Mega Themes

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth It is still possible that equities can outperform bonds over the next 12 months, but the risks to this are rising. Inflation may surprise further to the upside, amid rising commodity prices, pushing the Fed to tighten aggressively.  Tighter financial conditions augur badly for growth (see Chart).  We cut our recommendation for global equities to neutral and increase our allocation to cash. We continue to prefer the lower-beta US stock market over the euro zone and Emerging Markets. We are overweight defensive and structural growth sectors: Healthcare, Consumer Staples, IT and Industrials. Government bond yields have limited upside from here to year-end. We are neutral duration. US high-yield bonds are attractive: They are pricing in a big rise in defaults this year, which we see as unlikely. Recommendation Changes Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious   Bottom Line: Rising uncertainty warrants a more defensive stance. Prudent investors should have only a benchmark weight in equities, and look for other hedges against downside risk. Overview Recommended Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Rather like Arnold Toynbee’s definition of history, markets in the past few months have been hit by “just one damned thing after another”. But, despite war in Ukraine, big upward surprises to inflation, and a swift aggressive turn by the Fed, global equities are only 6% off their all-time high. It is still possible that equities may outperform bonds over the next 12 months and that the global economy will avoid recession (Chart 1). But the risks to this are rising. We recommend, therefore, that prudent investors reduce their equity holdings to benchmark weight and generally have somewhat defensive portfolio positioning. We put the money raised from going neutral on equities into cash, not bonds. What are the risks? Inflation could surprise further to the upside. Inflation has spread beyond a few pandemic-related items to goods where prices are usually sticky (Chart 2). There are now clear signs that price rises are feeding through to wage increases in the US, UK and Canada – though not yet in the euro area, Japan or Australia (Chart 3). The supply response that we expected to see emerge later this year may be delayed because of Covid lockdowns in China and disruptions in supply from Russia and Ukraine (Chart 4). Consensus forecasts for US core PCE inflation see it coming down to 2.5% by next year. The risk is that it could exceed that. The Fed has got way behind the curve. In retrospect, it should have raised rates last summer – and it now understands its error. Its first hike this cycle came only when the economy had already overheated (Chart 5). The Fed may, therefore, be tempted to get rates up very quickly – something the futures market is now pricing in, since it implies that the year-end Fed Funds Rate will be 2.5%. An aggressive Fed cycle – propelled by inflation fears – is not a good environment for risk assets. Chart 1Can Stocks Keep On Outperforming Bonds? Can Stocks Keep On Outperforming Bonds? Can Stocks Keep On Outperforming Bonds? Chart 2Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Chart 3Price Rises Feeding Through To Wages In Some Regions Price Rises Feeding Through To Wages In Some Regions Price Rises Feeding Through To Wages In Some Regions Chart 4Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Financial conditions had already tightened before the Fed hiked because of higher long-term rates, widening credit spreads, and a strengthening dollar. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index points to the ISM Manufacturing Index falling below 50 later this year (Chart 6). That is the level that historically has been the dividing line between stocks outperforming bonds year-over-year (Chart 7). In particular, the sharp rise in long-term rates (the US 10-year Treasury yield has risen by 110 BPs, and the German yield by 93 BPs over the past seven months) could start to put some pressure on housing markets (Chart 8). Chart 5The Fed Hiked Too Late Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Chart 6Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Chart 7Will PMIs Fall Below 50? Will PMIs Fall Below 50? Will PMIs Fall Below 50? Chart 8Rising Rates Might Dampen The Housing Market Rising Rates Might Dampen The Housing Market Rising Rates Might Dampen The Housing Market The war in Ukraine is unlikely to be a risk in itself. BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists think it very improbable that the conflict will spill beyond the borders of Ukraine – though there remains tail risk of a mistake. But the war is having a big impact on energy prices, especially electricity prices in Europe (Chart 9). The oil price could remain high while Russian oil, which used to be consumed in Europe, is diverted elsewhere. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects that increased supply from OPEC members will bring Brent crude down to around $90 a barrel by year-end. But, as our Client Question on page 14 details, that calculation relies on many assumptions, and the risk is that the oil price stays high. A doubling of the oil price year-on-year (which currently equates to $120/barrel) has historically often been followed by recession (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe's Electricity Prices Have Soared Europe's Electricity Prices Have Soared Europe's Electricity Prices Have Soared Chart 10Oil Price Is Close To The Risk Level Oil Price Is Close To The Risk Level Oil Price Is Close To The Risk Level China has been easing fiscal and monetary policy. But it is questionable how effective its stimulus will be this time. Confidence in the real estate market remains damaged. And the pick-up in credit growth has been limited to local government bond issuance; there is little sign that the private sector has appetite to borrow (Chart 11). Already some of these risks are affecting economic data. Consumer confidence has collapsed, presumably because of the rising cost of living (Chart 12). Although US activity indicators such as the manufacturing ISM remain elevated (see Chart 6 above), data in Europe is showing notable weakness (Chart 13).   Chart 11China's Stimulus Not Helping The Private Sector China's Stimulus Not Helping The Private Sector China's Stimulus Not Helping The Private Sector Chart 12Consumer Confidence Has Been Hit Consumer Confidence Has Been Hit Consumer Confidence Has Been Hit The yield curve is also getting close to signaling recession. There has been much debate of late about which yield curve to use, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell arguing for the 3-month/3-month 18-month forward curve, rather than the more usual 2/10 year or 3 month/10 year curves (Chart 14). The 2/10 is close to inverting, while the others are still a long way away. All measures of the yield curve have historically given reliable recession signals; the difference is simply a matter of timing, with the 2/10 giving the longest lead time.1 If the Fed ends up tightening as much as it intends, all the yield curves will likely invert within the next year or so. Chart 13European Data Starting To Weaken European Data Starting To Weaken European Data Starting To Weaken Chart 14It Depends On Which Yield Curve You Look At It Depends On Which Yield Curve You Look At It Depends On Which Yield Curve You Look At And, despite all these warning signals, forecasts for economic and earnings growth have not been revised down much.  Economists still expect 3.4-3.5% real GDP growth in the US and euro zone this year, well above trend (Chart 15). And, despite the drop in GDP forecasts, earnings forecasts have actually been revised up since the start of the year, with analysts now expecting 9.6% EPS growth in the US and 8.2% in the euro zone (Chart 16). Chart 15GDP Growth Is Still Expected To Be Above Trend... GDP Growth Is Still Expected To Be Above Trend... GDP Growth Is Still Expected To Be Above Trend... Chart 16...And Earnings Have Not Been Revised Down At All ...And Earnings Have Not Been Revised Down At All ...And Earnings Have Not Been Revised Down At All This all seems too much uncertainty for most asset allocators to want to stay fully risk-on. There are valid arguments that equities and other risk assets can continue to perform (which we outline in the following section, Risks To Our View). But the risks have shifted enough since the start of the year that a more defensive stance is now warranted. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Risks To Our View Chart 17Fed Feedback Loop Back In Action? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Since our main scenario is somewhat cautious – and sentiment towards risk assets pretty pessimistic – we need to consider what could cause upside surprises to the economy and market. The most likely would be if the Fed were to turn more dovish. But the main trigger for this would be if the stock market fell sharply or growth showed clear signs of slowing – which would obviously be negative for stocks first. This scenario could produce the sort of Fed feedback loop we saw in 2015-17, when tightening financial conditions caused the Fed to ease back on rate hikes (Chart 17). More benign would be a gradual easing of inflation over the summer which would mean that the Fed could eventually hike a little less than the market currently expects. The economy may also not be as vulnerable to higher energy prices and higher rates as we fear. Food and energy are now a much smaller part of the consumption basket than they were in the 1970s (Chart 18). Rates may have a limited impact on the housing market, given the low inventory of new houses, strong household formation, and the fact that, in the US at least, some 90% of mortgages are 30-year fixed rate. Consumers continue to hold large amounts of excess savings – more than $2 trillion in the US alone. This should keep retail sales growth strong, though there might be some shift from spending on goods to spending on services as Covid fears recede (Chart 19). Chart 18Consumers Are Less Sensitive To Food And Energy Prices... Consumers Are Less Sensitive To Food And Energy Prices... Consumers Are Less Sensitive To Food And Energy Prices... Chart 19...And So May Keep On Spending ...And So May Keep On Spending ...And So May Keep On Spending Other upside risks include: A ceasefire and settlement in Ukraine (unlikely soon, since Russia will not withdraw without taking over Crimea and the Donbass, something Ukraine could not accept); more aggressive stimulus in China (possible, but only if Chinese growth weakened much further); and a sharp fall in the oil price caused by new supply coming onto the market from Saudi Arabia and North American shale fields, and possibly also Iran and Venezuela. What Our Clients Are Asking What Is The Risk Of Stagflation? Chart 20The Combination Of High Inflation And High Unemployment Was The Key Problem In The 1970s Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Several clients have asked about the risk of stagflation, and how the current episode compares to the 1970s. We can begin by dispelling some myths about the 1970s. There is a notion that this was a decade of poor growth for the US. That is simply not true. Real GDP grew by a solid 3.3% annual rate during the 1970s, higher than in any post-WW2 decade other than the 1990s and the 1960s (Chart 20, panel 1). The underlying problem during the 1970s was the combination of high inflation and a poor labor market. Despite solid growth, the unemployment rate kept grinding higher as inflation was increasing, never dropping below 4.5% even at the peaks of the expansions (Chart 20, panel 2). This situation went against the commonly held belief that it was not possible for both these variables to remain high at the same time for an extended period. With the economy plagued by both high inflation and high unemployment, the Fed faced a difficult dilemma: Keep interest rates too high and the already weak labor market would worsen; keep interest rates too low and inflation would spiral out of control. Throughout the decade, the Fed chose the latter option, causing inflation expectations to become unmoored. Chart 21Demographic Shocks And The Structure Of The Labor Force Led To A Weak Labor Market Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Why was there so much slack in the labor market? Demographics were one of the main culprits. The entrance of baby boomers into the workforce dramatically increased the pool of workers. At the same time, prime-age female participation rose at the fastest pace on record, adding additional supply to the labor force (Chart 21, panel 1). The structure of the labor market also played a key role. Almost a third of employees belonged to a union and most of their salaries were indexed to inflation (Chart 21, panels 2 & 3). This made for a rigid labor market where neither employment nor wages could adjust properly to the economic cycle. True, the oil shocks of 1974 and 1979 exacerbated inflationary pressures. But what made inflation truly pernicious during the 1970s was the inability of the Fed to fight it without compromising its employment mandate. Today the economic picture is very different. Union membership stands at only 10% and cost of living adjustments have essentially disappeared. There is also no labor supply shock on the horizon comparable to the baby boomers or women entering the labor force. This makes the calculus for the Fed easy. With its employment mandate already met, it will simply keep raising rates until inflation is back under control. As a result, the risk that it keeps policy too easy and unleashes further inflationary pressures is relatively low over the next 12 months.     How Will The War In Ukraine Affect The World Economy? Chart 22The Ukrainian War Has Impacted The Global Economy Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Global growth, monetary policy, and employment were projected to return to pre-pandemic trends in 2023. In January, the IMF projected global growth of 4.4% in 2022, but now it is poised to cut its forecast due to the war in Ukraine. According to OECD estimates, global economic growth could be 1% lower than what was previously predicted (Chart 22, panel 1). The conflict is putting fresh strain on overstretched global supply chains, causing the price of many commodities to surge. Russia and Ukraine are relatively small in terms of economic output (together they comprise only 1.9% of global GDP in US dollar terms). But they are very big producers and exporters of energy, metals, and key food items. Russia, for example, produces 12% of global oil, one-third of palladium, and (with Belarus) 40% of potash (used in fertilizers). Ukraine is also a major producer of auto parts, such as wire harnesses. Some European car manufacturers have had to idle factories due to a lack of components.  Global central banks have been increasing interest rates to battle inflation. But higher energy and food prices will require additional rate hikes to ensure price stability. The war in Ukraine could push up world inflation by around 2.5% this year, according to the OECD. Developing economies are in a particularly tight spot, being hit with high inflation in food and basic commodities. Their consumer price indices are very sensitive to these items. Russia and Ukraine are the main global exporters of several agricultural items (for example, they together account for a quarter of global wheat exports) which could cause global food insecurity to increase (Chart 22, panel 2). International sanctions on Russia create a risk for foreign companies with operations there. Withdrawal could have a meaningful effect on earnings. Most multinationals have only limited exposure to Russia, but a small number of prominent names make more than 5% of global revenues from the country (Chart 22, panel 3).   Chart 23AOPEC Is Able To Cover Supply Shortages... OPEC Is Able To Cover Supply Shortages... OPEC Is Able To Cover Supply Shortages... Chart 23B...Unlike Other Countries... ...Unlike Other Countries... ...Unlike Other Countries... Chart 23CTo Restore A Balanced But Tight Market To Restore A Balanced But Tight Market To Restore A Balanced But Tight Market What Is The Risk That The Oil Price Stays High? Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. Because of this, they expect the price of Brent crude to fall back, to average $93 per barrel this year and next. OPEC core producers fear that low inventories and an oil price above $100 per barrel will lead to demand destruction. They will therefore aim to bring prices down. They have enough spare capacity (approximately 3.2mm b/d) to cover physical deficits in global markets (Chart 23A). However, the risk to this view is tilted to the upside. The key question is whether OPEC producers will in fact ramp up production. The OPEC meeting held on March 2, 2022 noted that current market volaility is a function of geopolitical developments and does not reflect changes in market fundamentals: This could imply a reluctance to increase production as quickly as we expect. Saudi Arabia’s interest in exploiting yuan-settled oil trades with China adds an element of uncertainty. With OPEC’s intention to increase production in question, and Russian oil sanctioned and unlikely to be rerouted easily and quickly, there remains little alternative supply: Countries such as Iraq and Venezuela are unlikely to make up for supply deficits (Chart 23B). The US-Iran talks also add downside uncertainty to our price outlook. Our commodity strategists have recently ended their forecast of a return of 1-1.3mm b/d of Iranian oil (Chart 23C). A no-deal scenario is likely to lead to an escalation in tensions and volatility, warranting higher oil prices in the short term. Nevertheless, there remains the possibility that the US administration will be keen on striking a deal with Iran to reduce the risk of a global oil supply shock. This would, in turn, reduce the risk of military conflict, at least in the short-term, and remove some risk premium from oil prices. It might also lead to further increases in production from the Gulf states to prevent Iran from stealing market share, putting further downward pressure on the oil price.   Chart 24Is It Time To Favor EMU Equities? Is It Time To Favor EMU Equities? Is It Time To Favor EMU Equities? When Will Euro Area Stocks Rebound?  Chinese policy makers have sounded more aggressive of late in terms of supporting the Chinese economy and stock market, especially property and tech shares. This is a positive development for euro area equities given the region’s strong reliance on the Chinese economy (Chart 24, panel 1).  Euro area equities have been in a structural downtrend relative to US equities, but have historically staged occasional counter-trend rallies (Chart 24, panel 2). It’s possible that stocks in this region may stage another short-term rebound at some point because they are technically oversold, and valuation is extremely cheap (Chart 24, panel 3).  Investors with a longer-term investment horizon, however, should remain underweight euro area stocks until there are more signs that the region is out of its stagflation state. As we argue in the Global Equities section on page 18, the key factor to watch over the next 9-12 months is profitability. Global earnings growth will slow significantly this year in response to higher input costs and lower revenue growth.  As a net importer of energy and industrial metals, euro area earnings growth will continue to slow more than in the US (Chart 24, panel 4). In addition, in times of high uncertainty, we prefer to shelter in less volatile markets. The euro area has a much higher beta than the US (Chart 24, panel 5). Bottom Line: While there could be an opportunity to overweight euro area stocks versus the US tactically, long-term investors should continue to favor the US.   Global Economy Chart 25Global Growth Remains Robust... Global Growth Remains Robust... Global Growth Remains Robust... Overview: Global growth has been strong. But this has triggered a surge in inflation, which is pushing central banks to tighten policy more quickly than was expected even three months ago. At the same time, higher prices – and falling real wages – have started to hurt consumer confidence. This raises the risk of stagflation, particularly if disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine push commodity prices up further. A recession is still unlikely over the next 12-18 months, but the risk of one has clearly risen. US economic growth has remained robust, led by consumption and capex. GDP growth in Q4 was 5.6% QoQ annualized. The ISMs remain strong, with manufacturing at 58.5 and services 58.9 (Chart 25, panel 2). However, there are some early signs of slowdown. The Atlanta Fed Nowcast points to only 0.9% annualized growth in Q1. The effect of higher inflation (with headline CPI at 7.9% YoY) might hurt consumer confidence, since average hourly earnings growth lags behind inflation at only 5.1%. Higher rates could also dampen the housing market. With the average mortgage rate rising to 4.5%, from 3.3% at the end of last year, there are signs of a slowdown in house sales (which fell 9.5% YoY in January). Euro Area: Growth remains decent, with Q4 GDP 4.6% QoQ annualized, and robust PMIs (manufacturing at 57.0 and services at 54.8). However, wage growth lags that in the US (negotiated wages rose only 1.5% YoY in Q4), and the impact of a sharp jump in energy prices (exacerbated by the war in Ukraine) could dent consumption. Recent data have deteriorated noticeably: Consumer confidence collapsed to -18.7 in March, and the March ZEW survey (Chart 26, panel 1) fell to -38.7 (from +48.6 in February). With weak underlying growth, and core CPI inflation a relatively modest 2.7%, the ECB will not need to rush to raise rates. Chart 26...But Higher Inflation Is Starting To Damage Confidence ...But Higher Inflation Is Starting To Damage Confidence ...But Higher Inflation Is Starting To Damage Confidence Japan: Economic growth remains rather anemic. Manufacturing is supported by exports (which rose by 19.1% YoY in January), helping the manufacturing PMI to stay in positive territory at 53.2. But wage growth remains stagnant (0.9% YoY) and the rise in oil prices has pushed up headline inflation to 0.9%, leading to a weakening of consumer sentiment. The services PMI is a weak 48.7. There are hopes that this year’s shunto wage round will lead to strong wage rises (the government is lobbying businesses to raise wages by 3%) but this seems unlikely. With inflation ex food and energy languishing at -1.9% (even if that is distorted by cuts in mobile phone charges), there seems little need for the Bank of Japan to tighten policy. Emerging Markets: Chinese economic indicators remain depressed (Chart 26, panel 3), even though global demand for manufactured goods means exports are rising 16.4% YoY. The authorities have been easing policy, which has led to a mild uptick in credit growth. But there are questions on how effective stimulus will be, since the housing market has been damaged by the problems at Evergrande and other developers, and because China seems to be sticking to its zero-Covid policy. Some other EMs will be helped by the rise in commodity prices: South Africa, for example, saw 4.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. But many developed countries were forced to raise rates sharply last year because of inflation and this may slow growth in 2022. Brazil’s policy rate, for example, has risen to 11.75% from 2% last April, and that has dampened activity: Brazilian industrial production is falling 7.2% YoY, and retail sales are -1.9% YoY. Interest Rates: Recorded inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 26, panel 4) have risen sharply everywhere. Slowing demand for manufactured goods and a supply-side response should allow monthly inflation to peak over the next few months – although the risks remain to the upside if commodity prices continue to rise. The surge in inflation has pushed up long-term rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising by 82 BPs year-to-date and that in Germany by 73 BPs. However, the market is now pricing in very aggressive tightening by central banks through year-end: 214 BPs of further hikes by the Fed, and even 75 BPs by the ECB. The probability is that neither will do quite that much, and therefore the upside for long-term government bond yields is probably capped around its current level for the next 6-9 months.   Global Equities Chart 27Watch Earnings Revisions Closely Watch Earnings Revisions Closely Watch Earnings Revisions Closely Watch Earnings Closely: Global equities suffered a loss of 4% in Q1/2022 despite strong earnings growth. Except for the Utilities sector, all other sectors have positive 12-month trailing and forward earnings growth. Consequently, overall equity valuation, based on forward PE, is no longer stretched (Chart 27). Going forward, however, the macro backdrop of rising inflation and a slowing economy does not bode well for earnings growth, with the profit margin in developed markets already at a historical high. Rising input costs from both materials and wages will put downward pressure on profit margins while revenue growth slows. BCA Research’s global earnings model suggests that earnings growth will slow significantly this year. As such, we downgrade equities to neutral from overweight at the asset class level (see Overview section on page 2). Within equities, we maintain our already cautious country allocation, which served us well in both 2021 and Q1/22. The out-of-consensus overweight on the US and underweight on the euro area panned out well in Q1 2022, as the US outperformed the euro area by 5.9%. After the more defensive adjustment between the UK and Canada in the March Monthly Update, our country allocation portfolio has been well positioned, with overweights in the US and UK, underweights in the euro area, Canada and emerging markets excluding China, while neutral Australia, Japan, and China. In line with the shift of our structural view on industrial commodities, we upgrade the Materials sector to neutral from underweight at the expense of Real Estate and Communication Services. After these adjustments and the added defensive tilt that we took in the February Monthly Update, our global sector portfolio has a tilt towards defensive and structural growth by being overweight Tech, Industrials, Healthcare and Consumer Staples, underweight Consumer Discretionary, Utilities, and Communication Services, while neutral Materials, Financials, Energy and Real Estate. Chart 28Sector Adjustments Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Sector Allocation: Upgrade Materials To Neutral, Downgrade Real Estate to Neutral, Downgrade Communication Services to Underweight. Russia’s war on Ukraine is a watershed moment for industrial metals. It has altered the dynamics of the metals market which used to be dominated by Chinese demand. We had a structural underweight in the Materials sector because China was undergoing a deleveraging process. Now the Russian-Ukrainian war has demonstrated how dangerous it is for Europe to rely on Russia for energy supply and how important it is for Europe to have a strong military defense system.  Rebuilding Europe’s defense will compete with energy diversification initiatives to boost demand for metals. Such a structural shift no longer warrants an underweight in Materials (Chart 28, panel 1).  In addition, relative valuation in the Materials sector is as low as it was in the early 2000s, right before the multi-year upcycle in Materials’ relative performance (Chart 28, panel 2).  Why not go overweight then? The concern is that the sector is technically overbought due to the sharp rises in metal price. Covid lockdowns in China have disrupted the supply chain in metals, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has further intensified the rise in metals prices due to extremely low inventories. We will watch closely for a better entry point to upgrade this sector to overweight. To finance this upgrade, we downgrade Real Estate to neutral from overweight, and Communication Services to underweight from neutral. Both downgrades are driven by a deteriorating relative earnings growth outlook as shown in Chart 28, panels 4 and 5. Rising mortgage rates do not bode well for the Real Estate sector. “Reopening from Covid lockdowns” reduces the “work from home” tailwind for the Communication Services sector, where relative valuation is also stretched.    Government Bonds Chart 29WILL INFLATION COME DOWN IN 2022? WILL INFLATION COME DOWN IN 2022? WILL INFLATION COME DOWN IN 2022? Maintain At-Benchmark Duration. The first quarter of 2022 had seen a steady rise in global bond yields even before the Russian-Ukrainian war, in response to a higher inflation outlook. The negative shock to bond yields from the war was quickly reversed and bond yields continued to march higher as the supply shortage in the commodity complex further pushed up commodity prices and inflation expectations. The US 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen above the 2.3-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE target. However, the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven inflation rate, the measure that the Fed pays more attention to, is only slightly above 2.3% (Chart 29, panel 2). The base case of BCA Research’s Fixed Income Strategists is that inflation will moderate in the coming months so that there should be limited upside for bond yields. We already upgraded duration to at-benchmark from below-benchmark, and government bonds to neutral from underweight within the bond asset class in the March Portfolio Update. These are still appropriate going forward with the US 10-year Treasury yield currently standing at 2.33%. Inflation-linked bonds are not cheap anymore. We maintain a neutral stance to hedge against the tail risk of a further rise in inflation.   Corporate Bonds Chart 30Continue To Favor High-Yield Credit Continue To Favor High-Yield Credit Continue To Favor High-Yield Credit Since the beginning of the year, investment-grade bonds have underperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 191 basis points, while high-yield bonds have underperformed duration-marched Treasurys by 173 basis points. Even with spreads widening, we continue to underweight investment-grade credits within the fixed-income category. Spreads currently do not offer enough value to warrant a neutral shift. Moreover, investment-grade corporate bonds have been performing poorly compared to high-yield corporate bonds (Chart 30, panel 1). But shouldn’t one expect lower-rated bonds to perform worse in bear markets, and better in bull markets? Our US Bond Service believes that one explanation for the poor performance of investment-grade compared to high-yield bonds is that the industry composition of the two categories is quite different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment-grade bonds have a larger weighting in Financials. And with the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is the reason behind that return divergence. We continue to overweight high-yield bonds, as there is likely to be no material increase in corporate default risk. The market currently implies that defaults will rise to 3.7% during the next 12 months, from 1.2% over the past 12 months (Chart 30, panel 2). That seems too high. What about European credit? The ECB’S hawkish turn and then the Ukranian crisis made yields almost double this year. The spreads for both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have been widening since the beginning of the year (Chart 30, panel 3). Their valuations seem to offer an attractive entry point but investors should be cautious as spreads could continue to widen in response to the negative news from the Ukranian crisis.   Commodities Chart 31Risks To Oil Price Are To The Upside Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Too Much Uncertainty To Ignore – Turn More Cautious Energy (Overweight): Oil prices surged to $120 – the highest level since 2013 – in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pricing in sanctions against the nation’s oil producers and an estimated 3-5 mm b/d of supply disruptions (Chart 31, panel 1). While the actual hit to Russian production might end up being lower, Russia accounts for over 10% of global production, almost half of which is exported (Chart 31, panel 2). The price shock was slightly offset by a marginal demand weakness from China amid another outbreak of Covid-19. However, uncertainty regarding how quickly core OPEC producers will ramp up production to fill supply shortages – as well as the breakdown in the US-Iranian talks – continue to keep oil prices jittery. Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of increased supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. This should bring the price of Brent crude down to average $93 per barrel this year and next. The risks to this view however remain tilted to the upside. For more details, see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 14. Industrial Metals (Neutral): Russia is a major player in the metals market, providing more than a third of the world’s palladium output; it is also the third biggest producer of nickel (Chart 31, panel 3). The prices of those metals, as well as the broad industrial metals complex, have shot up following the invasion: Industrial metals had the largest weekly price change since 1990 in the week following the invasion. The outlook for industrial metals prices is tilted to the upside. Inventories for some of the industrial metals required for the energy transition are low. Moreover, if China implements significant stimulus – and supply remains tight – prices are likely to stay elevated. Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold prices reacted in line with the moves in US real rates over the first quarter of this year, initially relatively flat, before rising in the past few weeks as real rates came down. The upward move in gold prices was further amplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which pushed the bullion’s price close to $2040, just shy of its all-time high in late 2020. This comes as no surprise: The metal is known (despite its volatility) for its safe-haven and inflation-hedging characteristics. We maintain our neutral exposure to gold. Real rates should start to rise as inflation pressures abate in the second half of the year. Gold is also somewhat expensively valued, with the price in inflation-adjusted terms close to its record high (Chart 31, panel 4).   Currencies Chart 32Don't Turn Bearish On The Dollar Yet Don't Turn Bearish On The Dollar Yet Don't Turn Bearish On The Dollar Yet US Dollar: The DXY index has risen by 2.3% this quarter. We are maintaining our neutral stance on the US dollar. While the dollar is expensive by more than 20% according to purchasing power parity (PPP), positive momentum continues to be too strong to take an outright bearish position (Chart 32, panels 1 and 2). We will look to downgrade the dollar to underweight when momentum starts to weaken and when there is clear evidence that the Fed will have to back off from its tightening path. Japanese Yen: With stock markets rebounding and expectations of interest-rate hikes rising in the US, the yen has fallen by more than 18% since the beginning of the year. Still, we reiterate the overweight that we placed at the beginning of March. The yen should act as a hedge if global stock markets sell off anew. Moreover, we believe there is now limited upside for US yields, given that there are now more than 250 basis points of Fed hikes priced over the next 12 months. This should put a cap on USDJPY, as this cross is closely tied to the relative expectations of tightening between the US and Japan (Chart 32, panel 3). Canadian Dollar: We are currently underweight the Canadian dollar. Our Commodity and Energy Strategists believe that oil should come down to around $90/barrel by the end of the year. Additionally, the BoC won’t be able to follow along with the Fed in its tightening cycle, given that household debt is much higher in Canada than in the US. Both developments should put downward pressure on the CAD over the next 12 months.   Alternatives Chart 33Prepare To Turn To Defensive Alternatives Prepare To Turn To Defensive Alternatives Prepare To Turn To Defensive Alternatives Return Enhancers: We previously suggested that private equity tends to outperform other alternative assets in the early years of expansions as it benefits from cheaper financing opportunities and attractive entry valuations. This view has been correct: Following the large drawdown in Q1 2020 due to Covid, PE returns have significantly outperformed those of hedge funds (Chart 33, panel 1). However, financing conditions are tightening and could weigh down on economic activity and PE returns going forward (Chart 33, panel 2). Preliminary results for Q3 2021 show PE funds returning only around 6% compared to an average quarterly return of 10% since the beginning of the pandemic. Given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space, investors should prepare to pare back exposure from PE, and look for more defensive alternative assets, such as macro hedge funds. Inflation Hedges: We have been of the view that inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory: More likely than not, we are near the top of those two steps. Accordingly, we were positioned to favor real estate over commodities; real estate tends to outperform when inflation is more subdued (close to 2%-3%). Inflation, globally, however has turned out to be stickier than expected and recent economic and political developments have propelled another surge in commodity prices. Scarce inventories, lingering inflation, and a potential significant Chinese stimulus imply, at least in the short-term, that commodity prices have room to run (Chart 33, panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and Farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets. Farmland particularly continues to offer an attractive yield of approximately 2.8% (Chart 33, panel 4).   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Yield Curve As An Indicator," for a detailed analysis of this.   Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Highlights There is no evidence of a decline in US corporate credit or bank lending spreads over the past few decades, meaning that any excess savings effect structurally depressing interest rates is occurring in the Treasury market. We note the possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower government bond yields, by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. To investigate the impact that excess savings may be having on bond yields, we define historical periods of abnormal yields based on the gap between long-maturity Treasury yields and the potential rate of economic growth. This reflects our view that potential growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. Since 1960, there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent, but the first two seem to be easily explained by the stance of US monetary policy rather than by a savings/investment imbalance. The excess savings story better fits the facts after 2000. We do find evidence that a global savings glut lowered bond yields during the early-2000s, and it may have even modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, the effect of the global savings glut was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so for cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than as a result of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, as long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion despite a reduction in savings and significantly stronger growth. The historical impact of FOMC meetings on the structural decline in long-maturity US Treasury yields strongly implies that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a lower average Fed funds rate. It is our view that the Fed has a backward-looking neutral rate outlook, informed by an incomplete understanding of the economic circumstances of the latter half of the last expansion. A low neutral rate narrative has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and we regard this as the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This phenomenon is only likely to dissipate once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. While the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Feature Chart II-110-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years For many investors, one of the most striking features of the pandemic, especially over the past year, is how low US long-maturity government bond yields have remained in the face of the highest headline consumer price inflation in four decades (Chart II-1). To many investors, this has provided even further evidence of a structural “excess savings” effect that has kept interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic activity. The theory of secular stagnation, revived by Larry Summers in late 2013, is a related concept, but many investors believe that interest rates will remain low even in a world in which the US economy is growing at or even above its trend. The fundamental basis for this view is the idea that over the longer term, the real rate of interest is determined by the balance (or imbalance) between desired savings and investment, and that advanced economies have and will continue to experience excess savings – defined as a chronically high level of desired savings relative to the investment opportunities available. According to this view, in order for the actual level of savings to equal investment, interest rates must fall. Chart II-2Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) This report challenges the view that excess savings are mostly responsible for the current level of long-term bond yields in the US. We agree that excess savings have played a role in explaining changes in long-term bond yields at different points over the past 20 years; we also agree that it is normal for interest rates in advanced economies to trend down over time in response to a demographically-driven decline in potential growth. But our goal is not to explain the downtrend in interest rates over time. Instead, we aim to explain the gap between the level of long-term bond yields today and the prevailing rate of economic activity, or consensus forecasts of the trend rate of growth (Chart II-2). We do not believe that this gap is economically justified, nor do we believe that it is driven by excess savings. We conclude that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate outlook is the primary factor anchoring US Treasury yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This is only likely to change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize; it suggests that investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Excess Savings And Interest Rates: Defining A “Mechanism Of Action” Households, businesses, and governments can directly purchase debt securities in capital markets, but they do not typically provide loans directly to borrowers. Direct lending usually occurs through the banking system, which means that excess savings would only lower interest rates in the economy through one of the following ways: By lowering the Fed funds rate By lowering long-maturity government bond yields relative to the Fed funds rate, by reducing either the term premium or investors’ expectations for the average Fed funds rate in the future By lowering corporate bond yields relative to duration-matched government bond yields By lowering lending rates on bank loans relative to banks’ cost of borrowing Charts II-3-II-5 highlight that there is no evidence of a structural decline in corporate credit spreads or bank lending rates relative to the Fed funds rate, so we can rule out this effect as a mechanism of action for excess savings to have structurally lowered interest rates. Chart II-6 highlights that interest paid on bank deposits lags the Fed funds rate, so we can also rule out the idea that excess deposits force the Fed to keep the effective Fed funds rate low. Chart II-3No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads… No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads This means that if excess savings are depressing interest rates in the US, that the effect is truly occurring in the Treasury market. As noted, this could occur by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. Related Report  The Bank Credit AnalystR-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks All of these effects are certainly possible. Keynes’ paradox of thrift highlights that excess savings can manifest itself as a chronic shortfall in aggregate demand, which would persistently lower the Fed funds rate as the Fed responds to a long period of high unemployment. This could also lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields in a scenario in which the Fed repeatedly engages in asset purchases to help stabilize aggregate demand. As well, domestic excess savings could lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields, as aging savers directly purchase government securities as part of their retirement portfolios. Finally, foreign capital inflows could also cause this effect, especially if they originate from countries with chronic current account surpluses that use an increase in US dollar reserves to purchase long-maturity US government securities. Table II-1 summarizes these possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower US government bond yields. With these mechanisms in mind, we review the past 60 years to identify periods of “abnormal” bond yields, with the goal of understanding whether excess savings appear to explain major gaps. Table II-1Possible Mechanisms Of Action For Excess Savings To Lower Long-Term Government Bond Yields April 2022 April 2022 Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7 shows the difference between nominal 10-year US Treasury yields and nominal potential GDP growth. Panel 2 shows an alternative version of this series using the ten-year median annualized quarterly growth rate of nominal GDP in lieu of estimates of potential growth, which highlights a generally similar relationship. This approach to defining “abnormal” long-maturity bond yields reflects our view that the potential rate of economic growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. To see why, given that GDP also effectively represents gross domestic income, an interest rate that is persistently below the potential growth rate of the economy would create a strong incentive to borrow on the part of households and especially firms. Chart II-7 makes it clear that the relationship has been mean-reverting over time, but that there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent. The first episode occurred from 1960 to the late 1970s, and saw government bond yields average well below the prevailing rate of economic growth. We do not see this period as having been caused by an excess of desired savings relative to investment. As we discussed in our November Special Report,1 this gap represented a period of persistently easy monetary policy which contributed to excessive aggregate demand and a structural rise in inflation. The second major episode is also easily explained, as it occurred in response to the first. Following a decade of high inflation, Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 1979 to combat inflationary expectations, which led to a two-decade period of generally tight monetary policy. Like the first period, this was not caused by an imbalance between desired savings and investment. The third episode has prevailed since the late-1990s, and has seen a negative yield/growth gap on average – albeit one that has been smaller than what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. From 2000 to 2007, the gap was generally negative, although it turned positive by the end of the economic cycle. It was modestly negative on average from 2008 to 2010, and only became persistently negative starting in 2011. The gap fell to a new low during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remains wider today than at any point during the last economic recovery. It is these post-2000 periods of a persistently negative yield/growth gap that should be closely investigated for evidence of an excess savings effect. The Global Savings Glut As noted, prior to 2000, the yield/growth gap in the US seems clearly explained by the Fed’s monetary policy stance, not by an excess savings effect. So the question is whether there is any evidence of excess savings having caused this negative gap since 2000. In our view, the answer is yes, but the effect was relatively small compared to what prevails today. We do find evidence of a global savings glut during the early-2000s. Chart II-8 highlights that the private and external sector savings/investment balances in China and emerging markets more generally were persistently positive during the 2000s. Chart II-9 highlights that multiple estimates of the term premium declined around that time – especially during Greenspan’s “conundrum” period of between 2004 and 2005. Chart II-8There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-9The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys Chart II-10 breaks down the components of the 10-year yield into the 5-year yield and the 5-year/5-year forward yield, and highlights that the negative correlation between the two components lasted for only one year. Overall, the 10-year Treasury yield was lower than potential growth for roughly two years as a result of the global savings glut effect.       