TIPS tend to outperform nominal Treasuries when there is an inflationary surprise and underperform when there is a deflationary surprise. Chart 3The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record The TIPS Golden Rule's Track Record Chart 4 shows the same relationship in a little more detail. The 12-month inflation surprise is placed on the x-axis and 12-month TIPS excess returns are on the y-axis. For the TIPS Golden Rule to be useful, we would need to see most of the datapoints in the top-right and bottom-left quadrants of the chart, and indeed this is the case. Chart 412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Finally, Table 1 shows the relationship in even more detail. It shows that inflationary surprises coincide with positive TIPS excess returns 73% of the time for an average excess return of 2.6%. It also shows that deflationary surprises coincide with negative TIPS excess returns 80% of the time, for an average excess return of -3.2%. Table 112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (2005 – Present) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Please note that all the above return calculations are performed on the overall Bloomberg Barclays TIPS Index relative to a duration-matched position in nominal Treasuries. However, the TIPS Golden Rule also performs well when applied to TIPS of any maturity. The Appendix of this report replicates the above analysis for every point along the TIPS curve and shows that the results are consistently excellent. Applying The TIPS Golden Rule Now that we have stated the TIPS Golden Rule and demonstrated its effectiveness as an investment strategy, it is time to apply it to the current market. To do that, we first determine 1-year market-implied inflation expectations by looking at the 1-year CPI swap rate. As of last Friday’s close, the 1-year CPI swap rate is 3.16%. This means that if we think headline CPI inflation will be above 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. If we think headline CPI inflation will come in below 3.16% during the next 12 months, then we should go short TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. Next, we must build up our own forecast of headline CPI inflation for the next 12 months. To do this, we follow a bottom-up approach where we split the CPI basket into five components (energy, food, shelter, core goods, and core services ex. shelter) and model each one individually. Energy Inflation (9% Of Headline CPI) Chart 5Modeling Energy Inflation Modeling Energy Inflation Modeling Energy Inflation Energy accounts for roughly 9% of headline CPI, though its often violent price swings mean that this component usually accounts for a much larger percentage of the volatility in headline CPI. In practice, we can accurately model Energy CPI using the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil (Chart 5). To get a 12-month forecast for Energy CPI we therefore need forecasts for the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. In this analysis, we will consider two possible scenarios for energy prices. First, a benign ‘low oil price’ scenario where we assume that the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil follow the paths discounted in their respective futures curves. Second, we consider a ‘high oil price’ scenario that incorporates the view of our Commodity & Energy Strategy service that a drop in Russian oil supply, among other factors, will cause the Brent crude oil price to reach $119 per barrel by the end of this year and average $117 per barrel in 2023.5 To incorporate this outlook into our model, we regress the prices of retail gasoline, natural gas and heating oil on the Brent crude oil price and extrapolate forward using our commodity strategists’ forecasts. The ‘low oil price’ scenario has Energy CPI inflation falling from its current 32.9% level all the way down to -9.9% during the next 12 months. In contrast, our ‘high oil price’ scenario has it falling to just 15.8%. Food Inflation (13% Of Headline CPI) Chart 6Modeling Food Inflation Modeling Food Inflation Modeling Food Inflation Our Food CPI model is based on the cost of fertilizer, agricultural commodity prices and diesel prices. This model has done a reasonably good job explaining trends in Food CPI inflation over time, but the last few months have seen food inflation jump well above the levels suggested by our model (Chart 6). Given that the inputs to our Food CPI model are highly correlated with the oil price, we also apply the ‘low oil price’ and ‘high oil price’ scenarios discussed above to our Food CPI forecast. Using this method, the ‘low oil price’ scenario has Food CPI inflation falling to 3.8% during the next 12 months and the ‘high oil price’ scenario has it coming down to 4.2%. One key risk to these forecasts is that they both assume that the current gap between food inflation and our model’s fair value will close. It’s possible that other factors not included in our model could prevent the gap from closing. We therefore consider our Food CPI forecast to be quite optimistic. Core Goods Inflation (21% Of Headline CPI) Chart 7Modeling Goods Inflation Modeling Goods Inflation Modeling Goods Inflation Core goods inflation, currently running at 6.9%, appears to have already peaked following its post-pandemic surge. We model Core Goods CPI using the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index, as it is the supply chain constraints that arose during the pandemic that explain the bulk of the movement in core goods prices since that time (Chart 7).6 To forecast Core Goods CPI, we assume that global supply chain constraints continue to ease and that the New York Fed’s index reverts to its pre-pandemic level during the next 12 months. This gives us a forecast for 12-month Core Goods CPI inflation of 0%. Shelter Inflation (32% Of Headline CPI) Chart 8Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation We model shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, using the unemployment rate, rental vacancy rate and home prices (Chart 8). Except for the unemployment rate, all our model’s independent variables enter with a lag of at least 12 months. In other words, we wouldn’t expect any near-term change in home prices to impact Shelter CPI for at least a year. To forecast Shelter CPI, we assume that the unemployment rate rises to 4% during the next 12 months. This results in a shelter inflation forecast of 4.7% for the next 12 months. Much like with food inflation, we tend to view this forecast as relatively optimistic as it assumes a large reversion from the current rate of shelter inflation back to our model’s fair value. It’s conceivable that other factors not included in our model, such as rapid wage growth, could prevent this reversion from occurring. Services ex. Shelter Inflation (24% Of Headline CPI) Chart 9Modeling Services Inflation Modeling Services Inflation Modeling Services Inflation This final component of CPI is a bit of a hodgepodge of different service industries that may not have much in common. However, we find that wage growth does a good job of tracking its trends (Chart 9). We therefore model Services ex. Shelter CPI using the Employment Cost Index, which enters our model with a 10 month lag. To forecast Services ex. Shelter CPI, we assume that the Employment Cost Index holds steady at its current growth rate. This gives us a Services ex. Shelter CPI inflation forecast of 5.5% for the next 12 months. Combining Our Bottom-Up Inflation Forecasts & Investment Conclusions Combining our bottom-up forecasts, we calculate a 12-month headline CPI inflation rate of 2.4% for the ‘low oil price’ scenario and a rate of 4.8% for the ‘high oil price’ scenario. For core CPI inflation, we calculate a 12-month forecast of 3.6%. Given the optimistic assumptions that we incorporated into our forecasts, particularly the large reversions of food and shelter inflation back to our estimated fair value levels, we view the risks to our forecasts as heavily tilted to the upside. We also acknowledge that the re-normalization of global supply chains may not proceed as smoothly as the scenario that is baked into our forecasts. Any hiccup in that process would cause our goods inflation forecast to be too low. Chart 10Inflation Forecasts Inflation Forecasts Inflation Forecasts Chart 10 shows our 12-month headline and core CPI forecasts alongside the market-implied forecast from the CPI swap curve, currently 3.16%. Notice that the market-implied inflation forecast is much closer to the bottom-end of our range of headline CPI estimates, and we have already acknowledged that a lot of things will have to go right for our estimates to pan out. In other words, we see a high likelihood that 12-month headline CPI will be above 3.16% for the next 12 months which, according to our TIPS Golden Rule, tells us that we should go long TIPS versus duration-matched nominal Treasuries. While we acknowledge that there is likely some value in going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries today, we are inclined to maintain our recommended neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals for now. Given the recent drop in oil prices, we anticipate further weakness in headline inflation during the next couple of months. This could push TIPS breakeven inflation rates even lower in the near term, creating even more value. The bottom line is that we see attractive value in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. While we maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS for now, we anticipate turning more bullish in the near future, hopefully from a better entry point after one or two more weak CPI prints. Appendix Chart A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A112-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (1-3 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A212-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (3-5 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A312-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (5-7 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A412-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (7-10 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A512-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (10-15 Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Chart A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns Vs. Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Table A612-Month TIPS Excess Returns* And Inflation Surprises (15+ Year Maturities) The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. 2 In this report we use the 1-year CPI swap rate because it is easier to access. 3 To make the TIPS Golden Rule easy to implement, we use seasonally adjusted headline CPI for all our calculations even though TIPS are technically linked to the non-seasonally adjusted index. We also ignore the fact that TIPS coupons adjust to CPI releases with a lag. Our analysis shows that the rule works very well even without incorporating these complications. 4 CPI swap rates are only available from 2004 onwards, so this is the largest historical sample we can use. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “EU Russian Oil Embargoes, Higher Prices”, dated August 18, 2022. 6 For more details on the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/overview Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 16 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1Are Expectations Too Dovish? Are Expectations Too Dovish? Are Expectations Too Dovish? ​​​ The bond market is now priced for the fed funds rate to peak at 3.44% in January and then head back down to 2.79% by the end of 2023 (Chart 1). We strongly push back against the idea that the Fed will be cutting rates in 2023. While inflation will fall during the next few months, strong wage growth suggests that it will be sticky above the Fed’s 2% target for some time. What’s more, comments from yesterday’s ISM PMI release show that “companies continue to hire at strong rates”. Our sense is that it will be difficult to push the unemployment rate up significantly even as economic activity slows. Given that inflation is likely to fall during the next few months, we recommend keeping portfolio duration ‘at benchmark’ for the time being. However, we are now actively looking for an opportunity to reduce portfolio duration and we could change our recommended allocation in the near term. Stay tuned. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview ​​​​​ Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 109 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -274 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 11 bps on the month and it currently sits at 144 bps. Similarly, our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread moved down to its 54th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see spreads narrow further during the next couple of months as inflation finally shows signs of rolling over. That said, the persistent removal of monetary accommodation and inverted yield curve will limit how much spreads can compress. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 434 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -493 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 100 bps on the month to reach 469 bps, 100 bps above the 2017-19 average and 62 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – moved lower in July. It currently sits at 6.2% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, there’s a good chance that high-yield spreads can continue their relief rally during the next couple of months as inflation falls. Due to the flatness of the yield curve, we think it will be difficult for spreads to move below the average seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). However, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to roughly 5% of excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This potential return is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will be inclined to downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to 4%.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 129 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4  We noted that MBS’s poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is at its end. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have the incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. The implication is that excess MBS returns will be stronger going forward. That said, we still don’t see enough value in MBS spreads to increase our recommended allocation. The average index spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS remains close to its lowest level since 2000 (panel 4). At the coupon level, we observe that low-coupon MBS have much higher duration than high-coupon MBS and that convexity is close to zero for the entire coupon stack. This makes the relative coupon trade a direct play on bond yields. We had been recommending that investors favor low-coupon (1.5%-2.5%) MBS over high-coupon (3%-4.5%) MBS to take advantage of falling bond yields (bottom panel). Now that bond yields have fallen, we think it is wise to take profits on this position and shift to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -708 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 155 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -784 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 45 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -659 bps. The EM Sovereign Index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 53 bps in July. The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 116 bps in July. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. EM currencies continue to struggle versus the US dollar (bottom panel), and depreciating exchange rates will continue to act as a headwind for USD-denominated EM bond performance. Our Emerging Market Strategy service expects continued near-term weakness in EM currencies.5 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -169 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire.6 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers, even as economic growth slows and federal fiscal thrust turns to drag. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past few months. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 85%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 89%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 95%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/5 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened out to the 10-year maturity point in July. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 28 bps on the month while the 5-year/30-year slope steepened 17 bps. The 2/10 and 5/30 slopes now stand at -22 bps and +30 bps, respectively. We closed our position long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell in a recent report.7 The reason for the move is that the 5-year note no longer offers a yield advantage versus the 2/10 barbell. That 2/5/10 butterfly spread has continued to compress during the past three weeks, and it now sits at -10 bps (Chart 7). In that same report we initiated a new recommendation: buy the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 5-year note. This position offers a much more attractive yield advantage of 51 bps (bottom panel). Our new position will deliver strong returns if the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope steepens, something that is likely to occur if the market prices out the rate cuts that are currently discounted for next year. This would be in line with our base case expectation. However, if our base case is wrong and a deep recession forces the Fed to cut rates during the next 6-12 months, then our position should also benefit from a bull-steepening of the 2/5 slope. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 270 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +256 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 20 bps on the month, moving back above the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator now shows that TIPS are modestly cheap versus nominals (panel 2). We upgraded TIPS from underweight to neutral in a recent report.8 In that report we noted that TIPS valuation had improved considerably in recent months as the cost of inflation compensation embedded in the market trended down. For example, the 1-year CPI swap rate currently sits at 3.94%, down from a peak of 5.9% in June. Given our expectation that core inflation will be sticky around 4%, the cost of inflation compensation looks a lot more compelling than it did even a month ago. We also closed our long-standing recommendation to short 2-year TIPS in a report published two weeks ago.9 We made this change after the 2-year TIPS yield moved into positive territory for the first time since 2020, up from a 2021 low of -3.07% (bottom panel). We are not yet ready to upgrade TIPS to overweight, despite much improved valuation, because headline inflation is much more likely to trend lower than higher during the next few months. That said, if current valuations persist, we will likely be looking to upgrade TIPS once more before the end of the year.  ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -52 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 10 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -43 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -104 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. Nowhere is this more evident than in the steep drop in the amount of outstanding credit card debt that was witnessed in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 9). In 2022, consumers have started to re-lever. The personal savings rate was just 5.1% in June and the amount of outstanding credit card debt has recovered to its pre-COVID level (bottom panel). But while household balance sheets are starting to deteriorate, they remain exceptionally strong in level terms. In other words, it will be some time before we see enough deterioration to cause a meaningful uptick in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -175 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 18 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -123 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 22 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -319 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently slightly above their historic averages. Further, last week’s Q2 GDP report confirmed that commercial real estate (CRE) investment remains weak (Chart 10). Weak investment will continue to support CRE price appreciation which will benefit CMBS spreads. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 bps in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -15 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 9 bps on the month. It currently sits at 54 bps, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.  Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 78 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of July 29, 2022) Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of July 29, 2022) Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 34 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 34 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 29, 2022) Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Don't Bet On A Fed Pivot Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3 For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Charts That Matter, “Beware Of Another Downleg In Risk Assets”, dated June 30, 2022. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Conjectures About The US Economy”, dated July 19, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights We now recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds. We still believe that the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but we are less convinced that this is true than we were a few months ago. The fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand in the form of a sharp decline in real wages – are currently present or soon will be. In addition, the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Headline inflation has seemingly been a more impactful driver of long-term inflation expectations than core measures, implying that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints in order to contain rising inflation expectations. That would be clearly negative for economic growth and is potentially recessionary in nature. We see no compelling signs of an acceleration in European or Chinese growth that could act as a ballast to support the global economy. The European energy situation is worsening, China’s post-lockdown rebound has so far been tepid, and market-based indicators of Chinese economic growth are deteriorating. The US equity market is not priced for a typical “income-statement” recession induced by monetary policy. We expect the S&P 500 to fall to 3100 in a recession scenario, driven mostly by declining earnings. In a recession scenario, we do not expect long-maturity government bond yields to fall enough to offset a likely increase in the equity risk premium. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we soon see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Downgrading Risky Assets To Neutral Every month, BCA strategists hold a house view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. As highlighted in a recent Special Alert from our Global Investment Strategy service,1 BCA strategists voted at our June meeting to change our House View to a neutral asset allocation stance towards equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. Table I-1We Now Recommend More Conservative Positioning Than We Did In May July 2022 July 2022 The view of the Bank Credit Analyst service is in line with the consensus of BCA strategists on this issue, and we consequently recommend a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds (Table I-1). We noted in our April report2 – when the S&P 500 index stood at 4530 – that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and that investors should maintain at most a very modest overweight toward equities in a global multi-asset portfolio. A formal downgrade to neutral is thus not a large change in our recommended positioning, but it reflects what we view as a legitimate increase in the odds of a US recession over the coming year. It is not yet our view that a US recession is a probable outcome, but it is important to distinguish between one’s forecast of the economic outlook and the appropriate investment strategy. The unique inflationary pressure created by the COVID-19 pandemic has created a large confidence interval around our forecast, underscoring that an aggressive stance towards risky assets is not warranted. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. But as we will discuss below, that slowdown will have to materialize soon in order for us to recommend an overweight risky asset stance. Reviewing Our Previously Constructive View On US Economic Growth Chart I-1Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Concerns about a potential US recession have been growing since the Fed’s hawkish pivot in November, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previously, these concerns centered around two core issues: the aggressive pace at which the Fed communicated it would raise the policy rate, and the fact that the 2-10 yield curve flattened sharply in the first quarter and finally inverted (based on closing prices) on April 1st (Chart I-1). We had pushed back against those concerns, for several reasons. Our deeply-held view is that recessions typically occur when a significant shock to aggregate demand emerges against the backdrop of tight monetary policy. Sometimes the debt-service and credit demand impact of high interest rates itself is the shock. In other cases, recessions have been triggered in an environment of restrictive monetary policy by a sudden change in key input costs (such as oil prices), the bursting of a financial asset bubble, or a major shift in fiscal spending (typically following a period of war). But the core point is that recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is easy, even when shocks to aggregate demand occur. We abstract here from special cases such as the recession that occurred during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. That event saw the introduction of government policies that purposely arrested economic activity, which in our view would have caused a recession under any conceivable fiscal and/or monetary policy alignment. As a business cycle indicator, the yield curve is significant for investors because it essentially represents the bond market’s assessment of the monetary policy stance. The 2-10 yield curve inversion in early April occurred, in part, because of the speed at which the Fed signaled it would raise interest rates, but also because the 10-year Treasury yield stood just under 2.4% at the point of inversion. This level of long-maturity bond yields reflected the view of both the Fed and most investors that the neutral rate of interest permanently fell following the 2008/2009 global financial crisis (GFC), a view that we have argued against in several previous reports.3 As such, the first reason we pushed back against earlier recessionary concerns is that we believe that the natural/neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed and investors believe (even though we warned that a recessionary scare was quite likely). Chart I-2A Large Portion Of Currently Elevated Inflation Is Due To Supply-Side And Pandemic-Related Factors July 2022 July 2022 The second reason that we had pushed back against recessionary concerns was our view that a meaningful portion of currently elevated US inflation is a function of supply-side and pandemic-related factors that will eventually abate. Chart I-2 highlights credible estimates showing that roughly half of the year-over-year change in the headline PCE deflator is the result of supply-side factors, versus 40-50% for core inflation. It has been and remains our view that a substantial portion of these supply-side and pandemic-related factors will dissipate as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, with several price categories likely to deflate outright. Chart I-3Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Finally, we have argued in several reports that US goods spending has been well above-trend and is likely to slow, but also that services spending is far too low and is likely to rise. Chart I-3 highlights that close to $3 trillion in excess savings have accrued during the pandemic, which formed because of a combination of rising disposable income and falling services spending. We noted that the continued transition of the US and global economies towards a post-pandemic state would boost services spending, providing (an admittedly atypical) source of support for overall aggregate demand.   Why The Odds Of A US Recession Have Increased We still believe that the US will more likely than not avoid a recession over the coming year, but it is true that the strength of all three of the arguments presented above has weakened. Regarding the stance of monetary policy, Charts I-4 and I-5 highlight that it is still true that the Fed funds rate and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain below our estimate of the neutral rate (nominal potential GDP growth). However, Chart I-6 highlights that the sharp rise in consumer price inflation has caused a substantial reduction in real wage growth, which certainly constitutes a non-monetary aggregate demand shock. Chart I-4The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are Chart I-5Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand... Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand... Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand...       Chart I-6...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages ...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages ...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages Panel 2 of Chart I-4 also shows that the 30-year mortgage rate in the US is now at neutral levels, in contrast to government bond yields and the US policy rate. Chart I-7 highlights that our models for US home sales and starts, featured in last month’s report,4 are still not pointing to a severe slowdown in the housing market. However, the fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means that it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand – are currently present or soon will be. On the question of services spending acting as a support for US economic growth as goods spending slows, we continue to believe that services spending will recover back towards its pre-pandemic trend – funded by excess savings that accrued during the pandemic. However, Chart I-8, presented by my colleague Arthur Budaghyan in a recent Emerging Markets Strategy report,5 underscores the extent of the wealth destruction that has occurred because of the joint effect of falling stock and bond prices. At least some of the services-boosting effect of excess savings will likely be blunted by a negative wealth effect stemming from these financial market losses, especially since the remaining excess savings in the US are likely held by middle-to-upper income households – who are the disproportionate holders of publicly-traded financial assets. Chart I-7No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present Chart I-8A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic   On the inflation front, the May CPI release – and the Fed’s reaction to it – underscores that the US economy is at risk of a recession unless supply-side inflation dissipates quickly. Chart I-9 highlights that the May CPI release directly contradicted the view that the monthly rate of change in inflation has peaked. In addition, Chart I-10 presents a breakdown of the percent change in May’s headline consumer price index, with each bar in the chart representing the contribution of that category to headline CPI rising faster than 4% (annualized). The note next to each bar highlights our view of the main driver of that price category, and the color of the bars denotes how probable it is that we will soon see a significant easing in price pressure. Chart I-9The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative Chart I-10Some Elements Of Outsized CPI Will Dissipate Soon. Others May Not. July 2022 July 2022     The chart makes it clear that certain price categories that have been strongly contributing to outsized headline inflation are likely to peak or even turn deflationary over the next few months. Gasoline and fuel oil inflation is clearly being driven by the trend in crude oil prices, which in our view will likely be flat for the rest of the year. In addition, motor vehicles and parts inflation continues to be driven by the impact of supply-chain shortages on vehicle production. Over the past year, the volume of industrial production of motor vehicle assemblies has averaged just 83% of its pre-pandemic level, which we noted in last month’s report now finally seems to be normalizing (Chart I-11). And while airlines have experienced legitimate cost increases due to rising fuel prices and COVID-related labor shortages, panel 2 of Chart I-11 highlights that real airfares have risen well above their pre-pandemic level. This underscores that a moderation in airfares is quite likely over the coming several months. However, Chart I-10 also highlights that there are several price categories that are less likely to ease quickly. Outsized food and energy services inflation has recently been tied to natural gas prices, given that natural gas is used to generate electricity and is a key element used in the production of fertilizer. Chart I-12 highlights that food inflation has been strongly correlated with the producer price index for pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals, and that there is no sign yet of the latter abating. Despite the fact that global wheat prices have recently been falling, the recent increase in European natural gas prices is likely to exacerbate US food inflation, as fertilizer is used to produce all major planted crops. In addition, European energy insecurity has created an even stronger link between the US and European natural gas markets than what prevailed prior to the Ukrainian war, because of what is likely to be permanently higher LNG demand from Europe. Chart I-11Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Chart I-12Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time   On top of what is likely to be persistent food and energy services inflation, shelter inflation is likely to stay elevated for some time – a point highlighted by my esteemed former colleague, Martin Barnes, in Section 2 of this month’s report. The unemployment rate and house prices are the two main drivers of shelter inflation, and the effect of the latter clearly lags because owner’s equivalent rent is a surveyed measure. The fact that mortgage rates have risen so significantly points to a meaningful slowdown in house price appreciation and possibly even mild deflation, so shelter inflation will eventually slow. The Federal Reserve has made it clear, however, that they are now focused on quickly bringing down consumer prices, even at the cost of a recession. The justification for the Fed’s impatience comes straight from the Modern-Day Phillips Curve, which we discussed in great detail in our January 2021 Special Report.6 Economic theory dictates that inflation should be “normal” when the economy is in equilibrium – defined as economic growth in line with potential growth, no economic/labor market slack, and no supply-side shocks affecting prices. In the minds of many investors, “normal” inflation means the central bank’s target for inflation, but that is not necessarily the case. The experience of the 1970s highlighted that “normal” inflation is the rate that is expected by households and firms, and that the Fed will only succeed at achieving target inflation under normal economic conditions if inflation expectations are consistent with its target. The Fed’s failure to prevent inflation expectations from shifting higher on a structural basis led to two debilitating recessions in the early 1980s, and a prolonged period over which the Fed had to maintain comparatively tight monetary policy. This is a mistake that the Fed does not want to make again. Chart I-13Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Consistent with that view, Jerome Powell made it clear during the June FOMC meeting press conference that the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Powell implicitly referenced the University of Michigan’s 5-10 year median household inflation expectations survey during the press conference, which we have described in several previous reports as one of the most important macro data series for investors to monitor. The final reading for June came in materially lower than what was suggested by the preliminary report, but they were already at risk of a breakout even before the June release. In addition, Chart I-13 highlights that it is headline inflation (not core) that appears to be the main driver of rising long-term household inflation expectations, which raises a troubling point. If the Fed decides that inflation expectations need to be quickly reined in even at the cost of a higher unemployment rate, that decision implies that it is headline inflation that needs to return rapidly towards the Fed’s target, not just core. Given that some price categories shown in Chart I-10 are likely to be sticky for some time, and that the chart accounted for deviations in headline inflation from 4% (which itself is above the Fed’s target), the implication is that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints. That would be clearly negative for economic growth, and is potentially recessionary in nature. As a final point, it is not just the potential for future economic weakness that concerns us. The US economy was already slowing prior to the Fed’s hawkish pivot and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and important indicators for economic activity continue to deteriorate. Chart I-14 highlights that the S&P Global US manufacturing and services PMIs fell meaningfully in June, and Chart I-15 highlights that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator continues to deteriorate. In fact, the Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and the bottom panel of Chart I-15 highlights that four consecutive month-over-month declines have all essentially been associated with a recession. 