Chart II-10Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude This was a significant event, and it may even have modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, it was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess Savings And US Household Deleveraging Chart II-11Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart II-11 highlights that, relative to June 2007 levels, the vast majority of the cumulative decline in the 10-year Treasury yield has occurred because of a decline in implied long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate, rather than a major decline in the term premium. The chart also shows that almost all the decline in implied long-term interest rate expectations since 2007 occurred during the 2008/2009 recession. This normally occurs during a recession as investors price in a low average Fed funds rate at the short end of the curve; the anomaly is that these expectations remained permanently low even as the economy recovered and as the Fed raised interest rates from 2015 to 2018. To us, Chart II-11 also underscores that the Fed’s asset purchases are not the main culprit behind low long-maturity bond yields today, given that the decline in long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate persisted even as the Fed stopped purchasing assets in 2014. It is not difficult to see why investors lowered their long-term Fed funds rate expectations in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, even as economic recovery took hold. Chart II-12 highlights that the “balance sheet” nature of the 2008/2009 recession unleashed the longest period of US household deleveraging in the post-WWII period, and Chart II-13 highlights that this occurred despite extremely low interest rates – and in contrast to other countries like Canada that did not experience the same loss in household net worth. Chart II-12Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-13The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008     Given that interest rates represent the price of borrowing, it is entirely unsurprising that a US balance sheet recession led to a persistent period in which credit growth was essentially unresponsive to interest rates, as households struggled to rebuild wealth lost during the recession and were unable to, or uninterested in, releveraging. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate of interest fell during that period, which we agree did occur. It is also accurate to characterize the US as having experienced a sharp increase in desired savings over that period, as highlighted by the explosion in the US private sector financial balance in the initial years of the last economic recovery (Chart II-14). Chart II-14Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. So excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so because of cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than because of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, because while Chart II-14 shows that this excess savings effect eventually waned in importance, long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-15Growth Was Historically Weak Last Cycle, But Only Because Of The First Few Years Of The Expansion April 2022 April 2022 Chart II-15 highlights that the cumulative annualized growth in real per capita GDP during the last economic cycle was significantly below that of the average of previous expansions, but this was only the case because of the very slow growth period between 2008 and 2014. Per capita growth during the latter half of the expansion was comparable to that of previous expansions, and this occurred while the Fed was raising interest rates. And yet, investors only modestly raised their long-term interest rate expectations during that period. In our view, it is this fact that holds the key to understanding why investors’ long-term rate expectations are still low today. An Alternative Explanation For Today’s Extremely Low Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-16Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Chart II-16 highlights that, since 1990, all of the structural decline in US 10-year Treasury yields has occurred within a three-day window on either side of FOMC meetings. This strongly suggests that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a low average Fed funds rate, which is consistent with how similar 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields are in relation to published FOMC and market participant estimates of the average longer-run Fed funds rate (as shown in Chart II-2). This raises the important question of why the Fed did not revise up its expectation for the neutral rate during or following the second half of the last economic expansion, when growth was much stronger than during the first half. In our view, one of the clearest articulations of the Federal Reserve’s understanding of the neutral rate of interest was presented in a 2015 speech by Lael Brainard at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Brainard noted the following: “The neutral rate of interest is not directly observable, but we can back out an estimate of the neutral rate by relying on the observation that output should grow faster relative to potential growth the lower the federal funds rate is relative to the nominal neutral rate. In today’s circumstances, the fact that the US economy is growing at a pace only modestly above potential while core inflation remains restrained suggests that the nominal neutral rate may not be far above the nominal federal funds rate, even now. In fact, various econometric estimates of the level of the neutral rate, or similar concepts, are consistent with the low levels suggested by this simple heuristic approach.”2 Chart II-17The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... Given how the Fed determines the neutral rate is, two factors explain why the Fed’s estimates of the neutral rate have not increased (and, in fact, fell modestly in March). First, core inflation remained below 2% from 2015-2019, despite the fact that the economy was clearly growing at an above-trend pace during this period in the face of Fed rate hikes. We have noted in previous reports the role that the 2014 collapse in oil prices had on household inflation expectations. The latter were already vulnerable to a disinflationary shock, given how negative the output gap had been in the first half of the expansion.3 We do not think that the decline in inflation expectations that occurred following the 2014 collapse in oil prices reflects a low neutral rate, but rather we believe that the Fed saw this as a conundrum that supported the expectation of a low average Fed funds rate. The second event explaining the Fed’s persistently low long-term rate expectations is the fact that the Fed was forced to cut interest rates in 2019, which we believe it saw as confirmation that the stance of monetary policy had become either meaningfully less easy or openly tight. From the Fed’s point of view, this perspective was also supported by recessionary indicators, such as the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve (Chart II-17), and popular (but now discontinued) econometric estimates of the real neutral rate of interest, such as those calculated by the Laubach-Williams model (panel 3). Chart II-18...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity However, this view entirely ignores the fact that the US and global economies were negatively impacted in 2018 and 2019 by a politically-motivated nonmonetary shock to aggregate demand: the China-US trade war, which also impacted or targeted several major advanced economies. Chart II-18 highlights that global trade uncertainty exploded during this period, which severely damaged business confidence around the world and caused a slowdown in global industrial production. Tighter Chinese policy also likely contributed to the slowdown in global activity, but the bottom line is that factors other than US monetary policy contributed to economic weakness during this period, and that it is incorrect to infer from the 2018/2019 experience that interest rates rose to or exceeded the neutral rate of interest. In short, it is our view that the Fed has simply become backward-looking in how it perceives the neutral rate of interest; it has not yet observed a period when the Fed funds rate has risen to its estimate of neutral but is unambiguously still easy. Fixed-income investors, having demonstrably anchored their own assessments to those of the Fed over the past 30 years, have had no basis to come to a meaningfully different conclusion. We believe that the Fed’s backward-looking low neutral rate outlook has now become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will probably only change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. As a final point, we clearly acknowledge that private savings increased massively during the pandemic. Investors who are inclined to see excess savings as the primary driver of low bond yields will point to this fact. But this was a forced increase in savings, rather than a desired one. The rise in household sector savings occurred mostly because of a substantial reduction in services spending, as pandemic restrictions and forced changes in behavior prevented the consumption of many services. The household savings rate has already returned to its pre-pandemic level in the US, and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have risen to a higher point than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. US households are likely to deploy a portion of their enormous stock of excess savings, as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, which is one of the main reasons to expect that the US economy will not succumb to a recession over the coming 12-18 months – and why investors and the Fed may soon be presented with evidence that warrants an increase in their long-term interest rate expectations. Investment Conclusions There are two important investment implications of the view that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate projection is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long end of the maturity spectrum. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, the first implication is that investors will likely be faced with a recession scare as the 2-10 yield curve durably inverts and as rate sensitive sectors of the economy, such as housing, inevitably slow in response to the extremely sharp rise in mortgage rates that has occurred over the past three months. We believe that it is ultimately the level of interest rates that matters for economic activity, rather than the change in interest rates. Large changes over short periods of time, however, create a degree of uncertainty about the trajectory of rates that temporarily impacts economic activity. This underscores that investors should not maintain an aggressively overweight stance toward global equities in a multi-asset portfolio, as it is likely that concerns about corporate profits will increase significantly at some point this year. The second investment implication is that US long-maturity bond yields could increase to much higher levels over the coming 12-24 months than many investors expect, in a scenario in which pandemic-driven price pressure dissipates, real wages recover, and no major politically-driven nonmonetary policy shocks emerge. We acknowledge that long-term interest rate expectations are unlikely to change until hard evidence of the economy’s capacity to tolerate interest rates above the Fed’s implied current estimate of the neutral rate emerges. This is a case, however, when we believe that investors should heed the now-famous words of Rüdiger Dornbusch: “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” As such, while the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Lael Brainard, Normalizing Monetary Policy When The Neutral Rate Is Low, December 2015 3 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

Executive Summary EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet Em Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet Em Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet Chinese A-shares have become oversold, and authorities are determined to stabilize the market. Yet, downshifting corporate profits and a selloff in global stocks are risks to A-shares’ absolute performance. Overall, we favor A-shares relative to overall EM and Chinese investable stocks, but not in absolute terms. As to China’s internet companies, even though authorities have recently promised not to introduce new regulatory measures against platform companies, the already-enacted regulations will not be reversed, and common prosperity initiatives will continue to be rolled over in the coming months and years. Nevertheless, in response to their massive underperformance, we are upgrading Chinese investable stocks from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Investors should stay defensive on global risk assets and continue underweighting EM equities and credit. Recommendation Inception Date Return Take Profits on Short Chinese Investable Value Stocks / Long Global Value Stocks    Nov 26/20  39% Maintain Long Chinese A-Shares / Short Chinese Investable Stocks Mar 04/21 23.2% A New Trade: Long Chinese A-Shares / Short EM Stocks            Mar 23/22   Upgrade Chinese Investable Stocks with EM from Underweight to Neutral                            Mar 23/22   Bottom Line: The risk-reward profile for Chinese stocks has improved, but does not yet justify a long position in absolute terms. The outlook for A-shares is superior to that of investable TMT and non-TMT stocks. Feature Table 1The Decline In Chinese Stocks From Their Peaks In 2021 To March 22, 2022 What To Do With Chinese Stocks? What To Do With Chinese Stocks? The last two weeks have seen massive gyrations in Chinese stocks, especially in the realm of internet companies. Chinese investable internet stocks’ year-long decline went into a tailspin early this month. But, in the last several days these stocks have rebounded sharply. The selloff earlier this year was not limited to internet companies. Chinese investable non-TMT and A-shares have also tanked. Table 1 illustrates the extent to which individual Chinese equity indexes are down from their peaks in 2021 to March 22. Chart 1Our China Relative Equity Trades Our China Relative Equity Trades Our China Relative Equity Trades The relevant question for investors is whether the events of the last several weeks represent a final capitulation in Chinese stocks, creating a buying opportunity, or at least marking an end to the underperformance of Chinese stocks versus global and EM equities. It is hard to know if an ultimate buying opportunity has emerged for Chinese stocks in absolute terms. Unless global stocks have bottomed (which is not our view, see more on this below), it will be difficult for Chinese share prices to rally on a sustainable basis. However, last week was probably a watershed event, at least for some parts of the Chinese equity markets. Thus, we are making several adjustments to our investment strategy for Chinese stocks: 1. Book profits on the short Chinese investable value stocks / long global value stocks position (Chart 1, top panel). This strategy has produced a 39% gain since its recommendation on March 4, 2021. 2. Maintain the long A-shares / short investable stocks strategy recommended on March 4, 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). 3. A new trade: long Chinese A-shares (onshore market) / short EM stocks. Consistently, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese A-shares within an EM equity universe. 4. For EM equity portfolios, upgrade the allocation to the Chinese investable/offshore stock index from underweight to neutral. Chinese A-Shares (Onshore Market) The risk-reward profile for the A-share market has improved because of the following: Authorities care much more about the stability of the onshore equity market, which is dominated by domestic retail and institutional investors, than about offshore listed Chinese stocks, owned primarily by international investors. Securing onshore financial market stability is one of the main objectives of government policy this year. With the A-share price index down by 27% from its peak last year, authorities will deploy all the tools at their disposal to put a floor under share prices, including purchases by the National Team, which is a group of state-linked institutions that buy stocks to preclude larger drawdowns. Foreign investor net purchases of onshore listed stocks have become deeply negative (Chart 2, top panel). Historically, such large foreign liquidation of onshore stocks marked a bottom in A-shares (Chart 2, bottom panel). A-shares have become modestly cheap, as is evidenced by our composite valuation indicator and cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese A-Shares Are Oversold Chinese A-Shares Are Oversold Chinese A-Shares Are Oversold Chart 3Chinese A-Shares: Improved Valuation Chinese A-Shares: Improved Valuation Chinese A-Shares: Improved Valuation Chart 4China: Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work China: Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work China: Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Importantly, the government will ramp up stimulus and the economy will recover in H2 this year. The top panel of Chart 4 demonstrates that this year the fiscal spending impulse will rise from 1% to 3.4% of GDP Special bond issuance by local governments has already accelerated in recent months and will produce a revival in traditional infrastructure spending (Chart 4, bottom panel). Finally, onshore stocks are immune to the derating of offshore Chinese stocks due to international investor concerns about potential US sanctions and delisting from US markets. The reason is that foreign investors account for a very small share of onshore stock holdings.  That said, China’s property market and COVID-19 lockdowns remain a risk to the economy and corporate profits. In fact, the improvement in the TSF impulse over the past several months has been solely due to local government (LG) bond issuance. Excluding LG bond issuance, the TSF impulse has not bottomed yet (Chart 5). This means that corporate and household credit origination have been weakening. Without a major reversal in corporate credit and the property market, a strong business cycle recovery is unlikely in China. Chart 5China: Corporate And Household Credit Has Not Improved China: Corporate And Household Credit Has Not Improved China: Corporate And Household Credit Has Not Improved Bottom Line: On the positive side, A-shares have become oversold, and authorities are determined to stabilize the market. On the negative side, downshifting corporate profits and a selloff in global stocks are risks to A-shares’ absolute performance. Overall, we favor A-shares in relative terms but not in absolute terms. Also, we reiterate the long A- shares / short Chinese investable stocks position initiated on March 4, 2021. A New Trade: Long Chinese A-Shares / Short EM Stocks A-share prices are set to outperform EM stocks in the coming months for the following reasons: First, domestic policy support is forthcoming for Chinese onshore stocks. Fiscal injections and an eventual improvement in credit origination will provide support to Chinese domestic demand in the second half of this year. By contrast, domestic demand in mainstream EM (excluding China, Korea, Taiwan) will remain lackluster and there will be little policy support. Latin American and EMEA countries have raised interest rates substantially and could hike them further due to surging energy and food prices. High borrowing costs will dampen their domestic demand (Chart 6). In ASEAN countries where central banks have not yet tightened policy, real interest rates remain relatively high. Also, we tactically downgraded Indian stocks to underweight last week due to potential economic growth and profit disappointments amid high energy prices and expensive equity valuations. As a whole, mainstream EM broad money growth – both in nominal and real terms – are close to record lows and will drop further (Chart 7). Chart 6Mainstream EM Domestic Demand To Weaken Mainstream EM Domestic Demand To Weaken Mainstream EM Domestic Demand To Weaken Chart 7Mainstream EM Broad Money Growth Mainstream EM Broad Money Growth Mainstream EM Broad Money Growth Chart 8Mainstream EM: The Fiscal Thrust Is Mildly Negative Mainstream EM: The Fiscal Thrust Is Mildly Negative Mainstream EM: The Fiscal Thrust Is Mildly Negative The fiscal thrust for mainstream EM in 2022 will be marginally negative (Chart 8). Second, at the current juncture, rising US bond yields constitute a greater risk to mainstream EM currencies and equities than to Chinese ones. The renminbi has been firm versus the US dollar, which has been appreciating over the past 15 months. This is due to China’s enormous current account surplus and lack of capital outflows. Chinese individuals and companies are reluctant to invest abroad due to fears of US sanctions amid long-term geopolitical tensions between the US and China. Meanwhile, rising US interest rates pose risks to mainstream EM currencies (Chart 9). The basis is that these mainstream EM countries still meaningfully rely on international investors (though less than in the past). The Fed’s hawkish stance and rising US interest rates will continue supporting the greenback in the near term.  Finally, the relative trend in bond yields favors Chinese onshore stocks versus the EM equity benchmark. Chinese local government bond yields have decoupled from US Treasury yields. Yet, mainstream EM domestic yields are rising along with those of the US (Chart 10). Chart 9US Dollar vs. EM And US TIPS Yields US Dollar vs. EM And US TIPS Yields US Dollar vs. EM And US TIPS Yields Chart 10Mainstream EM Local Yields Are Rising Rapidly Mainstream EM Local Yields Are Rising Rapidly Mainstream EM Local Yields Are Rising Rapidly Chart 11Rising Borrowing Costs Are Negative For Share Prices Rising Borrowing Costs Are Negative For Share Prices Rising Borrowing Costs Are Negative For Share Prices Falling interest rates in China will support onshore equity valuations. By contrast, rising EM local bond yields as well as EM USD corporate bond yields will suppress equity performance in mainstream EM (Chart 11). Bottom Line: We remain overweight Chinese A-shares within an EM universe. Our confidence level in this strategy has increased and, hence, we recommend a new pair trade: long Chinese A-shares / short EM equities. Investable Stocks: TMT And Non-TMT Even though authorities have recently promised not to introduce new regulatory measures against platform companies, the already-enacted regulations will not be reversed, and common prosperity initiatives will continue to be rolled out in the coming months and years. Hence, the derating/multiple compression of TMT stocks might not be over for the same reasons we have been arguing for some time: These companies are facing higher uncertainty about their business model, which entails a higher equity risk premium. Government regulation of corporate profitability like those of monopolies and oligopolies entails low equity multiples. In the government’s view, these companies should perform social duties – redistributing profits from shareholders to Chinese citizens. Beijing’s involvement in their management and the prioritization of national and geopolitical objectives over shareholder interests. Risks of delisting from US stock exchanges remain high despite some recent statements from Chinese authorities. The point is that in the long run, Chinese authorities will not accept foreign/US shareholder control of Chinese platform companies that own and manage big data. Chart 12Chinese TMT Stocks: Where Is The Technical Support? Chinese TMT Stocks: Where Is The Technical Support? Chinese TMT Stocks: Where Is The Technical Support? It is impossible to know at what level of share prices these risks will be properly discounted or over-discounted so a new bull market can start. When valuation indicators are not useful, we resort to technical indicators. Based on our technical work, a bear market might stop at one of very long-term moving averages. Accordingly, Chinese TMT stocks might have reached a bottom (Chart 12). As to Chinese investable non-TMT share prices (analogous to value stocks), these have fallen close to their lows of the past 12 years (Chart 13, top panel). They have also massively underperformed global and EM peers (non-TMT/value stocks) (Chart 13, middle and bottom panel). Given the potential for a revival in the Chinese economy in H2 this year, investors should avoid the temptation to become more bearish on Chinese non-TMT/value stocks as their prices fall. Their risk-reward in relative terms to other markets has improved due to the capitulation selloff, and authorities’ increased willingness to stimulate the economy more aggressively going forward. Bottom Line: The year-long bear market in Chinese investable TMT and non-TMT stocks is probably in its late innings in absolute terms. In response to their massive underperformance, we are upgrading Chinese investable stocks from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Also, we are taking profits on our recommended position of short Chinese value stocks / long global value stocks. Overall Market Observations The selloff in global and EM equities is not over. As we argued in our March 10 report, global stocks will set a durable bottom only if oil prices drop on a sustainable basis and if the Fed backs off from tightening/US bond yields drop. Neither of these conditions have been met so far. In addition, the Ukraine crisis will intensify. Hence, the path of least resistance for global share prices is lower. The current geopolitical and macro backdrops are similar to the ones that prevailed during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the oil embargo of 1973 in response to the Yom Kippur War as well as the Gulf War of 1990. Based on the above three profiles, the current selloff in US stocks is not yet over (Chart 14). Chart 13Chinese Non-TMT Stocks: A Lot Of Bad News Being Discounted? Chinese Non-TMT Stocks: A Lot Of Bad News Being Discounted? Chinese Non-TMT Stocks: A Lot Of Bad News Being Discounted? Chart 14US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks Importantly, rapidly rising US high-yield corporate ex-energy bond yields (shown inverted in the chart) are a precursor for lower US share prices (Chart 15). All this means that non-US equities, including EM, will continue to suffer. In a nutshell, investors’ sentiment on EM equities is not very bearish to warrant a bullish stance from a contrarian perceptive (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising US Corporate Bond Yields Is A Problem For The S&P 500 Rising US Corporate Bond Yields Is A Problem For The S&P 500 Rising US Corporate Bond Yields Is A Problem For The S&P 500 Chart 16EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet EM Equity Sentiment Is Not Very Depressed Yet   Bottom Line: Investors should stay defensive on global risk assets and continue underweighting EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com What To Do With Chinese Stocks? What To Do With Chinese Stocks? What To Do With Chinese Stocks? What To Do With Chinese Stocks? Footnotes

Due to travel commitments, there will be no Counterpoint report next week. Instead, we will send you a timely update and analysis of the Ukraine Crisis written by my colleague Matt Gertken, BCA Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Executive Summary The tight connection between the oil price and inflation expectations is intuitive, appealing… and wrong. The inflation market is tiny, and its principle function is not to predict inflation per se, but to serve as a hedging investment in an inflation scare, such as that which follows an oil price spike. Hence, we should treat inflation expectations and the real bond yield that is derived from them with extreme care – especially after an oil price spike, which will give the illusion that the real bond yield is lower than it really is. In the near term, the Ukraine crisis has added to already elevated fears about inflation, which will pressure both bonds and stocks. However, looking beyond the next few months, the Ukraine crisis triggered supply shock will cause demand destruction, while central banks also choke demand, and the recent massive displacement of demand into goods, and its associated inflationary impulse, reverses. The 12-month asset allocation conclusion is to overweight stocks and bonds, and to underweight TIPS and commodities. Fractal trading watchlist: The sell-off in some T-bonds is approaching capitulation. The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive,Appealing... And Wrong The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive,Appealing... And Wrong Bottom Line: In the near term, an inflationary impulse will dominate, but on a 12-month horizon, a disinflationary impulse will dominate. Feature In his seminal work Thinking Fast And Slow, Nobel Laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman presented the bat-and-ball puzzle. A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? “A number came to your mind. The number, of course, is 10: 10 cents. The distinctive mark of this easy puzzle is that it evokes an answer that is intuitive, appealing, and wrong. Do the math, and you will see. If the ball costs 10 cents, then the total cost will be $1.20 (10 cents for the ball and $1.10 for the bat), not $1.10. The correct answer is 5 cents. It is safe to assume that the intuitive answer also came to the mind of those who ended up with the correct number – they somehow managed to resist the intuition.” Kahneman’s crucial finding is that many people are prone to place too much faith in an intuitive answer, an intuitive answer that they could have rejected with a small investment of effort. The Connection Between The Oil Price and Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing… And Wrong Today, the financial markets are presenting their very own bat-and-ball puzzle. The surging price of crude oil is driving up the market expectation for inflation over the next ten years (Chart I-1). This tight relationship is intuitive and appealing, because we associate a high oil price with a high inflation rate. But the intuitive and appealing relationship is wrong, and it requires just a small investment of effort to prove the fallacy. Chart I-1The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong The Tight Relationship Between The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Is Intuitive, Appealing... And Wrong Inflation over the next ten years equals the price in ten years’ time divided by the current price. So, to the extent that there is any relationship between the current price and expected inflation, dividing by a higher price today means a lower prospective inflation rate. Empirically, the last fifty years of evidence confirms this very clear inverse relationship (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A High Oil Price Means Lower Subsequent Inflation A High Oil Price Means Lower Subsequent Inflation A High Oil Price Means Lower Subsequent Inflation This raises an obvious question: while many people accept the intuitive (wrong) relationship between the oil price and expected inflation, how can the market make such a glaring error? The answer is that the inflation market is relatively tiny, and that its principle function is not to predict inflation per se, but to serve as a hedging investment in an inflation scare. Compared to the $25 trillion T-bond market, the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) market is worth just $1.5 trillion, slightly more than the market capitalisation of Tesla. Just as we do not expect Tesla to represent the view of the entire stock market, we should not expect TIPS to represent the view of the entire bond market. A high oil price means lower subsequent inflation. A recent paper by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies explains: “the tight relationship between the oil price and inflation expectations defies not only the thesis of economics, but the norms of statistics as well, with a correlation that has reached 90 percent over the last ten years and a corresponding r-squared of 82 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The root cause of this phenomenon should probably be searched for in the behaviour of another large group of market participants, the systematic portfolio allocators, and factor investors.”1  Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Are Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price... Inflation Expectations Are Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price... Inflation