2006 seemingly stands out as an exception to this rule, but given the fact that the housing market downturn began two years before the recession officially started, we simply regard this as an early recessionary signal rather than a false one. Chart I-14The US Is Losing Economic Momentum The US Is Losing Economic Momentum The US Is Losing Economic Momentum Chart I-15The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal     No Help From Europe Or China An overweight stance towards global equities might still be warranted in the face of a significant slowdown in US economic activity if economic growth in Europe or China were accelerating. However, the European outlook has been strongly tied to natural gas flows from Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, which tightened meaningfully in June in response to Europe’s oil ban, the looming expansion of NATO, and Europe’s success at replenishing its amount of natural gas in storage. Russia has not fully weaponized its natural gas exports and its actions so far have fallen well short of a complete cutoff, but prices have risen close to 70% over the past month, forcing Germany to trigger the alert level of its emergency gas plan. Aside from the negative impact that higher natural gas prices will have on headline inflation globally, this is obviously incrementally negative for European economic activity. Chart I-16 highlights that the German IFO business climate indexes have led the S&P Global Germany PMI lower over the past few months, and that they imply further manufacturing weakness. And while the services climate index for Germany ticked higher, it remains meaningfully below the levels that prevailed last summer and implies a deterioration in German services activity over the coming few months. In China, we see no compelling signs of a sustainable pickup in economic activity that will provide a ballast to slowing growth in the DM world. We have seen a bounce back in some activity indicators following the significant easing of restrictions in Shanghai and Beijing (Chart I-17). These indicators, however, are still quite weak, and it is likely that China will experience significant further COVID outbreaks over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-16Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Chart I-17China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid   While Chinese stocks have been rallying in absolute terms over the past few weeks, Chart I-18 highlights that this is essentially the only positive market-based signal about the pace of economic activity in China. The chart highlights that our market-based China Growth Indicator has experienced a renewed down leg, and that the diffusion index never rose above the boom/bust line earlier this year. The recent decline in industrial metals prices is also not a positive market-based signal for Chinese economic activity (Chart 19). Some investors have argued that weak metals prices reflect growth concerns outside of China, but even if that is the case, it implies that China’s reopening will not be forceful enough to offset slowing global ex-China growth. Chart I-18Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears   Has The US Equity Market Already Priced In A Recession? One very important question for investors to answer is how much further downside is likely to occur for US equities in the event of a US recession. At its worst point in mid-June, the S&P 500 fell close to 24% from its early January high, and many investors have since questioned whether the US equity market is already priced for a potential contraction in output. Chart I-20The S&P 500 Is Not Currently Priced For A US Recession July 2022 July 2022 We disagree with this perspective, and believe that the S&P 500 would fall close to 3100 in a typical recession scenario. Chart I-20 presents a range of estimates for the S&P 500 based on a Monte Carlo approach, using what we believe are feasible ranges for the US equity risk premium, real 10-year government bond yields, and the extent of the decline in 12-month forward earnings per share. The chart shows that the equity market only has a positive return at the 5th percentile, which can be interpreted as just a 5% chance that the US equity market has already priced in the impact of a recession. Charts I-21 and I-22 highlight the range of possible outcomes that we used when modeling the likely decline in stock prices in a recession scenario. We assume that the equity risk premium, defined here as the difference between the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield and 10-year TIPS yields, rises on average to its early-March level in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We assume that both 10-year nominal Treasury yields and 10-year breakeven inflation rates fall to 2%, reflecting an expectation that 10-year TIPS yields will not return to negative territory in a recessionary scenario. Finally, we expect that S&P 500 forward EPS will decline by 15% from current levels, which is in line with the historical average decline in 12-month trailing operating EPS during recessions. Chart I-21We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario Chart I-22We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession     One key takeaway from our analysis is that the likely recessionary equity market decline projected by our approach is fairly close to our estimate of the likely decline in earnings. One potential pushback against our view that earnings will fall in line with what usually occurs during recessions is the fact that nominal revenue growth may only mildly contract or may not contract at all in a recession that is occurring due to high rates of inflation (and thus higher prices charged by firms). Chart I-23 highlights that 12-month trailing S&P 500 sales per share growth never turned negative in the 1970s, even following the 1970 and 1974 recessions. Chart I-23Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... There are two counterpoints to this argument. First, the current risk of a recession mostly stems from the Fed’s determination not to repeat the mistakes that it made during the 1970s, meaning that inflation expectations are unlikely to rise to the level that they did during that period in advance of a recession. That implies that actual inflation, and thus corporate pricing power, will come down significantly during a recession. Second, even in a scenario in which a recession occurs and S&P 500 revenue growth contracts less aggressively than it has during previous recessions, Chart I-24 highlights that the mean-reversion risks to earnings from falling profit margins are quite high. The chart shows that even if profit margins were merely to return to their pre-pandemic levels during a recession (which would actually be a comparatively mild decline given the historical behavior of margins during recessions), it would imply close to a 20% contraction in earnings if sales per share growth were flat. Given this, we feel that our assumption of a 10-20% decline in earnings per share in a recessionary scenario is reasonable. Chart I-24But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts There is another important takeaway from our analysis, which is that the decline in bond yields that will occur in a recessionary scenario will likely be more than offset by a rise in the equity risk premium. Another potential pushback against our view that the US equity market has already priced in a recession is focused on our assumption that the 10-year US Treasury yield will only fall back to 2%, and that real 10-year yields will not return to negative territory. For some investors, this assumption seems far too high, given the structural decline in long-maturity bond yields over the past decade and the fact that the 10-year yield stood below 2% at the beginning of the year when the odds of a recession were lower than they are today. In response to this, we offer three points for structurally-bullish bond investors to consider. The first is that the decline in the nominal 10-year US Treasury yield to 0.5% in 2020 was extremely irregular and it occurred because of the extent of the essentially unprecedented economic weakness wrought by the pandemic. This is absolutely the wrong yield benchmark to use in a typical recession scenario, because the Fed’s response to the recession will be much less aggressive. The second point is related to the first, in that negative real 10-year government bond yields have been heavily driven by the secular stagnation narrative and the general view that the natural/neutral rate of interest has permanently fallen. We agree that the neutral rate of interest fell for a time following the global financial crisis, but we believe strongly that it rose in the latter half of the last economic expansion as US households aggressively deleveraged their balance sheets. Academic estimates of R-star, such as that derived from the previously popular (but now discontinued) Laubach-Williams model, continued to point to a low neutral rate from 2015-2019 because of the deflationary impact of an energy-driven decline in long-term inflation expectations on actual inflation, a factor that is clearly no longer present. Chart I-25We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs Finally, we agree that the existence of the Fed’s asset purchase program has likely had some impact on the 10-year term premium over the past decade. We doubt that the Fed would resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in response to a conventional recession, implying that the term premium will not fall as low as it has over the past decade when growth slowed or contracted. Chart I-25 highlights one important reason for this. Since 2008, the Fed’s use of asset purchases has been part of a strategy to ease monetary policy further when the policy rate had already fallen to zero, to meet its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. The chart highlights that even just prior to the pandemic, a persistent gap existed between the headline and core PCE deflator and the level that would have prevailed if both deflators had grown at a 2% annual rate since the onset of the 2008 recession. The chart makes it clear that this gap will completely disappear within the next 12 months for both the headline and core deflator, if the recent pace of change in prices is sustained. In effect, Chart I-25 highlights that the entire post-GFC missed inflation-target era is almost over, which severely undercuts the idea that the Fed will resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in a recession scenario unless the contraction is very severe as it was in 2008 and 2020. We doubt that this will be the case if a recession does occur, implying that both a deeply negative term premium and a significant decline in the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield in a typical recession scenario is unlikely. Investment Conclusions Wayne Gretsky’s famous quotation, that he “skate[s] to where the puck is going, not where it has been” is often invoked by BCA strategists. Successful active investing requires anticipation rather than reaction, and it is legitimate for investors to ask whether downgrading risky assets at the current juncture represents the latter rather than the former. We are cognizant of that risk, but we are also mindful of the importance of capital preservation. When we wrote our annual outlook last year, we believed fairly confidently that inflation would peak and specifically that supply-side inflation would wane. We still believe that pandemic-related effects on consumer prices will eventually dissipate, and it is still possible that inflation is in the process of peaking. Recent evidence, however, about the pace of price advances, the clear impact that high inflation is having on real wage growth, and the Fed’s desire to see consumer prices fall quickly back toward its target, means that the cyclical economic outlook is now highly dependent on the speed at which prices normalize – not just whether it will occur. To us, that implies that investors need to have a high-conviction view that supply-side inflation will normalize soon in order to stay overweight risky assets, and that the Fed will look through elevated housing-related inflation that is likely to persist for several months. At least in the case of supply-side inflation, we think normalization is probable but we no longer have high conviction about the speed of adjustment. As such, we recommend that investors maintain no more than a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds, as part of an overall shift towards more defensive positions. In terms of other important asset class allocations, we recommend the following: Within a global equity portfolio, maintain a neutral regional allocation, a neutral stance toward cyclicals versus defensives, and a neutral stance towards small-cap stocks versus their large-cap peers. Modestly favor value stocks over growth stocks, as most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Within a fixed-income portfolio, a modestly short stance is warranted over the coming 6- to 12-months. Extremely stretched technical and valuation conditions point to a bearish view towards the US dollar over the coming 6- to 12-months, but USD will likely remain well-bid over the nearer-term. We are only likely to upgrade our cyclical USD call in a scenario in which we recommend underweighting global equities within a multi-asset portfolio. As noted above, financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 30, 2022 Next Report: July 28, 2022 II.  Inflation Whipsaw Ahead Dear Client, This month’s Special Report has been written by Martin Barnes, BCA’s former Chief Economist. Martin, who retired from BCA Research last year after a long and illustrious career, discusses the long-run outlook for inflation. The views expressed in this report are his, and may not be consistent with those of the Bank Credit Analyst or other BCA Research services. But Martin’s warning of future stagflation is sobering, and I trust you will find his report both interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Overly stimulative policies meant that inflation was set to rise even before the disruptions caused by the pandemic and Ukraine conflict. Inflation should decline sharply over the coming year in response to weaker economic growth and an easing in supply problems. But it will be a temporary respite. Central banks will not have the stomach to keep policy tight enough for long enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. Price pressures will return as economies bottom and the environment will become one of stagflation. Financial assets will rally strongly when inflation fears subside but subsequent stagflation will not be bullish for markets. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once defined price stability as existing when “households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions”. Until recently, that state of affairs was the case for much of the past 30 years and for many, inflation was quiescent during their entire working lives. But inflation is now back as a huge issue and there is massive debate and uncertainty about whether it will be a temporary or lasting problem. I lean toward the latter view. Major changes in the economic and/or financial environment more often are identified in hindsight than in real time. It is easier to attribute large trend deviations to temporary factors than to make bold predictions about structural shifts. Obviously, the pandemic and conflict in Ukraine have had a significant impact on the near-term inflation picture via massive supply-side disruptions and represent temporary events. Thus, inflation will retreat from current elevated levels as those disruptions diminish. But the conditions for higher inflation were already in place before those two unfortunate events occurred. Specifically, central banks have been erring on the side of stimulus for several years and they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. Inflation has moved from a non-issue to the most important factor driving markets. Over the next year, the next big surprise might be how fast inflation retreats and investors and policymakers will then breathe a big sigh of relief. However, this will prove to be a temporary respite because it will not take long for inflation to move back up and remain stubbornly above central bank targets. In other words, a whipsaw is in prospect over the next few years as inflation goes from up, to down, and to up again. The Current Inflation Problem The biggest increases in consumer prices have occurred in areas most affected by supply problems, with energy attracting the most attention. Nevertheless, in most countries, inflation has risen across the majority of goods and services. The core inflation rate (i.e. consumer prices excluding food and energy) in the G7 economies climbed from 2% to 4.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean measure of US consumer price inflation has spiked dramatically higher, consistent with a broad-based acceleration in inflation.7 The rise in underlying inflation is a bigger problem in the US, UK and Canada than in Japan or the Euro Area. Chart II-2 shows current core inflation rates relative to the target rate of 2% pursued by most central banks. That geographical divergence will be touched on later and in the meantime, the focus will be on the US situation. Chart II-1A Broad-Based Pickup In Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation A Broad-Based Pickup in Inflation Chart II-2The US, UK And Canada Have A Bigger Inflation Problem July 2022 July 2022   The latest US inflation data for a range of goods and services is shown in Table II-1. The table shows the three- and six-month annualized changes in prices because 12-month rates can be affected by a base effect given the impact of pandemic-related shutdowns and disruptions a year ago. Also, a comparison of the three- and six-month rates shows if momentum is building or fading. The trends are not encouraging in that momentum has accelerated, not diminished in many key areas. Table II-1Selected Inflation Rates In The US CPI July 2022 July 2022 Even if the data show a moderation in core inflation in the months ahead, it is important to note that rent inflation – the CPI component with the biggest weight – is seriously underestimated. This is one of the few items where prices are collected with a lag and real estate industry reports highlight that rent inflation is running at double-digit rates in the major cities. According to one report, average rents nationally increased by more than 25% in the year to May.8 The CPI data will eventually catch up with reality, providing at least a partial offset to any inflation improvements in other areas. Another problem for inflation is the acceleration in wage growth against the backdrop of an unusually tight labor market. Currently, the number of unfilled vacancies is almost twice the number of unemployed and it is thus no surprise that wage growth has picked up sharply (Chart II-3). The Atlanta Fed’s measure of annual wage inflation has risen above 6%, its highest reading since the data began in 1997. Wage growth is unlikely to suddenly decline absent a marked rise in the unemployment rate. There is much debate about whether the US economy is on the verge of recession, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of whether the technical definition of recession is met (at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), the pace of activity is set to slow sharply. Plunging consumer and business confidence, contracting real incomes and a peaking in housing activity all point to a significant weakening in growth, even if the labor market stays healthy (Chart II-4). Chart II-3A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market A Very Tight US Labor Market Chart II-4The US Economy Is In Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble The US Economy is in Trouble   Softer economic growth eventually will take the edge off inflationary pressures in many goods and services. Combined with an easing in supply-side disruptions, the inflation rate is certain to decline in the coming year, even if oil prices move higher in the short run. Currently, the Fed is talking tough about dealing with inflation and there is little doubt that further rate hikes are on the way. However, policymakers will have little stomach for inflicting enough economic pain to completely squeeze inflation out of the system. Once there are clear signs of a significant economic slowdown, the Fed will back off quickly. What Causes Inflation Anyway? Economics 101 teaches that prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service exceeds supply, then prices will rise to bring things back into balance. Seems simple enough but, unfortunately, this leaves many unanswered questions. How much must prices rise and for how long in order to restore balance? What if there are structural impediments to supply? What if there are monopolies in key commodities or services? What if policy interferes with the operation of market-clearing solutions? And, finally, what measure of inflation should we be looking at? Chart II-5Inflation Is A 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue Inflation is a 'Modern' Issue For much of economic history, deflation was just as prevalent as inflation, with the latter only being a problem during periods of war (Chart II-5). As the pre-WWII world pre-dated fiat money, automatic stabilizers (e.g. the welfare state), and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, economies were prone to regular depressions that served to wash out financial and economic excesses and any inflationary pressures. But those days are long gone and free market forces should not be expected to keep inflation under wraps. I rather like the simple explanation of inflation’s roots as being “too much money chasing too few goods”. In that sense, the control of inflation lies firmly at the door of central banks. In the “old days” (i.e. before the 1990s), it was possible to use the growth in the money supply to gauge the stance of policy because there was a fairly stable and predictable relationship between monetary and economic trends. That all ended when financial deregulation and the explosion in non-bank financial activities meant that monetary trends ceased to be a reliable indicator of economic growth and inflation. As a result, the Fed stopped setting monetary growth targets more than 20 years ago and since then, money supply data has rarely been mentioned in FOMC discussions. Chart II-6A Simple Measure Of The Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance A Simple Measure of the Monetary Stance Fortunately, all is not lost. The gap between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth is a reasonably good proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Conditions are easy when rates are persistently below GDP growth and vice versa when they are above. As can be seen in Chart II-6, rates were below GDP growth during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when inflation rose sharply. And inflation fell steadily in the 1980s into the first half of the 1990s when the Fed kept interest rates above GDP growth. And look at what has happened in the past decade: rates have been significantly below GDP growth, suggesting an aggressively easy monetary stance. It was only a matter of time before inflation picked up, even without the recent supply-side disruptions. The FOMC’s latest projections show long-run growth of 3.8% in nominal GDP while the fed funds rate is expected to average only 2.5%. That implies a continued accommodative stance, yet inflation is forecast to be in line with the 2% target. That all seems very unlikely. Fed policymakers spend a lot of time trying to figure out the level of the equilibrium real interest rate – the level consistent with steady non-inflationary economic growth. It would be very helpful to have this number but coming up with an accurate measure is a largely futile exercise. It cannot be measured empirically and its estimation requires a lot of assumptions, explaining why there is no broad agreement on what the right number is. I think there is a case for the simpler approach of using the nominal growth in GDP as a proxy for where rates should be in normal circumstances. As noted above, that suggests monetary policy was excessively accommodative for an extended period. If US Policy Was Too Easy, Why Was Inflation Low For So Long? The Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation is the change in the personal consumption deflator, excluding food and energy. In the 25 years to 2019, inflation by this measure averaged only 1.7%, compared to the Fed’s desired level of 2%. Thus, even though the level of interest rates implied very accommodative policy over that period, inflation remained tame. This leads to an important caveat. The stance of monetary policy plays the key role in driving inflation, but it is not everything. Offsetting forces on inflation (in both directions) can mute or even swamp the impact of policy. There were several disinflationary forces in operation during the past 25 years. Specifically: In the second half of the 1990s, the explosive growth of the internet and accompanying boom in technology spending led to a marked pickup in productivity growth. The entry of China into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 unleashed a wave of offshoring and downward pressure on traded goods prices. A series of deflationary shocks hit the US and global economy including the 1998 financial crisis in South-East Asia and Russia, the bursting of the tech bubble after 2000, and of course the global financial meltdown in 2007-09. Unstable economic conditions undermined labor’s bargaining power, keeping a tight lid on wage growth. This was highlighted by the dramatic decline in labor’s share of income after 2000. Importantly, the above forces are no longer in place and in some cases are reversing. The key technological advances of the past decade have not been particularly good for productivity. Indeed, one could argue that the activities of most so-called FANG stocks – especially those involved in social media - have had a negative impact on productivity. Time spent on FaceBook, Twitter and Netflix do not have obvious benefits for increased economic efficiency. Chart II-7Globalization In Retreat Globalization in Retreat Globalization in Retreat Even before the pandemic’s impact on supply chains, there were signs that globalization had peaked (Chart II-7). Indeed, BCA first suggested in 2014 that globalization was running out of steam. More recently, the interruption to supply chains has highlighted the downside of relying excessively on overseas production for key goods such as semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals. Onshoring rather than offshoring will become more common with higher prices being the cost for greater control over supply. Globalization is not dead, but, at the margin, it no longer is a powerful source of disinflation. US import prices from China are back to their highest level in a decade after falling steadily during the eight years to 2020. The inflationary impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine via supply-side disruptions are more than offsetting any disinflationary effects of softer economic growth. In other words, they have represented stagflationary rather than deflationary shocks. Finally, with regard to income shares, the pendulum has swung more in favor of labor. Demographic trends (e.g. slow growth in the working-age population) suggest that the labor market will remain relatively tight in the years ahead, notwithstanding short-term weakness as the economy slows. Profit margins are likely to weaken and labor’s share of income will rise. The bottom line is that easy money policies will no longer be offset by a number of powerful external forces that served to keep consumer price inflation under wraps in the pre-pandemic period. And this raises another important point. If monetary policy is too easy, then it will show up somewhere, even if consumer price inflation is under control. There Is More Than One Kind Of Inflation Inflation most commonly refers to the change in the prices of consumer goods and services. That is understandable because consumer spending accounts for more than half of GDP in the major developed economies (and almost 70% in the US). And because consumers are the ones who vote, it is the inflation rate that politicians care most about. However, there are other kinds of inflation. If there are structural impediments to increased consumer prices, then excessively easy monetary policy most likely will show up in higher asset prices. This is a very different kind of inflation because it is welcomed by the owners of assets and by politicians. Nobody is happy to face higher prices for the goods and services they buy, but asset owners love the wealth-boosting effect of higher prices for homes and shares.  Consumer inflation may have been subdued in the pre-pandemic decade, but the same is not true for asset prices. During the period that the Fed ran accommodative policies, there were several periods of rampant asset inflation such as the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s, the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the bond bubble of 2016-2020. And both equity and home prices surged in response to monetary stimulus triggered by the pandemic. Central banks may fret about the potential financial stability implications of surging asset prices, but in practice they do not act to curb them. Policymakers argue that it is hard to determine when an asset bubble exists and even when one is obvious, monetary policy is a crude tool to deal with it. If rising asset prices occur alongside an economy that is characterized by stable growth and moderate inflation, then acting to burst a bubble could inflict unnecessary economic damage. That is an understandable position, but it means ignoring the longer-term problems that occur when bubbles inevitably burst. This was highlighted by the economic and financial chaos after the US housing bubble burst in 2007. The reality is that central banks have been forced to rely more heavily on asset inflation as a source of monetary stimulus. An easing in monetary policy affects economic conditions in three primary ways: boosting credit demand and supply, raising asset prices, and lowering the exchange rate.9 Historically, the credit channel was by far the most important. BCA has written extensively about the Debt Supercycle and the role of monetary policy in fueling ever-rising levels of private sector indebtedness (see the Appendix for a brief description of the Debt Supercycle). Chart II-8No Releveraging Cycle In Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt No Releveraging Cycle in Household Debt The environment changed dramatically after the 2007-09 financial meltdown. The collapse of the credit-fueled housing bubble drove a stake through the heart of the household sector’s love affair with debt. The ratio of household debt to income peaked in early 2009 and ten years later it was back to the levels of 2001 (Chart II-8). Even an extended period of record low interest rates has failed to trigger a new leveraging cycle. If the Fed can’t persuade consumers and businesses to fall back in love with debt, then it must rely on the other two transmission channels for monetary policy – asset prices and the exchange rate. And the Fed really has limited control over the latter channel given that it also depends on the actions of other central banks. The deleveraging of the household sector in the post-2009 period could have been very bearish for the economy, but the Fed’s easy money policies underpinned the stock market, allowing household net worth to revive. There was an explosive rise in household net worth in 2020-21 as surging house prices added to stock market gains. Between end-2019 and end-2021, the household sector’s direct holdings of equities plus owner’s equity in real estate increased in value by around $20 trillion, equal to more than one year’s personal disposable income. The recent decline in equity prices has reversed some of the gains, but net worth remains elevated by historical standards. The bottom line is that it was wrong to suggest that the Fed’s accommodative stance did not create inflation. Consumer price inflation was tame in the pre-pandemic period, but there was lots of asset inflation and that gathered pace in 2020 and 2021. There was always going to be some leakage of this into more generalized inflation but this was accelerated by the double whammy of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Strange Case Of Japan If higher inflation in the US has seemed inevitable, how can one explain the situation in Japan? In contrast to other developed countries, Japan’s annual core inflation rate was only 0.2% in May. While this was an increase from the average -1.3% rate in the prior six months, it is impressive given the country’s continued highly stimulative monetary policy and the same exposure to supply disruptions as elsewhere. Most importantly, Japan has suffered structural deflation for so long that inflation expectations are totally dormant for both consumers and businesses. In other words, raising prices is seen as a desperate measure and something to be avoided. Japan’s poor demographics may also have played a role. A sharply declining labor force and rapidly aging population are disinflationary rather than inflationary influences and help reinforce the corporate sector’s reluctance to raise prices. While Japan seems an outlier, it is worth noting that core inflation also has remained relatively subdued in many European countries. For the overall Euro area, the latest core inflation rate is 3.8%, well below that of the US and UK. Two common features of the higher inflation countries are that they tended to have more aggressively-easy fiscal policies in recent years and greater asset inflation – especially in real estate. Unfortunately, inflation expectations and business pricing behavior in the US and other Anglo-Saxon economies have not followed Japan’s example. Employees have become more aggressive in demanding higher wages, and most companies have no problem in passing on higher costs to their customers. The UK is facing a wave of public sector strikes over pay the likes of which have not been seen for decades. The Outlook Chart II-9A Peaking In Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? A Peaking in Supply Problems? Inflation may prove sticky over the next few months, but as noted earlier, it should move significantly lower over the coming year. Crude oil prices have risen by around 75% in the past year and that pace of rise cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, while shipping rates remain historically high, they are down sharply from earlier peaks (Chart II-9). Together with a revival in Chinese exports, this suggests some easing in supply chain problems. And as mentioned above, the pace of economic activity is set to slow sharply. But a return to pre-pandemic inflation levels is not in the cards. The Fed currently is talking tough and further rate hikes are on the way. But the tightening will end as soon as it becomes clear that the economy is heading south. A deep recession is not likely because there are not the worrying imbalances such as excessive consumer debt or inventories that typically precede serious downturns. However, policymakers will not take any risks and policy will return quickly to an accommodative stance, even though inflation is unlikely to return to the desired 2% level. On a positive note, inflation may be the highest in 40 years in many countries, but we are not facing a return to the destructive high-inflation environment of the 1970s. Inflation back then was institutionalized and a self-feeding cycle of higher wages and rising prices was deeply embedded. I was working as an economist for BP in London in the 1970s and remember receiving large quarterly pay rises just to compensate for inflation. In the absence of inflation-accounting practices, companies seriously underestimated the destruction that inflation was creating to balance sheets and profitability, making them complacent about the problem. Moreover, there were not the same global competitive pressures that exist today. Inflation in the US likely will form a new base of 3% to 4% over the medium term, with occasional fluctuations to 5% or above. An environment of stagflation is in prospect: growth will not be weak enough to suppress inflation and not strong enough to allow the Fed to maintain a restrictive stance. This puts the Fed in a difficult spot as it will be reluctant to admit defeat by raising the inflation target from its current 2%, even though that level will be out of reach in practical terms. A counter view is that I am too pessimistic by underestimating the disinflationary effects of technological advances. A sustained improvement in productivity would certainly help lower inflation but how likely is this? Technological advances are occurring all the time, but in recent years they largely have been incremental in nature and it is hard to think of any new breakthrough productivity-enhancing technologies. There is a difference between new technologies that simply represent better ways to do existing tasks (3D printing would fall into that category) and general purpose technologies that completely change the way economies operate (e.g. electricity and the internet). While businesses are still exploiting the benefits of the digital world, we await innovations that will trigger a new sustained upsurge in productivity. A game changer would be the development of unlimited cheap energy (cold fusion?) but that does not seem likely any time soon. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind about the potential for productivity to surprise on the upside, despite my current skepticism. Chart II-10Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher Inflation Expectations Spike Higher What does all this mean for the markets? Not surprisingly, shifts in market expectations for future inflation are highly correlated with the current rate and have thus spiked higher in recent months, hurting both bonds and stocks (Chart II-10). Obvious inflation hedges would be inflation-protected bonds and resources, but neither group currently is attractively priced. The good news is that the current panic about inflation is setting the scene for a buying opportunity in both stocks and bonds. The exact timing is tricky to predict but both stocks and bonds will rally strongly later this year when inflation expectations retreat as it becomes clear that the economy is weakening and the Fed softens its hawkish tones. The bad news is that this bullish phase will not last much more than a year because a re-emergence of inflationary pressures will bring things back to earth. The long-run outlook is one of stagflation and that will be a tough environment for financial assets. Martin H. Barnes Former Chief Economist, BCA Research mhbarnes15@gmail.com   Appendix: A Primer On The Debt Supercycle The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance-sheet liquidity and rise in indebtedness during the post-WWII period. Economic expansions have always been associated with a buildup of leverage. However, prior to the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as the welfare state and deposit insurance, balance-sheet excesses tended to be fully unwound during economic downturns, albeit at the cost of severe declines in activity. The pain of the Great Depression led governments to intervene to smooth out the business cycle, and their actions were given legitimacy by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Fiscal and monetary reflation, together with the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy, but the downside was that balance-sheet imbalances and financial excesses built up during each expansion phase were never fully unwound. Periodic "cyclical" corrections to the buildup of debt and illiquidity occurred during recessions, but these were never enough to reverse the long-run trend. Although liquidity was rebuilt during a recession, it did not return to its previous cyclical high. Meanwhile, the liquidity rundown during the next expansion phase established new lows. These trends led to growing illiquidity, and vulnerability in the financial markets. The greater the degree of illiquidity in the economy, the greater is the threat of deflation. Thus, the bigger that balance-sheet excesses become, the more painful the corrective process would be. So, the stakes became higher in each cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to reflate demand, by whatever means were available. The Supercycle process was driven over time by the building tension between rising underlying deflationary risks in the economy, and the ability of policymakers to create inflation. The Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic and financial meltdown, with the authorities reaching the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more leverage. This forced the government to leverage itself up instead, representing the Debt Supercycle's final inning. III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators paint a bearish picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is now at its weakest in almost three decades and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still overvalued, albeit less so than they were last year. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have now broken down very significantly, and are not yet providing a contrarian buy signal. The odds of a US recession over the next 12 months have recently risen, and we now recommend a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being significantly revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are still too rosy. Although earnings growth is still likely to be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. Within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should stay modestly short duration. The increase in commodity prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cooled, and prices are now rolling over significantly on the back of global growth concerns. Our composite technical indicator has dropped meaningfully, indicating that commodities are now no longer overbought. Our base-case view is that oil prices have peaked, but there some risk to that view given the current geopolitical situation. In addition, the recent rise in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation could remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals, but metals prices are likely to decline further until recessionary concerns abate. US and global LEIs have rolled over significantly and are now edging towards negative territory. The Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and four consecutive month-over-month declines have historically been associated with a recession. Our global LEI diffusion index has bottomed, but we are not convinced that this heralds a major upturn in the LEI itself. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Content Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop   ECONOMY: Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert "Hard Or Soft Landing? BCA Strategists Debate The Question," dated June 21, 2022, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see Emerging Markets Strategy "A Conversation With Ms. Mea: Navigating An Inflation Storm," dated June 16, 2022, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     This trimmed mean measure excludes the top 8% of CPI components with the largest monthly price gains and the bottom 8% with the smallest monthly gains. 8     Rent.com, https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/, June 2022. 9    A fourth channel can be via a psychological boost to business and consumer confidence, but this can cut both ways if an easing in policy is interpreted as a sign of worsening economic conditions rather than as a reason for optimism.

Executive Summary Investors face a dilemma. The faster that inflation comes down, the better it will be for valuations via a stronger rally in the bond price. But if a collapse in inflation requires a sharp deceleration in growth, the worse it will be for profits. Bond yields are likely in a peaking process, but the sharpest declines may come a few months down the road, after an unambiguous roll-over in food and energy inflation. The stock market’s valuation-driven sell-off is likely over, but the danger is that it morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. As such, the stock market will remain under pressure through 2022, though it is likely to be higher 12 months from now in June 2023. High conviction recommendation: Overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In other words, tilt towards sectors that benefit the most from rising bond prices and that suffer the least from contracting profits. New high conviction recommendation: Go long the Japanese yen. As bond yield differentials re-tighten, the yen will rally. Additionally, the yen will benefit from its haven status in a period of recessionary risk. Fractal trading watchlist: JPY/USD, GBP/USD, and Australian basic resources. If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market Bottom Line: The risk is that the valuation-driven sell-off morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. Feature In May, many stock markets reached the drawdown of 20 percent that defines a technical bear market. Yet what has caught many people off guard is that the bear market in stocks has happened during a bull market in profits. Since the start of 2022, US profits are up by 5 percent.1 The bear market in stocks has happened during a bull market in profits… so far. This shatters the shibboleth that bear markets only happen when there is a profits recession. The 2022 bear market has been a valuation-driven bear market. US profits rose 5 percent, but the multiple paid for those profits collapsed by 25 percent, taking the market into bear territory. None of this should come as any surprise to our regular readers. As we have pointed out many times, a stock market can be likened to a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. So, just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like. It turns out that that long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond. This means that: The US stock market = (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) It follows that if the 30-year bond price falls by more than profits rise, then the stock market will sell off. And if the 30-year bond price falls by much more than profits rise, then the stock market will enter a valuation-driven bear market. Therein lies the story of 2022 so far (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Bear Market Is Valuation-Driven. Profits Are Up... For Now The Bear Market Is Valuation-Driven. Profits Are Up... For Now The Bear Market Is Valuation-Driven. Profits Are Up... For Now Just As In 1981-82, Will The Sell-Off Morph From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven? In Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, we argued that a good template for what happens to the economy and the markets in 2022-23 is the experience of 1981-82. Does 2022-23 = 1981-82? Then, just as now, the world’s central banks were obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation, and piloting the economy to a ‘soft landing’. Then, just as now, the central banks were desperate to repair their badly damaged credibility in managing the economy. And then, just as now, an invasion-led war between two major commodity producers – Iran and Iraq – was disrupting commodity supplies and adding to inflationary pressures. In 1981, just as now, the equity market sell-off started as a valuation sell-off, driven by a declining 30-year T-bond price. Profits held up through most of 1981, just as they have so far in 2022. In September 1981, US core inflation finally peaked, with bond yields following soon after. In the current experience, March 2022 appears to have marked the equivalent peak in US core inflation (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Does September 1981... Does September 1981... Does September 1981... Chart I-3...Equal March 2022? ...Equal March 2022? ...Equal March 2022? In late 1981, when the 30-year T-bond price rebounded, the good news was that beaten-down equity valuations also reached their low point. The bad news was that just as the valuation-driven sell-off ended, profits keeled over, and the valuation-driven sell-off morphed into a profits-driven sell-off (Chart I-4). In 2022-23, could history repeat? Chart I-4In September 1981, The Sell-Off Morphed From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven In September 1981, The Sell-Off Morphed From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven In September 1981, The Sell-Off Morphed From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven Recession Or No Recession? That Is Not The Question History rhymes, it rarely repeats exactly. What if the 2022-23 experience can avoid the outright economic recession of the 1981-82 experience? This brings us to another shibboleth that needs to be shattered. You don’t need the economy to go into recession for profits to go into recession. To understand why, we need to visit the concept of operational leverage. Profits is a small number that comes from the difference of two large numbers: sales and the costs of generating those sales. As any company will tell you, sales can be volatile, but costs – which are dominated by wages – are sticky and much slower to change. The upshot is that if sales growth exceeds costs growth, there is a massively leveraged impact on profits growth. This is the magic of operational leverage. But if sales growth falls below sticky cost growth, the magic turns into a curse. The operational leverage goes into reverse, and profits collapse. Using US stock market profits as an example, the magic turns into a curse at real GDP growth of 1.25 percent, above which profits grow at six times the difference, and below which profits shrink at six times the difference (Chart I-5). Chart I-5A Model For US Profits Growth: (Real GDP Growth - 1.25) Times 6 A Model For US Profits Growth: (Real GDP Growth - 1.25) Times 6 A Model For US Profits Growth: (Real GDP Growth - 1.25) Times 6 Strictly speaking, we should compare US profits growth with world GDP growth because multinationals generate their sales globally rather than domestically. But to the extent that the US has both the world’s largest stock market and the world’s largest economy, it is a reasonable comparison. We should also compare both profits and sales in either nominal or real terms, rather than a mixture. But even with these tweaks, we would still find that the dominant driver of profit growth is operational leverage. ‘Recession or no recession?’ is a somewhat moot question, because even non-recessionary low growth is enough to tip profits into contraction. Therefore, the conclusion still stands – ‘recession or no recession?’ is a somewhat moot question, because even non-recessionary low growth is enough to tip profits into contraction. Such a period of low growth is now likely. If 2022-23 = 1981-82, What Happens Next? To repeat: The US stock market = (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) This means that investors face a dilemma. The faster that inflation comes down, the better it will be for valuations via a stronger rally in the bond price. But if a collapse in inflation requires a sharp deceleration in growth, the worse it will be for profits. This was the precise set-up in December 1981, the equivalent of June 2022 in our historical template. In which case, what can we expect next? 1. Bond yields are likely in a peaking process, but the sharpest declines may come a few months down the road, after an unambiguous roll-over in food and energy inflation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Bond Yield If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Bond Yield If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Bond Yield 2. The stock market’s valuation-driven sell-off is likely over, but the danger is that it morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. As such, the stock market will remain under pressure through 2022, though it is likely to be higher 12 months from now in June 2023 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market 3. Long-duration defensive sectors will outperform short-duration cyclical sectors. In other words, tilt towards sectors that benefit the most from rising bond prices and suffer the least from contracting profits. As such, a high conviction recommendation is to overweight healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Healthcare Versus Resources If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Healthcare Versus Resources If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Healthcare Versus Resources 4. In foreign exchange, the setup is very bullish for the Japanese yen through the next 12 months. The yen’s recent sell-off is explained by bond yields rising outside Japan. As these bond yield differentials re-tighten, the yen will rally. Additionally, the yen will benefit from its haven status in a period of recessionary risk. A new high conviction recommendation is to go long the Japanese yen (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Yen's Sell-Off Is Due To Bond Yields Rising Outside Japan The Yen's Sell-Off Is Due To Bond Yields Rising Outside Japan The Yen's Sell-Off Is Due To Bond Yields Rising Outside Japan Fractal Trading Watchlist Supporting our bullish fundamental case for the Japanese yen, the sell-off in JPY/USD has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that marked previous major turning points in 2013 and 2015 (Chart 10). Hence, a first new trade is long JPY/USD, setting the trade length at 6 months, and the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Chart I-10The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point Supporting our bearish fundamental case for resources stocks, the outperformance of Australian basic resources has reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that marked previous turning points in 2013, 2015, and 2021 (Chart I-11). Hence, a second new trade is short Australian basic resources versus the world market, setting the trade length at 6 months, and the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent. Chart I-11The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal Finally, we are adding GBP/USD to our watchlist, given that its 260-day fractal structure is close to the point of fragility that marked major turns in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Our full watchlist of 29 investments that are at, or approaching turning points, is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions GBP/USD At A Turning Point GBP/USD At A Turning Point GBP/USD At A Turning Point Chart 1AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Chart 2Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 3Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 4US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 5BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 6Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 7CNY/USD Has Reversed CNY/USD Has Reversed CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 8CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 9Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 10The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 11The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 12FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 13Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Been Exhausted Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Been Exhausted Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Been Exhausted Chart 14The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 15The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 16Food And Beverage Outperformance Has Been Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Has Been Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Has Been Exhausted Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 18The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Started To End Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Started To End Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Started To End Chart 24The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Chart 28US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 29GBP/USD At A Turning Point GBP/USD At A Turning Point GBP/USD At A Turning Point   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined as 12-month forward earnings per share. Fractal Trading System More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads Corporate bond spreads in the US and Europe have widened since early April, with European credit taking a bigger hit because of worsening growth and inflation momentum. European corporate bond valuations look fairly cheap, both for investment grade and high-yield.  