Expectations Are Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price... Chart I-4...Therefore 'The Real Bond Yield' Is Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price ...Therefore 'The Real Bond Yield' Is Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price ...Therefore 'The Real Bond Yield' Is Just A Mathematical Function Of The Oil Price So, here’s the explanation for the intuitive, appealing, but wrong connection between the oil price and inflation expectations. In the inflation scare that a surging oil price unleashes, the two main asset-classes – bonds and equities – are vulnerable to sharp losses, leaving TIPS as one of the very few assets that can provide a genuine hedge against inflation. But given that bonds and equities dwarf the $1.5 trillion TIPS (and other inflation) markets, the inflation hedger quickly becomes the dominant force in this tiny market. This large volume of hedging demand chasing limited supply drives down the real yields on TIPS to artificial lows, both in absolute terms and relative to T-bond yields. And as the difference between nominal and real yields defines the ‘market’s expected inflation’, it explains the surge in expected inflation. Be Careful How You Use ‘The Real Bond Yield’ It is an unfortunate reality that we often close the stable door after the horse has bolted, meaning that we react after, rather than before, the event. In financial market terms, this means that we demand inflation protection after, rather than before, it happens, and end up overpaying for it. A high oil price unleashes a massive hedging demand for the tiny TIPS market, driving down the real TIPS yield versus the nominal T-bond yield. To repeat, a high oil price unleashes a massive hedging demand for the tiny TIPS market, driving down the real TIPS yield versus the nominal T-bond yield. The upshot is that the performance of TIPS versus T-bonds is nothing more than a play on the oil price (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Performance Of TIPS Versus T-Bonds Is Just A Play On The Oil Price The Performance Of TIPS Versus T-Bonds Is Just A Play On The Oil Price The Performance Of TIPS Versus T-Bonds Is Just A Play On The Oil Price A bigger message is that we should interpret the oft-quoted ‘real bond yield’ with extreme care. The real bond yield is nothing more than the nominal bond yield less a mathematical function of the oil price. So, when the oil price is high, it will give the illusion that the real bond yield is low. The danger is that if we value equities against the real bond yield when the oil price is high – such as through 2011-14 or now – equities will appear cheaper than they really are (Chart I-6). Chart I-6When The Oil Price Is High, 'The Real Bond Yield' Will Appear Lower Than It Really Is When The Oil Price Is High, 'The Real Bond Yield' Will Appear Lower Than It Really Is When The Oil Price Is High, 'The Real Bond Yield' Will Appear Lower Than It Really Is In The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) we explained the much better way to value equities is versus the product of the nominal bond price and current profits. This valuation approach perfectly explains the US stock market’s evolution both over the long term (Chart I-7) and the short term. Specifically, over the past year, the dominant driver of the US stock market has been the 30-year T-bond price (Chart I-8). Chart I-7The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Long-Term Chart) The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Long-Term Chart) The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Long-Term Chart) Chart I-8The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Short-Term Chart) The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Short-Term Chart) The US Stock Market = Profits Times The 30-Year T-Bond Price (Short-Term Chart) 12-Month Asset Allocation Conclusion The current inflation scare comes not from an aggregate demand shock, but from a massive displacement of demand (into goods) followed by the more recent supply shock for energy and food triggered by the Ukraine crisis. In response, central banks are trying to douse the inflation in the only way they can – by choking aggregate demand. Hence, there is a dangerous mismatch between the malady and the remedy. In the near term, the Ukraine crisis has added to already elevated fears about inflation – and this will pressure both bonds and stocks. However, looking beyond the next few months, the near-term inflationary impulse will unleash a disinflationary response from three sources. First, a supply shock means higher prices without stronger demand, which causes an inevitable demand destruction that then pulls down prices. Second, central banks are explicitly trying to pull down prices – or at least price inflation – by choking demand. And third, the massive displacement of demand into goods, and its associated inflationary impulse, is reversing. On a 12-month horizon, the disinflationary impulse will outweigh the inflationary impulse. Therefore, on a 12-month horizon, the disinflationary impulse will outweigh the inflationary impulse. The asset allocation conclusion is to overweight stocks and bonds, and to underweight TIPS and commodities. Is The Bond Sell-Off Close To Capitulation? Finally, several clients have asked if the recent sell-off in bonds is close to capitulation, based on the fragility of its fractal structures. The answer is yes, but only for the shorter maturity T-bonds. Specifically, the 5-year T-bond has reached the point of fragility on its composite 130-day/260-day fractal structure that marked the bottom of the sell-off in 2018, as well as the top of the rally in 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Sell-Off In Shorter-Dated T-Bonds Is Close To Capitulation The Sell-Off In Shorter-Dated T-Bonds Is Close To Capitulation The Sell-Off In Shorter-Dated T-Bonds Is Close To Capitulation Accordingly, this week’s trade recommendation is to buy the 5-year T-bond, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent, and with a maximum holding period of 1 year. Please note that our full fractal trading watchlist is now available on our website:  cpt.bcaresearch.com     Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Is-the-Oil-Price-Inflation-Relationship-Transitory.pdf Chart 1The 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 2The 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 3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Canada'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 6US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart 7The Euro’s Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart 8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart 10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart 11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart 13Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Solved: The Mystery Of The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Solved: The Mystery Of The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Solved: The Mystery Of The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations Solved: The Mystery Of The Oil Price And Inflation Expectations 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 Investors Think The Fed Will Not Be Able To Raise Rates Much Above 2% Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? The neutral rate of interest is 3%-to-4% in the United States. This is substantially higher than the market estimate of around 2%. It is also higher than the central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot, which remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting. If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected, this is arguably good news for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value equities using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Bottom Line: Global equities will rise over the next 12 months as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, commodity prices recede, and inflation temporarily declines. Stocks will peak in the second half of 2023 in advance of a second, and currently unexpected, round of Fed tightening beginning in late-2023 or 2024.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing the geopolitical implications of the war in Ukraine. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. As always, I will hold a webcast discussing the outlook the week after, on Thursday, April 7th. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-berezin-1289b87/ https://twitter.com/BerezinPeter A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle The FOMC raised rates by 25 basis points this week, the first of seven rate hikes that the Federal Reserve has telegraphed in its Summary of Economic Projections for the remainder of 2022. We expect the Fed to follow through on its planned rate hikes this year, but then go on pause in early-2023, as inflation temporarily comes down. However, the Fed will resume raising rates in late-2023 or 2024 once inflation begins to reaccelerate and it becomes clear that monetary policy is still too easy. This second round of monetary tightening is currently not anticipated by market participants. If anything, investors think the Fed is more likely to cut rates than raise rates towards the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s own views are not that different from the markets’: The central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting, with the median dot actually ticking lower to 2.4% from 2.5% (Chart 2). Image Chart 2The Fed Is Still In The Secular Stagnation Camp The Fed Is Still In The Secular Stagnation Camp The Fed Is Still In The Secular Stagnation Camp A Higher Neutral Rate Image Our higher-than-consensus view of where US rates will eventually end up reflects our conviction that the neutral rate of interest is somewhere between 3% and 4%. One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates the amount of investment a country wants to undertake at full employment with the amount of savings that it has at its disposal.1 Anything that reduces savings or increases investment would raise the neutral rate (Chart 3). As we discussed last month, a number of factors are likely to lower desired savings in the US over the next few years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and the receipt of generous government transfer payments (Chart 4). Household wealth has soared since the start of the pandemic (Chart 5). Conservatively assuming that households spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by nearly 4% of GDP. Image Chart 5Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic The household deleveraging cycle has ended (Chart 6). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Baby boomers are retiring. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from savers to dissavers, national savings will decline. Chart 6US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). On the investment front: The deceleration in trend GDP growth, which depressed investment spending, has largely run its course.2 According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down only slightly to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Chart 9Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened After moving broadly sideways for two decades, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capital spending – have broken out to the upside (Chart 10). Capex intention surveys remain upbeat (Chart 11). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock currently stands at 16.3 years, the highest since 1965 (Chart 12). Chart 10Positive Signs For Capex (I) Positive Signs For Capex (I) Positive Signs For Capex (I) Similar to nonresidential investment, the US has been underinvesting in residential real estate (Chart 13). The average age of the housing stock has risen to a 71-year high of 31 years. The homeowner vacancy rate has plunged to the lowest level on record. The number of newly finished homes for sale is half of what it was prior to the pandemic. Chart 11Positive Signs For Capex (II) Positive Signs For Capex (II) Positive Signs For Capex (II) Chart 12An Aging Capital Stock An Aging Capital Stock An Aging Capital Stock Chart 13Housing Is In Short Supply Housing Is In Short Supply Housing Is In Short Supply The New ESG: Energy Security and Guns The war in Ukraine will put further pressure on the neutral rate, especially outside of the United States. Chart 14European Capex Should Recover European Capex Should Recover European Capex Should Recover After staging a plodding recovery following the euro debt crisis, European capital spending received a sizable boost from the launch of the NextGenerationEU Recovery Fund (Chart 14). Capital spending will rise further in the years ahead as European governments accelerate efforts to make their economies less reliant on Russian energy. Meanwhile, European governments are trying to ease the burden from rising energy costs. France has introduced a rebate on fuel starting on April 1st. It is part of a EUR 20 billion package aimed at cutting heating and electricity bills. Other countries are considering similar measures. European military spending will also rise. Germany has already announced that it will spend EUR 100 billion more on defense. European governments will also need to boost spending to accommodate potentially several million Ukrainian refugees. A Smaller Chinese Current Account Surplus? Chart 15Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? The difference between what a country saves and invests equals its current account balance. Historically, China has been a major exporter of savings, which has helped depress interest rates abroad. While China’s current account surplus has declined as a share of its own GDP, it has remained very large as a share of global ex-China GDP, reflecting China’s growing weight in the global economy (Chart 15). Many analysts assume that China will double down on efforts to boost exports in order to offset the drag from falling property investment. However, there is a major geopolitical snag with that thesis: A country that runs a current account surplus must, by definition, accumulate assets from the rest of the world. As the freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves demonstrates, that is a risky proposition for a country such as China. Rather than increasing its current account surplus, China may seek to bolster its economy by raising domestic demand. This could be achieved by either boosting domestic investment on infrastructure and/or consumption. Notably, the IMF’s latest projections foresee China’s current account surplus falling by more than half between 2021 and 2026 as a share of global ex-China GDP. If this were to happen, the neutral rate in China and elsewhere would rise. The Path to Neutral: The Role of Inflation If one accepts the premise that the neutral rate in the US is higher than widely believed, what will the path to this higher rate look like? Image The answer hinges critically on the trajectory of inflation. If inflation remains stubbornly high, the Fed will be forced to hike rates by more than expected over the next 12 months. In contrast, if inflation comes down rapidly, then the Fed will be able to raise rates at a more leisurely pace. As late as early February, one could have made a strong case that US inflation was set to fall. The demand for goods was beginning to moderate as spending shifted back towards services. On the supply side, the bottlenecks that had impaired goods production were starting to ease. Chart 16 shows that the number of ships anchored off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been trending lower while the supplier delivery components of both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indices had come off their highs. Since then, the outlook for inflation has become a lot murkier. As we discussed last week, the war in Ukraine is putting upward pressure on commodity prices, ranging from energy, to metals, to agriculture. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the war to worsen before a truce of sorts is reached in a month or two. Meanwhile, a new Covid wave is gaining momentum. New daily cases are rising across Europe and have exploded higher in parts of Asia (Chart 17). In China, the number of new cases has reached a two-year high. The government has already locked down parts of the country encompassing 37 million people, including Shenzhen, a major high-tech hub adjoining Hong Kong. Chart 17Covid Cases Are On The Rise Again In Some Countries Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Most new cases in China and elsewhere stem from the BA.2 subvariant of Omicron, which appears to be at least 50% more contagious than Omicron Classic. Given its extreme contagiousness, China may be forced to rely on massive nationwide lockdowns in order to maintain its zero-Covid strategy. While such lockdowns may provide some relief in the form of lower oil prices, the overall effect will be to worsen supply-chain disruptions. Watch For Signs of a Wage-Price Spiral As the experience of the 1960s demonstrates, the relationship between inflation and unemployment is inherently non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time with little impact on prices and wages, only for a wage-price spiral to suddenly develop once unemployment falls below a certain threshold (Chart 18). Chart 18A Wage-Price Spiral Was Ignited By Very Low Unemployment Levels In The 1960s Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution For the time being, a wage-price spiral does not appear imminent. While wage growth has picked up, most of the increase in wages has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 19). Chart 20More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work Low-wage workers have not returned to the labor force to the same extent as higher-wage workers (Chart 20). However, now that extended unemployment benefits have lapsed and savings deposits are being drawn down, the incentive to resume work will strengthen. An influx of workers back into the labor market will cap wage growth, at least for this year. Long-Term Inflation Expectations Still Contained A sudden increase in long-term inflation expectations can be a precursor to a wage-price spiral because the expectation of higher prices can induce consumers to shop now before prices rise further, while also incentivizing workers to demand higher wages. Reassuringly, long-term inflation expectations have not risen that much. Expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey registered 3.0% in March, down a notch from 3.1% in February (Chart 21). While the widely followed 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate has climbed to 2.32%, it is still at the bottom of the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 22).3 Chart 21Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (I) Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (I) Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (I) Chart 22Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (II) Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (II) Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (II) Chart 23The Magnitude Of Damage Depends On How Long The Commodity Price Shock Lasts Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Moreover, the jump in market-based inflation expectations since the start of the war in Ukraine has been fueled by rising oil prices. The forwards are pointing to a fairly pronounced decline in the price of crude and most other commodity prices over the next 12 months (Chart 23). If that happens, inflation expectations will dip anew. Investment Implications The neutral rate of interest is higher in the United States than widely believed. A higher neutral rate is arguably good for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. While the war in Ukraine and yet another Covid wave could continue to unsettle markets for the next month or two, global equities will be higher in 12 months than they are now. With inflation in the US likely to temporarily come down in the second half of the year, bond yields probably will not rise much more this year. However, yields will start moving higher in the second half of next year as it becomes clear that policy rates still have further to rise. The bull market in stocks will end at that point.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  These savings can either by generated domestically or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. 2  Theoretically, there is a close relationship between trend growth and the equilibrium investment-to-GDP ratio. For example, if real trend growth is 3% and the capital stock-to-GDP ratio is 200%, a country would need to invest 6% of GDP net of depreciation to maintain the existing capital stock-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, if trend growth were to fall to 2%, the country would only need to invest 4% of GDP. 3  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. View Matrix Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks?

Executive Summary For the Fed, maintaining its credibility with a long sequence of rate hikes that does not crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market is akin to the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds. And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal trading watchlist: US interest rate futures, 3-year T-bond, Canada versus Japan, AUD/KRW, and EUR/CHF. Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Bottom Line: The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Feature Amid the uncertainties of the Ukraine crisis, there is one certainty. The latest surge in energy and grain prices is a classic supply shock. Prices have spiked because vital supplies of Russian and Ukrainian energy and grains have been cut. This matters for central banks, because to the extent that they can bring down inflation, they can do so by depressing demand. They can do nothing to boost supply. In fact, depressing demand during a supply shock is a sure way to start a recession. But what about the inflation that came before the Ukraine crisis, wasn’t that due to excess demand? No, that inflation came not from a demand shock, but from a displacement of demand shock – as consumers displaced their firepower from services to goods on a massive scale. This matters because central banks are also ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-1 looks like a seismograph after a huge earthquake, and in a sense that is exactly what it is. The chart shows the growth in spending on durable goods, which has just suffered an earthquake unlike any in history. Zooming in, we can see the clear causality between the surges in spending on durables and the surges in core inflation. The important corollary being that when the binge on durables ends – as it surely must – or worse, when durable spending goes into recession, inflation will plummet (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Chart I-2The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes But, argue the detractors, what about the uncomfortably high price inflation in services? What about the uncomfortably high inflation expectations? Most worrying, what about the recent surge in wage inflation? Let’s address these questions. Underlying US Inflation Is Running At Around 3 Percent In the US, the dominant component of services inflation is housing rent, which comprises 40 percent of the core consumer price index. Housing rent combines actual rent for those that rent their home, with the near-identically behaving owners’ equivalent rent (OER) for those that own their home. Given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation. Housing rent inflation closely tracks the tightness of the jobs market, because you need a job to pay the rent. With the unemployment rate today at the same low as it was in 2006, rent inflation is at the same high as it was in 2006: 4.3 percent. In other words, given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given its dominance in core inflation, rent inflation running at 4.3 percent would usually be associated with core inflation running at around 3 percent – modestly above the Fed’s target, rather than the current 6.5 percent (Chart I-4). Confirming that it is the outsized displacement of spending into goods, and its associated inflation, that is giving the Fed and other central banks a massive headache. Yet, to repeat, monetary policy is ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-4Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Still, what about the surging expectations for inflation? Many people believe that these are an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like early-2008 or now, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words: Inflation expectations are nothing more than a reflection of the last six months’ inflation rate (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Turning to wage inflation, with US average hourly earnings inflation running close to 6 percent, it would appear to be game, set, and match to ‘Team Inflation.’  Except that this is a flawed argument. To the extent that wages contribute to inflation, it must come from the inflation in unit labour costs, meaning the ratio of hourly compensation to labour productivity. After all, if you get paid 6 percent more but produce 6 percent more, then it is not inflationary (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary In this regard, US unit labour costs increased by 3.5 percent through 2021, and slowed to just a 0.9 percent (annualised) increase in the fourth quarter.2 Still, 3.5 percent, and slowing, is modestly above the Fed’s inflation target, and could justify a slight nudging up of the Fed funds rate. But it could not justify the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing. The Fed Is Praying For A ‘Hail Mary’ Fortunately, the bond market understands all of this. How else could you say 7 percent inflation and 2 percent long bond yield in the same breath?! This is crucial, because it is the long bond yield that drives rate-sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing and construction. And it is the long bond yield that sets the level of all asset prices, including real estate and stocks. Although the Fed cannot admit it, the central bank also understands all of this and hopes that the bond market continues to ‘get it.’ Meaning that it hopes that the long end of the interest rate curve does not lift too far and crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market. So why is the Fed hiking the policy interest rate? The answer is that there will be a time in the future when it does need to lift the entire interest rate curve, and for that it will need its credibility intact. Not hiking now could potentially shred the credibility that is the lifeblood of any central bank. Still, to maintain its credibility without crashing the economy the Fed will have to make the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. For our non-American readers, the Hail Mary is a high-risk desperate move with little hope of completion. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. To sum up, the likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental analysis in the preceding sections, the strong trend in both the 18 month out US interest rate future and the equivalent 3 year T-bond has reached the point of fragility that has identified previous turning-points in 2018 and 2021 (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). This week we are also adding to our watchlist the commodity plays Canada versus Japan and AUD/KRW, whose outperformances are vulnerable to reversal. From next week you will be able to see the full watchlist of investments that are vulnerable to reversal on our website. Stay tuned. Finally, the underperformance of EUR/CHF has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has identified the previous major turning-points in 2018 and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Chart I-9The 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 I-10The 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 I-11Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy 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  

Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regular weekly report, I will be hosting two webcasts where I will discuss our view on China’s economy and financial markets. In particular, I will share our view on the announced economic growth target and stimulus measures for this year, as well as our takes on the recent developments in China’s onshore and offshore equity markets. The webcasts will be held on Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM HKT (Mandarin) and Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM EDT (English). I look forward to discussing with you during the webcast. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Wednesday, March 30. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Executive Summary Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Chinese policymakers set an ambitious goal for this year’s economic expansion. While the growth target is above market consensus and a positive surprise, the path will be full of obstacles. Policy restrictions will be the biggest hurdle. While the authorities will continue to ease some industry policies, it is unlikely that all regulations will be rolled back at once. Therefore, it is questionable whether the announced growth-supporting measures will be enough to offset the housing slump and a slow recovery in consumption. We remain cautious on Chinese stocks. In the near term, equities will face headwinds from risk-off sentiment among global investors and a prolonged downturn in domestic demand. Policymakers will eventually allow more aggressive easing in the next 6 to 12 months. We will look for signs of more reflationary efforts and a better price entry point to upgrade Chinese stocks. We are closing our tactical trade of Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI ACW, due to spillover effects from Chinese offshore tech stock selloff on the Hong Kong equity market. ASSET INITIATION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT LONG MSCI HONG KONG INDEX / SHORT MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD 1/19/2022 -0.08 Closed Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are aiming for above-expectation economic growth this year. However, we recommend that investors lie low given the substantial challenges that China faces in expanding its economy. Feature Beijing set the 2022 economic growth target during last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC) at “around 5.5%”, which exceeds the market consensus. The topline growth target is encouraging. However, the announced stimulus measures are less than meets the eye. Fiscal support will increase, but not massively. Monetary policy may ease further. However, the easing efforts since July last year have failed to boost sentiment among private-sector corporates and households. Importantly, policy restrictions in the past several years, such as reducing local governments’ shadow bank borrowing and property developers’ leverage, and stringent counter-COVID measures, are having a lasting effect on the economy. As such, China’s domestic demand will likely remain sluggish until more aggressive policy easing is introduced. Meanwhile, Chinese stock prices in absolute terms have been falling due to global equity market selloffs and concerns about China’s domestic economy, although Chinese onshore stocks have fared better than their offshore peers. We expect that China will eventually allow more substantive easing to shore up growth and meet the target. Meanwhile, investors should remain cautious. We recommend that global shareholders with exposure to Chinese onshore stocks maintain a neutral position in their portfolios for now. We continue to look for signs of more reflationary efforts and the right opportunity to upgrade Chinese onshore stocks, especially if prices decline further in the near term.  