This is true in absolute terms but also relative to the US, where spread valuations are more mixed.  An easing of stagflation fears in Europe is a necessary condition for a valuation convergence with the US. The US investment grade credit curve is steep relative to the overall level of credit spreads, making longer-maturity corporates more attractive. Energy bonds offer the most compelling combination of valuation and fundamental support (from high oil prices) within US investment grade. Within US high-yield, Energy valuations look much less compelling after the recent outperformance. The best medium-term industry values in European credit are in investment grade Financials and high-yield Consumer Cyclicals & Non-Cyclicals. Bottom Line: Continue to favor both US high-yield and European investment grade corporates versus US investment grade.  Stay neutral high-yield exposure on both sides of the Atlantic.  Within Europe, stay up in quality within both investment grade and high-yield until near-term macro risks on growth & inflation subside. Feature Corporate bonds in the US and Europe have gone through a rough patch in recent weeks, underperforming government bonds in response to the “triple threat” of high inflation, tightening monetary policy and slowing growth momentum.  European credit has taken the more severe hit compared to the US, with markets pricing in greater risk premia because of additional regional threats to growth (and inflation) from the Ukraine war. In this Special Report, jointly presented by BCA Research US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we assess credit spread valuations in US and European corporates after the latest selloff, across credit tiers, maturities and industry groups.  Stay Cautious On US Corporate Bonds Chart 1US Credit Spreads US Credit Spreads US Credit Spreads In a recent Special Report, we argued in favor of a relatively defensive allocation to US corporate bonds. Specifically, we advised investors to adopt an underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to US investment grade corporates and a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to US high-yield. Our rationale was that a flat US Treasury curve signaled that we were in the middle-to-late stages of the economic recovery. Additionally, at the time, corporate bond spreads weren’t all that attractive compared to the average levels seen during the last Fed tightening cycle (Chart 1). Spreads have widened somewhat since we downgraded our allocation and, as such, we see some scope for spread tightening during the next few months as inflation rolls over and the Fed lifts rates by no more than what is already priced in the curve. That said, with the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, we think it’s unlikely that spreads can stay below average 2017-19 levels for any meaningful length of time. As a result, we maintain our current cautious allocation to US corporate bonds. US High-Yield Versus US Investment Grade The recent period of US corporate bond underperformance can be split into two stages based on the relative performance of investment grade and high-yield. US investment grade underperformed junk in the early stages of the selloff (between September and mid-March), as spread widening was driven by the Fed’s shift toward a more restrictive policy stance and not a meaningful uptick in the perceived risk of a recession and/or default wave (Chart 2A). Chart 2ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: September 27, 2021 To March 14, 2022 Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff But recession and default fears started to ramp up in mid-March, and this caused high-yield to join the selloff (Chart 2B). In fact, US investment grade corporates managed to recoup some of their earlier losses while lower-rated junk bonds struggled to keep pace. Chart 2BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: March 14, 2022 To Present Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff We contend that the risk of a meaningful uptick in corporate defaults during the next 12 months is low. In fact, we estimate that the US high-yield default rate will fall to between 2.7% and 3.7% during the next year, well below the 5.2% currently priced into junk spreads. Going forward, we expect the US corporate bond landscape to be defined by increasingly restrictive monetary policy and a benign default outlook. As we noted in the aforementioned Special Report, this environment is reminiscent of the 2004-06 Fed tightening cycle when high-yield bonds performed much better than investment grade. Investors should maintain a preference for high-yield over investment grade within an otherwise defensive allocation to US corporate bonds. US Industry Groups Chart 3A shows the performance of US corporate bonds in the early stages of the recent selloff, but this time split by industry group. High-yield Energy sticks out as a strong outperformer, though we also notice that every high-yield sector performed better than its investment grade counterpart. Chart 3ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: September 27, 2021 To March 14, 2022 Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Chart 3B once again shows how the relative performance between investment grade and high-yield has flipped since mid-March, though we see that high-yield Energy, Transportation and Utilities have performed better than the rest of the index.  Chart 3BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: March 14, 2022 To Present Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Interestingly, despite the strong outperformance of high-yield Energy bonds, investment grade Energy credits performed mostly in line with other investment grade sectors. We believe this presents an excellent opportunity.  The vertical axis of Chart 4A shows our measure of the risk-adjusted spread available in each investment grade industry group. Our risk-adjusted spread is the residual after adjusting for each sector’s credit rating and duration. The horizontal axis shows each sector’s Duration-Times-Spread as a simple measure of risk. Our model shows that Financials, Technology, Energy, Utilities, Communications and Basic Industry all stand out as attractive within the investment grade corporate bond universe. We identify the investment grade Energy sector as a particularly compelling buy. Chart 4AUS Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff In a prior report, we demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that the oil price is an important determinant of whether Energy bonds perform better or worse than the rest of the corporate index. With our commodity strategists calling for the Brent crude oil price to average $122/bbl next year, this will provide strong support to Energy bond returns. Cheap starting valuations for investment grade Energy bonds make them look even more compelling. Chart 4B repeats our valuation exercise but for high-yield industry groups. Within high-yield, we find that Financials, Transportation, Communications and Consumer sectors stand out as attractive. Interestingly, high-yield Energy bonds now look slightly expensive compared to the rest of the junk bond universe, a result of the sector’s recent incredibly strong performance. Chart 4BUS High-Yield Corporate Sector Valuation Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff US Credit Curve We define the credit curve as the difference in option-adjusted spread between the “Long Maturity” and “Intermediate Maturity” sub-indexes for each investment grade credit tier, as defined by Bloomberg. We exclude high-yield from this analysis because very few high-yield bonds are classified as “Long Maturity”. To analyze the credit curve, we observe that credit curves tend to be steeper when credit spreads are tight, and vice-versa. This is because tight spreads indicate that the perceived near-term risk of default is low. As a result, short-maturity spreads tend to be lower than spreads at the long-end of the curve. Conversely, a wide spread environment indicates that the perceived near-term risk of default is high, and this risk will be more reflected in shorter maturity credits. Charts 5A, 5B and 5C show the slopes of the credit curves for Aa, A and Baa-rated securities. Immediately we notice that credit curves are positively sloped in each case, and also that each credit curve is somewhat steeper than would be predicted based on the average spread for the overall credit tier. Chart 5AAa-Rated Credit Curve Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Chart 5BA-Rated Credit Curve Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Chart 5CBaa-Rated Credit Curve Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff This strongly suggests that investors should favor long-maturity over short-maturity US investment grade corporate bonds. European Corporates Look Cheap Vs. US Equivalents – For Patient Investors Chart 6European Credit Spreads At Past 'Non-Crisis' Peaks European Credit Spreads At Past 'Non-Crisis' Peaks European Credit Spreads At Past 'Non-Crisis' Peaks Turning to the euro area, the Bloomberg investment grade OAS and high-yield OAS currently sit at 167bps and 490bps, respectively (Chart 6). These levels are well below the peaks seen during the 2020 COVID recession and the 2011/12 European debt crisis, but are in line with the spread widening episodes in 2014/15 and 2018. Our preferred measure of credit spread valuation, 12-month breakeven spreads, show that European investment grade and high-yield spreads are in the 75th and 67th percentile of outcomes, respectively, dating back to the inception of the euro in 1998 (Chart 7).1 These are both higher compared to the breakeven percentile rankings for US investment grade (48%) and US high-yield (52%). The gap between the breakeven percentile rankings for investment grade bonds in the euro area versus the US is the widest seen over the past two decades.  That gap reflects the fact that European economic growth has softened versus the US according to the S&P Global manufacturing PMIs, while European inflation has accelerated towards very elevated US levels (Chart 8).  Chart 7European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads Chart 8European Corporate Underperformance Reflects Relative Growth & Inflation European Corporate Underperformance Reflects Relative Growth & Inflation European Corporate Underperformance Reflects Relative Growth & Inflation Both of those trends are a product of the Ukraine war, which has led to a massive spike in European energy costs given the region's huge reliance on Russian energy supplies, particularly for natural gas. While the US has also suffered a massive increase in its own energy bills, the inflation spike has been higher in Europe, leading to a bigger drag on economic confidence and growth. Thus, the widening spread differential between corporate bonds in Europe relative to the US likely reflects a growth-related risk premium. Chart 9A Turning Point For European Corporate Bond Performance? A Turning Point For European Corporate Bond Performance? A Turning Point For European Corporate Bond Performance? As euro area inflation has ratcheted higher, so have expectations of ECB monetary tightening. The euro area overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounts 172bps over the next 12 months, a huge swing from the start of 2022 when markets were expecting the European Central Bank (ECB) to stand pat on the interest rate front. In comparison, markets are pricing in another 224bps of Fed tightening over the next 12 months, even after the Fed has already delivered 75bps of tightening since March. Importantly, the gap between our 12-month discounters, which measure one-year-ahead interest rate changes discounted into OIS curves, for the US and Europe has proven to be a reliable leading indicator – by around nine months - of the relative year-over-year excess returns (on a USD-hedged basis) of European and US corporate bonds, especially for investment grade (Chart 9). The fact that this is a leading relationship suggests that the upward repricing of ECB rate expectations seen so far in 2022 is not yet a reason to turn more cyclically negative on European corporate bonds versus the US. The earlier upward repricing of expected Fed tightening is the more relevant factor, and is signaling that both US investment grade and high-yield corporates should underperform European equivalents over at least the rest of 2022.  BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy already has a recommended allocation along those lines, with an overweight to euro area investment grade and an underweight to US investment grade. While the trade has underperformed of late, the combined messages from the relative 12-month breakeven spread rankings (cheaper European valuations) and 12-month discounters (the Fed is further ahead in the tightening cycle) leads us to stick with that relative cross-Atlantic tilt. The main risk to that stance is any deterioration of the flow of energy supplies from Russia to Europe that results in a stagflationary outcome of a bigger growth slowdown with even faster inflation. That is a scenario that would make it difficult for the ECB to back down from its recent hawkish forward guidance, resulting in European corporate spreads incorporating an even wider risk premium.  Given that near-term uncertainty, we are advocating that investors maintain no relative tilt on more growth-sensitive, and riskier, European high-yield relative to the US – stay neutral on both. Stay Up In Quality On European Corporates Looking at euro area corporate debt across credit ratings and maturity buckets, there are few compelling immediate valuation stories in absolute terms, although there are potential opportunities unfolding on a relative basis.  Within investment grade, credit quality curves have steepened during the recent selloff, with lower-rated credit seeing larger spread widening (Chart 10). The gap between Baa-rated and A-rated European corporate spreads now sits at 52bps, right in the middle of the 25-75bps range since 2014. In high-yield, the gap between Ba-rated and B-rated credit spreads is 222bps, and the gap between B-rated and Caa-rated spreads is 370bps (Chart 11) – both are still below the previous peaks in those relationships seen in 2012, 2015 and 2020. Chart 10European IG Credit Quality Curve Can Steepen ##br##More European IG Credit Quality Curve Can Steepen More European IG Credit Quality Curve Can Steepen More Chart 11European HY Credit Quality Curve Still Below Previous Peaks European HY Credit Quality Curve Still Below Previous Peaks European HY Credit Quality Curve Still Below Previous Peaks For both investment grade and high-yield, there is still room for credit curves to steepen if European growth expectations continue to deteriorate. However, when looking at spread valuations across the credit quality spectrum, and across maturity buckets, euro area corporate spreads look much cheaper than US equivalents. In Chart 12, we show a snapshot of the current 12-month breakeven percentile rankings for individual credit quality tiers and maturity groups, for investment grade and high-yield in the euro area and US.  The relative attractiveness of European credit relative to the US is evident, with European spreads now at higher percentile rankings across all quality tiers and maturity buckets. The largest gaps between 12-month breakeven percentile rankings are in the +10 year maturity bucket, the AAA-rated and AA-rated investment grade credit tiers, and the Ba-rated high-yield credit tier. This suggests any trades favoring European corporates versus the US should stay up in credit quality. Chart 12Corporate Spread Valuations By Maturity & Credit Rating Favor Europe Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Comparing European & US Industry Spread Valuations When looking at the industry composition of the euro area and US corporate bond indices, there are a few major notable differences. Within investment grade, there is a greater concentration of Energy and Technology names in the US, while Financials are more represented in the European index (Chart 13).  Those same three industries also have the largest relative weightings in the high-yield indices (Chart 14), although there is also a slightly larger weighting of high-yield Transportation companies in Europe compared to the US.  This means that a bet on European credit versus the US is essentially a bet on European Financials versus US Energy and Technology. Chart 13Investment Grade Corporate Bond Market Cap Weights Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Chart 14High-Yield Corporate Bond Market Cap Weights Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff When looking at the same sector metrics that were shown earlier in this report for the US – comparing risk-adjusted spreads to Duration-Times-Spread – we find some interesting cross-Atlantic valuation differentials. For investment grade in Europe (Chart 15), only Energy and Financials have positive risk-adjusted spread valuations (after controlling for duration and credit quality), while having the highest level of risk expressed via Duration-Times-Spread. This contrasts to the US where more sectors have positive risk-adjusted spreads - Energy, Financials, Utilities, Basic Industry and Communications. Investors should favor the latter three industries in the US relative to Europe. Chart 15Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Within high-yield in Europe, Energy and Financials also offer positive risk-adjusted valuations, but so do Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Non-Cyclicals (Chart 16). This lines up similarly to US high-yield valuations. The notable valuation gaps exist in Transportation and Communications, which look cheap in the US and expensive in Europe, creating potential cross-Atlantic relative value trade opportunities between those sectors (and within an overall neutral allocation to junk in both regions). Chart 16Euro Area High-Yield Corporate Sector Valuation Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 12-month breakeven spreads measure the amount of spread widening that would be necessary to make the return on corporate bonds equal to that of duration-matched government bonds over a one-year horizon.  The spread is calculated as a ratio of the index OAS and index duration for the relevant credit market. We look at the historical percentile ranking of that ratio to make a more “apples for apples” comparison of spreads that factors in index duration changes over time. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary The sharp slide in the S&P 500 forward multiple has been painful, but it's only two-thirds of the way to its 1987 and 2002 declines. The inverse correlation between interest rates and the index P/E multiple is well established; if rates stop backing up, the multiple will stop being squeezed. Stocks would really be in trouble if their gains had entirely been a function of multiple inflation, but earnings growth has done the heavy lifting since 2008. Earnings growth will likely decelerate over the rest of the year, but it will remain a tailwind. A model regressing the index's forward multiple against a proprietary measure of inflation expectations and consumer perceptions of the labor market does a good job of explaining past valuation moves. If inflation has peaked and labor demand remains strong, multiples may be able to retrace some of their losses. De-Rating May Have Gone A Little Too Far De-Rating May Have Gone A Little Too Far De-Rating May Have Gone A Little Too Far Bottom Line: Although the 23% de-rating in equity valuations has been severe, it is not unprecedented – larger declines occurred in 1987 and 2002. While we estimate that the forward multiple’s fair value is one or two points above its current level, there is no timetable for when the actual multiple will return to it. Feature Our client conversations over the last few weeks have ultimately found their way to the issue that is front of mind for nearly all investors: Is the equity selloff almost finished, and how far will it go if it’s not? When analyzing equity performance, we find it useful to decompose the S&P 500 into expected earnings and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them. Solid full-year US growth remains our base-case scenario, even if our conviction has declined as inflation has bounded higher, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turbo-charged geopolitical tensions while crimping commodity supplies, and China’s response to its COVID surge threatens to undo tentative supply-chain progress. We therefore view moves in the S&P 500’s forward P/E multiple as the key swing factor. This report gathers our responses to several client questions that touch on multiples and presents some new research related to them. Our goal is to bring some fresh insights to the discussion while encouraging more clients to engage with it. Previous De-Rating Episodes Multiples have lost a lot of ground in a short period of time. Is there any precedent for what we’ve seen so far this year? Reliable consensus earnings estimates have only been compiled since 1979, so the entire history of forward multiple data is confined to the last 40-plus years. Over that timeframe, there have been two other periods when the month-end index multiple fell at least as much over a similarly brief stretch (Chart 1, top panel). The first occurred in 1987, when the forward multiple fell five points from 14.8 at the end of August to 9.8 at the end of November, a stunning three-month 33% valuation haircut that largely unfolded during Black Monday’s single-session bear market. The second occurred as the bear market that followed the dotcom bust careened to its conclusion, with the forward multiple again falling by a third, from 21.6 at year-end 2001 to 14.5 at the end of September 2002. Chart 1Multiples Can Reverse Suddenly Multiples Can Reverse Suddenly Multiples Can Reverse Suddenly The year-to-date decline of just under five multiple points, from 21.6 at year-end to 16.7 as of Wednesday’s close, has amounted to a 23% valuation adjustment in four-and-a-half months that has driven the index 18% lower. In standardized terms, the index multiple has matched 1987 with a 1.15-standard-deviation tumble, but it is still a half of a standard deviation shy of 2002’s swoon (Chart 1, bottom panel). The multiple’s 1.5-standard-deviation slide from its August 2020 month-end peak is a full standard deviation less than the 2.5-standard-deviation peak-to-trough flogging it endured during the dotcom bust. Bottom Line: The current selloff has been severe, but it is not unprecedented. Multiples can compress swiftly, especially when they are as elevated as they have been since stocks bottomed amidst the initial shock of the pandemic. Matching 1987's and 2002's 33% haircuts would involve lopping off another two multiple points and knocking the index down to the low 3,400s. Multiples And Interest Rates The history is scary. 3,400 would take us right back to where we were before the vaccines arrived and wipe out a year and a half of gains, but I take some comfort from still-low interest rates. Stocks may not be cheap relative to the whole 43-year history, but am I wrong to think they look pretty appealing given a 3% 10-year Treasury yield? Related Report  US Investment StrategyQ&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Interest rates provide the means for discounting future cash flows back to their present value and the theoretical link between multiples and interest rates is rock solid. When long-dated Treasury yields fall, the present value of a company’s future earnings rises, all else equal, and when yields rise, present value falls. All is not equal, of course, and earnings are prone to moving with interest rates, but the inverse relationship between interest rates and the present value of a fixed series of future cash flows is as constant as the tides. The empirical history shows that the theory holds up in the real world. The inverse relationship between S&P 500 forward multiples and 10-year Treasury yields is robust, with the level of yields explaining 46% of the variation in S&P 500 valuations since the forward multiple series began (Chart 2, top panel). The simple regression fit is undermined by the circled cluster of outlying observations with yields between 4.5 and 6.75% and forward multiples of 18 and above, all of which occurred between January 1997 and May 2002, when the dotcom mania severed the link between valuations and rates. When those observations are removed, the relationship becomes even stronger, with the level of yields explaining 69% of the variation in S&P 500 valuations (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2When Rates Zig, Multiples Zag Equity Multiples Q&A Equity Multiples Q&A Removing the dotcom observations from the datasets highlights the variability of forward valuations within the 0.5-4% range of Treasury yields that has prevailed since 2008. The observations well below the best-fit regression line occurred soon after the onset of the global financial crisis, when a growth shortfall loomed as the biggest threat and deflation was a plausible outcome. The observations well above the best-fit line were recorded since the pandemic, as the economy rode a wave of fiscal and monetary steroids whose potentially inflationary side effects were beyond the marginal price-setters’ decision horizon. We note that multiples are most likely headed back below the best-fit line if stagflation risks are perceived to grow in line with many investors’ fears. The equity risk premium (ERP), calculated as the forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward multiple) less the real 10-year Treasury yield, offers a rosier perspective for viewing the interaction between interest rates and equity valuations. It supports the notion that equity prices are attractive, given the current yield backdrop, and draws a sharp distinction between the pandemic’s 20-plus multiples and the dotcom era’s (Chart 3). Simple regression against the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that the S&P 500 is now fairly valued, while the ERP argues that it’s somewhat cheap. Equity valuations are vulnerable to further yield backups under both approaches, however. Chart 3Compared To Bonds, Equities Are Cheap Compared To Bonds, Equities Are Cheap Compared To Bonds, Equities Are Cheap Bottom Line: Multiples deserve to be elevated, relative to their history, given that long-dated Treasury yields remain near the bottom of their historical range, but they face more de-rating pressure if yields continue to rise. What Goes Around Comes Around The de-rating that’s occurring right now shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s stopped believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The Fed has manufactured the entire post-crisis rally with zero interest rates and QE and we’re simply witnessing the inevitable unwind. How can you argue that the selloff doesn’t have further to go? We hear the manufactured/manipulated argument a lot but we do not believe that the data support it. The advance in the S&P 500 since January 1, 2008 (Chart 4, top panel) has comfortably surpassed nearly everyone’s contemporaneous expectations and we do not dispute that ample monetary accommodation played a large part in smoothing the way for the US economy’s comparatively rapid recovery. In our view, however, the boost to the economy, as proxied by the potent rise in expected S&P 500 earnings (Chart 4, middle panel), was more important than investors’ increased willingness to pay up for them (Chart 4, bottom panel). Rebasing both series to 100 as of January 1, 2008 shows that consensus earnings estimates have risen by four more times than forward multiples since the onset of the global financial crisis. A similar analysis obtains for the current pandemic era, especially now that the S&P 500’s forward multiple has dipped back below its January 1, 2020 level (Chart 5, bottom panel). The index’s annualized 9.7% return has surpassed most investors’ wildest hopes when stocks were crumbling in the middle of March 2020 (Chart 5, top panel). The gain is entirely attributable to the 12.9% annualized increase in consensus earnings expectations (Chart 5, middle panel). Lavishly generous fiscal and monetary accommodation deserves the credit for the earnings snapback. Though excessive aid may eventually cause the economy to overheat, we disagree with the idea that the pandemic rally has been built on a house of monetary stimulus cards. Chart 4Earnings Have Driven The Post-Crisis ... Earnings Have Driven The Post-Crisis ... Earnings Have Driven The Post-Crisis ... ​​​​​​ Chart 5... And Post-Pandemic Bull Markets ... And Post-Pandemic Bull Markets ... And Post-Pandemic Bull Markets ​​​​​​ An Index Valuation Model Where do you think the S&P 500’s forward multiple should be right now? Although no one should expect that any given financial instrument should trade at its fair value at any particular moment in time, it is useful to have approximate fair value estimates to gauge assets’ relative attractiveness and future return prospects. To apply some quantitative rigor to answering this question, we set out to build a regression model that would point the way to an appropriate valuation range. We started with the 10-year Treasury yield as our first independent variable and examined various inflation, equity sentiment and consumer sentiment series to discover other variables that could enhance its explanatory powers. To most nearly isolate the multiple impact, we passed over measures of economic activity for variables that would not be expected to exert an equal or greater impact on S&P 500 earnings. Inflation measures in themselves failed to contribute to the cause, but inflation expectations series proved more availing. None of the major equity sentiment surveys nor BCA’s composite sentiment indicator contributed to the other variables’ explanatory power. Consumer confidence surveys showed some promise, and the difference in the Conference Board’s Jobs Plentiful/Jobs Hard to Find series performed the best in backtests. Much to our surprise, the 10-year Treasury yield lost its statistical significance along the way and we duly jettisoned it, leaving us with a model that regressed the index forward multiple against the exponentially smoothed long-run moving average of measured inflation used by our fixed income strategists to assess Treasury fair values and the net Jobs Plentiful measure. Chart 6 shows the historical path of the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter earnings multiple and the fitted value from our regression. The backtested fit is quite good, as befits the model’s 72% r-squared. Encouragingly, the model suggests that the de-rating has gone too far. It returned an 18.5 value at the end of April, a full point above the actual 17.5 reading and nearly two points above the 16.7 multiple as of Wednesday’s close. Chart 6Estimating What The S&P 500's Forward Multiple Should Be Estimating What The S&P 500's Forward Multiple Should Be Estimating What The S&P 500's Forward Multiple Should Be We take any modeled point estimate with a grain of salt and are dyed-in-the-wool skeptics about any quantitative model’s persistence as a practical investment guide. We nonetheless performed this modeling exercise to provide a quantitative historical basis for estimating the fair value of the S&P 500’s forward multiple. The fact that we threw the 10-year Treasury yield overboard does not invalidate Chart 2; multiples and long-maturity yields are plainly inversely related, but our internal inflation expectations measure apparently conveys all of the 10-year yield’s information about the forward multiple’s historical moves and then some. Like every conscientious evidence-based researcher, we will go wherever the data lead us, independent of any preconceptions we might bring to a particular study. The Road Ahead When will the selloff end? We don’t know the date, the time or the level at which the equity selloff will eventually end. If our view that earnings will hold up is correct, however, the answer will turn on when the de-rating ends. The equity risk premium, a simple regression against the level of long Treasury yields and a multi-factor regression incorporating BCA’s proprietary inflation expectations model and consumers’ perceptions of the jobs market all suggest that de-rating has gotten ahead of itself. A 23% haircut over four-and-a-half months seems extreme when we think an adverse inflection point is over a year away. We have never counted on settling down with TINA, figuring that it wasn’t her nature to stick around for the long haul. Sentiment is fickle, and one day investors will discover that she’s left without a by-your-leave. Despite the upheaval so far this year, however, we think equities still hold considerable relative allure. With inflation mauling the value of cash holdings and high-duration bonds, one could argue that the alternatives to equities are even less appealing than they were when she first appeared on the scene. Our Global Investment Strategy service tactically upgraded global equities to overweight from neutral two weeks ago and we are more inclined to add equity exposure than reduce it when we revisit our ETF portfolio holdings in next week’s month-end report. There is no shortage of obvious concerns from Beijing to Moscow to Bentonville, Arkansas, but we think the factors that could go right are getting short shrift. Russian forces bogged down in eastern Ukraine are less likely to pursue expanded military adventures, reducing the potential that western Europe and the US could be drawn into a larger conflict. China’s zero-COVID policy may be doomed to futility, but headway on domestic production of an mRNA vaccine and the global ramp-up of anti-viral medication production could limit future outbreaks’ impact on the supply chain. The bottom line is that we remain constructive over the cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe, while sharing the house view that the tactical equity outlook has improved. If the backup in bond yields has run its course for the time being, we expect that equity de-rating has as well. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com  

Executive Summary Global inflation will peak sometime in the next few months, a process that has likely already begun in the US. This will give policymakers some breathing room to turn less hawkish, a more credible stance given softening global growth momentum and increased financial market volatility. Our Global Golden Rule of Bond Investing suggests that overall government bond returns should turn positive over the next year, but with widening divergences across countries for our base case scenarios. Projected government bond return expectations over the next 12 months look most attractive in Australia, Germany and the UK – where far too many rate hikes are priced in – compared to the US, where the Fed is more likely to follow through on most, but not all, discounted rate increases. Japan has the lowest expected returns, and the defensive properties of “low-beta” JGBs will be less necessary with global yield momentum set to peak in the latter half of 2022. Our Global Golden Rule Base Case Scenarios For The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Bottom Line: The return expectations over the next year stemming from our Global Golden Rule suggest the following country allocation recommendations in global government bond portfolios: maintain overweights in Australia, Germany and the UK, stay underweight the US and neutral Canada, but downgrade Japan to underweight. Feature Chart 1A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market A Pause In The Global Bond Bear Market Global bond markets may finally be showing signs of settling down after a painful period of rising yields and high volatility. Government bond yields across the developed economies have fallen substantially over the past week as equity and credit markets have sold off, in a typical risk-off response to increased concerns over global growth momentum. For example, benchmark 10-year government yields have fallen by -32bps both the US and UK, -25bps in Germany and -22bps in Canada since the cyclical intraday high was reached on May 9. These moves are modest in the context of the cyclical bond bear market, with the Bloomberg Global Treasury index still down -12.1% year-to-date and -14.4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 1). That painful selloff has been driven by expectations of intense monetary tightening in response to surging global inflation. However, last week’s release of US Consumer Price Index data for April confirmed that US goods inflation has peaked, a trend that we expect to follow suit in other countries (Chart 2). That will leave inflation momentum, and eventual interest rate hikes, to be driven more by domestic services inflation that will prove to be less correlated across countries over the next 6-12 months (Chart 3). Chart 2Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . Inflation & Rate Hike Expectations Have Become Correlated. . . ​​​​​​ Chart 3. . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation . . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation . . .Making Our Global Golden Rule All About Inflation ​​​​​​ With that in mind, we revisit our framework for linking government bond returns to monetary policy outcomes versus expectations, the Global Golden Rule of Bond Investing. A Brief Overview Of The Global Golden Rule In September 2018, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.” This was an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, that links US Treasury returns (versus cash) to changes in the fed funds rate that were not already discounted in the US Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve.1 The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields and Treasury returns. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRevisiting Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We discovered that relationship also held in other developed market countries. This gave us a framework to help project expected global bond returns simply based on a view for future central bank interest rate moves versus market expectations.2 Specific details on the calculation of the Global Golden Rule can be found in those original 2018 papers. In the following pages, we present the latest results of the Global Golden Rule for the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, the euro area and Japan. The set-up for the chart shown for each country is the same. We show the 12-month policy rate “surprise”, defined as the actual change in the central bank policy rate over the preceding 12-months versus the expected 12-month change in the policy rate from a year earlier extracted from OIS curves (a.k.a. our 12-month discounters). We then compare the 12-month policy rate surprise to the annual excess return over cash (treasury bills) of the Bloomberg government bond index for each country. We also show the 12-month policy rate surprise versus the 12-month change in the government bond index yield. The very strong historical correlation between those latter two series is the backbone of the Global Golden Rule framework. After that, we present tables showing expected yield changes and excess returns for various maturity points, as well as the overall government bond index, derived from the Global Golden Rule regressions. The expected change in yield is derived from regressions on the policy rate surprises, with different estimations done for each maturity point. In the tables, we show the results for different scenarios for changes in policy rates. For example, the row in the return tables labeled “+25bps” would show the expected yield changes and excess returns if the central bank for that particular country lifts the policy interest rate by +25bps over the next 12 months. Showing these scenarios allows us to pick the one that most closely correlates to our own expectation for central bank actions, translating that into government bond return expectations. Global Golden Rule: US Chart 4Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' Risk/Reward Favors Less UST-Bearish Fed'Surprises' US Treasuries have delivered a painful loss of -7.8% versus cash over 12 months. Bearish outcomes of such magnitude were last seen during 1994 and 1999 when the Fed was aggressively lifting the funds rate. The Fed delivered a smaller hawkish surprise over the past year than those 1990s episodes, with a trailing 12-month policy rate surprise of -72bps. Thus, the Golden Rule underestimated losses realized by US Treasuries, as US bond yields moved to price in far more Fed tightening than what was expected one year ago. The US OIS curve now discounts +229bps of rate hikes over the next 12 months, taking the fed funds rate to 3.3% (Chart 4). That is a more aggressive profile than was laid out in the March 2022 Fed “dots”, where the median FOMC member projection called for the funds rate to climb to 2.8% in 2023. That means there is less scope for Fed rate hikes to surprise versus market expectations that are already very hawkish, at a time when US growth and inflation momentum is rolling over. Our base case calls for the Fed to deliver +200bps of rate increases over the next year, +50bps at the next two policy meetings followed by +25bps at the subsequent four meetings. That outcome produces a Golden Rule forecast of the overall US Treasury index yield falling -13bps, generating a total return of +3.73% (Tables 1 & 2). Table 1US: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 2US: Expected Changes In Treasury Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Canada Chart 5Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian Bonds Selloff After A Hawkish BoC Canadian government bonds have sold off hard over the past 12 months, delivering an excess return over cash of -7.5% (Chart 5). That loss reflects the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) hawkish turn, but is a less severe outcome compared to other developed economy government bond markets that saw a major repricing of rate hike expectations like the US and Australia. Losses in the Canadian government bond market were consistent with the +34bps of hawkish surprises delivered by the BoC, which tightened by +75bps on a 12-month basis versus the +41bps expected by markets in May 2021. Rate expectations are highly aggressive on a forward basis. The Canadian OIS curve now discounts 210bps of interest rate increases over the next 12 months. However, high household debt in Canada, fueled by a relentlessly expanding housing bubble, will limit the ability of the BoC to match the Fed’s rate hikes over the next 6-12 months. Higher debt levels also imply a lower nominal neutral rate of interest, as the BoC has less room to hike before debt servicing costs become overly burdensome for overleveraged Canadian consumers. Our base case is that the BoC will deliver +150bps of tightening over the next 12 months. This produces a Golden Rule forecast of a decline in the overall Canadian government bond index yield of -17bps, delivering a projected total return of 4.52% (Tables 3 & 4). Table 3Canada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 4Canada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Australia Chart 6Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Aggressive Rate Hike Expectations On A Forward Basis For Australia Australian government bonds have delivered a negative excess return over cash of -9.6% over the past year (Chart 6). This is the biggest sell-off among all the countries covered in our Global Golden Rule framework. The magnitude of those realized losses far exceeded what would have been predicted by the Golden Rule a year ago, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) delivering only a modest hawkish surprise. An unexpectedly high Australian headline inflation print of 5.1% in Q1 of this year led the RBA to deliver a surprise +25bps rate hike in April. This created a mild hawkish policy rate surprise of -17bps over the past 12 months, as only +8bps of tightening had been discounted in the Australian OIS curve in May 2021. The Australian OIS curve is now discounting 292bps of rate hikes over the next year, taking the cash rate to just over 3% - a level last seen in 2013 when the neutral rate in Australia was much higher by the RBA’s own reckoning. The RBA appears confident in the Australian economy, forecasting the unemployment rate to reach a 50-year low around 3.5% in 2023. However, we believe the RBA will be more measured in its pace of rate increases over the next year than markets expect, as global traded goods inflation cools and Australian wages are still not overheating. According to the Golden Rule projections, our base case of +150bps of tightening will produce a decline in Australian government bond index yield of -92bps, delivering a projected total return of 9.29% (Tables 5 & 6). Table 5Australia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 6Australia: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: UK Chart 7The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect The BoE Will Hike Less Than Markets Expect UK government bonds have gotten hit hard over the past year, delivering a negative excess return over cash of -7.9% - one of the worst performances seen over the past quarter century (Chart 7). The size of that loss was in line with the Global Golden Rule forecasts, given the magnitude of the rate shock seen in the UK. The Bank of England (BoE) hiked rates by 90bps over the past 12 months, which was a hawkish surprise of -79bps compared to what was discounted one year earlier. The UK OIS curve is now priced for another +139bps of rate hikes over the next year. This would take the BoE’s Bank Rate to 2.4%, a level that would push the UK unemployment rate up by two percentage points and lower UK inflation to below 2% within the next 2-3 years, according to the BoE’s own forecasting models. As we discussed in our report last week, where we upgraded our stance on UK Gilts to overweight, the neutral level of UK policy rates is between 1.5-2%, at best, with UK potential growth barely above 1%. Thus, markets are already pricing in a very restrictive monetary policy stance from the BoE that is unlikely to be fully delivered before UK growth and inflation decline sharply. Our base case calls for the BoE to deliver only another +75bps of hikes over the next year, which will produce a fall in the UK government bond index yield of -21bps and a total return of 4.12% (Tables 7 & 8). Table 7UK: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 8UK: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Germany Chart 8German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German Bunds Stand To Gain From An ECB Dovish Surprise German government bonds suffered major losses over the past year, underperforming cash by -8.5% over the past year. We saw no policy surprise from the European Central Bank (ECB) over that time relative to market expectations (Chart 8). The dramatic sell-off instead reflected surging expectations of future tightening as the euro area faces an energy-driven inflation spike. The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for Germany (and the overall euro area) remains stuck near zero. However, markets now expect a very aggressive move by the ECB, discounting a full +156bps of tightening over the next 12 months. This would push the ECB’s main refinancing rate to levels last seen in the disastrous tightening cycle during the 2011 European debt crisis. As argued by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, the euro area is heading into a growth slowdown and energy inflation looks set to peak. Even if the hawks are able to sway the ECB Governing Council to begin hiking rates this summer, the slowing trajectory of growth and inflation make it highly unlikely that the ECB will deliver the full amount of tightening currently discounted. Our base case is that the ECB will deliver only +50bps of tightening over the next 12 months, enough to push the deposit rate out of negative territory to 0%. As shown in Tables 9 & 10, this is consistent with the Germany government bond index yield falling -55bps, delivering an index return of 5.07% over a 12-month horizon. Table 9Germany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 10Germany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Global Golden Rule: Japan Chart 9The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited The Upside On A BoJ Dovish Surprise Is Limited Japanese government bonds (JGBs) have delivered an excess return versus cash of -1.8% over the past twelve months (Chart 9). The policy rate surprise was flat as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) kept the policy rate unchanged at -0.1%. Admittedly, the Golden Rule framework is poorly suited to project Japanese bond returns. The BoJ has been unable to lift policy rates for many years, while instituting yield curve control on 10-year JGBs since 2016 to anchor yields near zero. With no variability on policy rates or bond yields, a methodology that links bond returns to unexpected policy interest rate changes will have poor predictive power. However, rates traders are making some attempt to challenge the BoJ’s ultra-dovish posture. The Japan OIS curve now discounts +9bps of tightening, approximately enough to push the policy rate to zero, over the next 12 months. With the yen weakening rapidly and the cost of imported energy elevated, consumer price inflation in Tokyo (excluding fresh food) hit the BoJ’s 2% target in April. However, as evidenced in the minutes of the March BoJ meeting, policymakers see a sustainable inflation overshoot as unlikely. Our base case is the “Flat” scenarios shown in Tables 11 & 12, with the BoJ keeping policy rates unchanged for the next twelve months and delivering a slight dovish surprise. That generates a Golden Rule forecast of a -6bps fall in the Japanese government bond index yield, with a total return projection of 0.87%. Table 11Japan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Table 12Japan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Investment Implications Of The Global Golden Rule Projections For all the countries discussed above, our base case calls for the respective central banks to deliver less tightening than markets are discounting over the next year. This suggests that government bonds should be expected to deliver positive returns versus cash, even as we expect multiple rate increases from all central banks except the BoJ. While this could argue for an above-benchmark duration stance at the overall global level, we prefer to translate the Global Golden Rule results via country allocations – as we have greater conviction on relative central bank moves in the current high inflation environment – while keeping overall global duration exposure at neutral. The return outcomes for our base case scenarios for the six countries in our Global Golden Rule framework are presented in Table 13. We show the expected returns both in local currency and hedged into US dollars, the latter allowing a comparison in common currency terms. In our base case scenarios, we expect Australian and German government bonds to deliver the strongest performance over the next year, followed by the UK, Canada, the US and Japan. Table 13Our Global Golden Rule Base Case Scenarios For The Next 12 Months Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Chart 10Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Downgrade 'Defensive' Low-Yield-Beta JGBs To Underweight Our UK upgrade to overweight last week was a change to our strategic call on Gilts. Based on the results from our Global Golden Rule update, increased exposure to UK Gilts should be “funded” in a global bond portfolio by reducing exposure to Japan, with JGBs expected to deliver the weakest returns. Cutting JGB exposure also fits with the signal from our Global Duration Indicator, which is heralding a peak in global bond yield momentum in the latter half of 2022 (Chart 10). JGBs are typically a good “defensive” overweight country allocation in an environment of rising global bond yields. Persistently low Japanese inflation prevents the BoJ from credibly signaling rate hikes when other central banks like the Fed are lifting rates in response to stronger growth or overshooting inflation as is currently the case. The relative performance of Japan versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury benchmark index (in USD-hedged terms) is highly correlated to the year-over-year momentum of the overall level of global bond yields. With our Duration Indicator signaling a peak in yield momentum, we expect JGBs, which continue to exhibit a very low “beta” to changes in global bond yields, to underperform. Thus, this week we are downgrading our strategic allocation to Japan from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). We view this as an offsetting recommendation to our UK upgrade from last week, while leaving our other country allocations unchanged. The result is that our country recommendations now line up with the expected returns from our Global Golden Rule, as can be seen in Table 13. That includes leaving the recommended US Treasury exposure at underweight, as we expect the Fed to deliver the smallest dovish surprise out of the central banks discussed in this report. We are adding both of the view changes made over the past two weeks, upgrading the UK and downgrading Japan, to our model bond portfolio as seen on pages 20-21. Bottom Line: Our Global Golden Rule suggests that developed market government bonds are expected to deliver positive returns over the next year as softening inflation momentum leads central banks to not fully deliver discounted rate hikes. Return expectations look most attractive in Australia, Germany and the UK, especially compared to the US and Japan.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Deborah Acri Research Associate deborah.acri@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcarearch.com. 2     Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Updating Our Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing As Inflation Momentum Peaks Tactical Overlay Trades