We maintain our underweight stance on Chinese offshore stocks, in both absolute terms and relative to global equities. De-listing from the US stock exchange is a real risk for some of the big-name Chinese tech companies. We will provide more insights on this topic in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are closing our tactical trade: Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI All Country World with a minor 0.08% loss. While the recent steep falls in the MSCI Hong Kong Index prices may provide some buying opportunities in the next 6 to 12 months, near-term downside risks are substantial due to geopolitical tensions as well as a new round of lockdowns in the mainland. An Ambitious Growth Target … The 5.5% growth goal set for 2022 is the lowest in more than three decades, but it is above the consensus forecast of close to 5% and the IMF’s projection of 4.8% (Chart 1). The target also marks a significant departure from the past couple of years and reinforces our view that the authorities are determined to ensure a stable domestic economy amid rising geopolitical turmoil (Table 1). Chart 1China Set An Above-Expectation Growth Target For 2022 China Set An Above-Expectation Growth Target For 2022 China Set An Above-Expectation Growth Target For 2022 Table 12022 Economic And Policy Targets Aiming High, Lying Low Aiming High, Lying Low The stimulus measures unveiled at last week’s NPC imply that Beijing will mainly use fiscal levers to support the economy. Some key takeaways from the published Government Work Report include: Chart 2A Significant Jump In Available SPBs In 2022 Aiming High, Lying Low Aiming High, Lying Low A bigger fiscal push. The fiscal budget is set at 2.8% of GDP this year, or 3.37 trillion yuan, and is a modest decrease from the 3.2% deficit in 2021. The quota for local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) remains unchanged at RMB3.65 trillion yuan. However, local governments will be allowed to carry over SPB proceeds from last year, which will add about RMB1.1 trillion yuan to fund this year’s spending. This translates to about RMB4.7 trillion yuan in SPB in 2022, an 80% jump from the actual usage of 2.57 trillion yuan in 2021 (Chart 2). Furthermore, tax and fee cuts will total RMB2.5 trillion yuan, more than double the 2021 amount. Small and medium enterprises will receive value-added tax credits and refunds. Tax cuts will favor the service sectors most affected by the pandemic, along with manufacturing, and science and technology research. The fiscal budget also includes a record-high transfer from the central to local governments. Adding central government fund transfers and off-budgetary fiscal expenditures, we estimate that the augmented fiscal deficit this year will be around 7.8% of GDP, implying a fiscal thrust of more than 2% of GDP. The estimated thrust will be a reversal from the negative impulse of 2.1% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 3).   Further easing in monetary policy. The government reiterated that money supply and total social financing (TSF) growth should be consistent with nominal GDP growth. We expect another cut next month in the reserve requirement ratio and/or the policy rate. We also maintain our view that the credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in adjusted TSF as a percentage of GDP – will climb to 29% of GDP (assuming an 8% nominal GDP for 2022), 2 percentage points higher than the 27% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP ​​Chart 4China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Chart 5"Green Investment" Will Get A Big Boost This Year Aiming High, Lying Low Aiming High, Lying Low A more relaxed carbon reduction policy. The government did not announce an annual numeric target related to de-carbonization or energy consumption intensity reduction. Nonetheless, a more relaxed policy setting will allow flexibility, especially in the first half of the year when infrastructure projects will be accelerated. In the second half, however, there is still a risk that de-carbonization efforts will step up to align the country’s carbon and energy intensity reduction with the 14th Five-Year Plan target. Still, the negative impact from de-carbonization seen last year will be much smaller this year, while green energy development will make an increased contribution to this year’s growth (Chart 5). Bottom Line: China set an ambitious economic growth target of 5.5% for the year, relying on fiscal stimulus to shore up topline economic growth. … But A Challenging Path Ahead Achieving growth of “around 5.5%” will not be easy. As noted in previous reports, the regulations put in place in a wide range of industries since 2017 significantly constrain growth in both credit creation and the economy. Furthermore, aggressive regulatory crackdowns on the property sector and internet-related industries last year, coupled with rising domestic COVID cases and a new round of lockdowns, will likely have enduring ramifications on private-sector sentiment and weaken the effectiveness of policy easing. The following risks are notable: Constraints on infrastructure investment. We expect infrastructure investment to pick up from last year’s meager 0.5% growth. Even so, a larger fiscal impulse for 2022 would not necessarily lead to an outsized increase in infrastructure spending by local governments. In 2019, the fiscal deficit widened to 5% of GDP from 3.5% in 2018 and the quota for local government SPBs increased by 60% from a year earlier. However, infrastructure investment only grew by 3.3% in 2019, 1.5 percentage points higher than that in 2018 (Chart 6). The key factor is that the rebound in shadow banking activities, which highly correlate with infrastructure spending by local governments, was subdued in 2019. The stock of shadow banking continues to shrink in February, indicating that local governments remain extremely cautious in expanding their off-balance sheet leverage (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Shadow Bank Lending Continues To Shrink In February Shadow Bank Lending Continues To Shrink In February Shadow Bank Lending Continues To Shrink In February Chart 7Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand for housing is still in the doldrums. February’s credit data paints a bleak picture of demand for housing, which is also reflected in recent hard data on home sales (Chart 7). It is questionable whether policymakers will allow a significant re-leverage, i.e. a 2016/17-style widespread easing in the property sector to stimulate demand for housing. So far, the government has stated that the housing policy should be city specific. Some cities have already lowered mortgage rates and down payment thresholds. Pledged supplementary lending, a tool that the government utilized to monetize massively excess inventories in the market in 2015/16, has also ticked up (Chart 8). Nevertheless, we do not expect the authorities to allow a sharp upturn in home prices or leverage by households and/or property developers (Chart 9). The government reiterated its stance at last week’s NPC that “housing is for living in and not for speculation.” Chart 8PSL Injections Ticked Up This Year PSL Injections Ticked Up This Year PSL Injections Ticked Up This Year Chart 9Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Chart 10Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Shrinking Labor Force Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Shrinking Labor Force Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Shrinking Labor Force Furthermore, demands for housing and property-sector investment in China are set to structurally shift lower due to the country’s slumping birthrate and shrinking working-age population (Chart 10). China’s total population will start to shrink within the next five years and the United Nations estimates that China’s marriageable population will be less than 350 million by 2030 – a drop of nearly 100 million people from 2010. Slowing urbanization rates are also a constraint for housing demand. China’s urban population growth is on a sharp downtrend; only 12 million people moved to cities last year, less than half the number who migrated in 2016. Weak consumption. The NPC reported that the government will provide support in rural areas for the consumption of new-energy vehicles (NEVs) and home appliances. There also was a mention of services for elder care and tax credits for having babies. However, there was no indication of a fiscal transfer to low-income households or a cash payout/consumption voucher to boost the marginal propensity to spend.   Chart 11Sharply Rising New Cases In China And Its Zero-COVID Policy Will Constraint Domestic Consumption Sharply Rising New Cases In China And Its Zero-COVID Policy Will Constraint Domestic Consumption Sharply Rising New Cases In China And Its Zero-COVID Policy Will Constraint Domestic Consumption Ultimately, it will be difficult for Chinese policymakers to bolster consumption without relaxing COVID containment measures (Chart 11). The government has made it clear that relaxing COVID policy will not be possible in the near term, given the ongoing outbreaks in China. Therefore, any improvement in household consumption, which accounts for about 40% of China’s GDP, will remain modest.  Bottom Line: China’s economic progress this year will hinge on whether a rebound in infrastructure investment can offset the negative effects from slumping demand for real estate and weak consumption. Investment Implications China will eventually ease policies more aggressively to ensure a stable domestic economic, financial and political environment against highly uncertain global and domestic backdrops. More easing and stimulus could be forthcoming by mid-2022, especially when the mainland's COVID situation is rapidly worsening and front-loaded fiscal supports will start to lose momentum. Meanwhile, Chinese stocks face substantial downside risks derived from the turmoil in global equity markets and a downturn in domestic profit growth. As witnessed in China’s onshore and offshore risk assets in the past two weeks, a slightly more positive signal from the NPC was not enough to offset the jitters from heightened geopolitical tensions and rising domestic COVID cases (Chart 12A and 12B). Chart 12AChinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Immune To Geopolitical Risks... Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Immune To Geopolitical Risks... Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Immune To Geopolitical Risks... ​​​​ Chart 12B...But Have Fared Better Than Their Offshore Peers ...But Have Fared Better Than Their Offshore Peers ...But Have Fared Better Than Their Offshore Peers We maintain our neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks in a global portfolio, but do not yet recommend that investors buy in the onshore market in absolute terms. We also continue to recommend overweight Chinese government bonds versus stocks in the onshore market, and an underweight stance on Chinese offshore equities in both absolute and relative terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Executive Summary Tight Inventories Spike Metals Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment, which will realign production, distribution and consumption of commodities globally. The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify along political lines. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Local politics will intrude on this process, as left-of-center governments in important commodity-producing states secure their electoral victories and claim greater shares of commodity revenues. The rebuilding of defense systems, particularly in Europe, will compete with the renewable-energy transition. This will stress already-tight metals markets, where low inventories will predispose markets to higher volatility a la this week's oil, natgas and nickel price spikes. This will retard economic growth. In the short term, CO2 emissions will surge. Longer term, the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be pushed back years, as states compete for access to commodities. East-West trade restrictions and hoarding of commodities secured via trade within these respective blocs, as is occurring presently, will increase. Bottom Line: Russia's war against Ukraine is a watershed moment.  The development of new sources of the critical metals desperately needed to build out renewable energy grids, and the drive to secure access to oil, gas and coal will intensify. China, reinforced by Russia, will lead the East, while the US and its allies will lead the West, in a redux of the Cold War. Feature Russia's war with Ukraine provoked a watershed moment for Europe: Leaders suddenly realized they had to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy generation and grid. This occurred as inventories of the basic commodities required to achieve all of these objectives were stretched so tight that the mere threat of the cutoff of pipeline natural gas was enough to send benchmark EU natgas prices to a record $113/MMBtu, up nearly 80% from the previous day's close before it settled back to still-elevated levels (Chart 1). Oil inventories also were stretched extremely thin even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 24 February (Chart 2). The situation is not improving, since, in the wake of the Ukraine war, numerous refiners and trading companies now are observing self-imposed sanctions against taking any Russian oil or refined products. It is worthwhile remembering this began before the US and UK announced they would ban all imports of Russian material this week.1 This will stretch supply chains by unknow durations – the movement of crude from Russia to a refiner could take months instead of weeks, until new trade patterns are established. Chart 1Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment Chart 2Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories Little Flex In EU Gas Inventories   Global economic and policy uncertainty is massively elevated, with percent changes in oil and gas prices swinging on a double-digit basis daily. This makes it extremely difficult to bid or offer oil cargoes in the physical market or make markets (i.e., bid or offer) in the futures markets, which has the effect of compounding uncertainty and volatility. Fundamentals – supply, demand and inventories – take a back seat to fear and uncertainty in such markets. This makes it virtually impossible to assign a probability to any price outcomes based on supply and demand – the true definition of uncertainty in the Frank Knight sense – and to make long-term capex decisions over the long term.2 We raised our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts on the back of the massive uncertainty in the markets to $90/bbl and $85/bbl, respectively, right after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We assume 1Q22 Brent will average $100/bbl. We expect core OPEC 2.0 producers – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait – will increase production beginning in 2Q22; US shale-oil output will rise, and ~ 1.2mm b/d of Iranian production will return to market in 2H22. Among the risks to our forecasts are a failure by core OPEC 2.0 to lift output (we expect an announcement at the end of this month when the producer coalition meets); lower-than-expected US shale output, and a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear deal with the US. Our modeling indicated these outcomes could lift Brent to between $120/bbl and $140/bbl by 2023 (Chart 3). We will be updating our forecasts next week.3 Chart 3Brent Forwards Lift Brent Forwards Lift Brent Forwards Lift EU's Watershed Metals Moment EU leadership is setting out to reverse decades of energy dependence on Russia, rebuild their militaries, and sustain a massive buildout of the continent's renewable-energy grid, all a result of the Ukraine war. This will require massive investment in metals mining and refining, along with steel-making capacity. Already, Germany is pledging to increase LNG import capacity and measures to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas by 75% this year.4 The EU is looking to restore its natgas inventories to 90% of capacity before next winter, and has pledged to double down on renewables, in order to remove member-state dependence on Russian energy exports.5 These ambitious goals are up against the hard reality of scarce base metals supply globally. This will be exacerbated going forward by actions taken by and against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis will destabilize metal markets, given supply uncertainty from Russia and its contribution to global supply. The commodities heavyweight constitutes 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production. Against the backdrop of very low global inventories in these metals (Chart 4), the prices of all three hit record highs over the last few days due to uncertain supply (Chart 5). LME nickel prices more than quadrupled on Tuesday as traders rushed to cover short positions and margin calls. Chart 4Low Inventories... Low Inventories... Low Inventories... Chart 5...Lead To Price Volatility ...Lead To Price Volatility ...Lead To Price Volatility Uncertainty has engulfed metal markets, with a Western ban on Russian metal imports still a possibility. Putin’s announcement regarding raw material export restrictions will further fuel supply uncertainty.6 As in the case of oil, private entities’ self-sanctioning, sanctions on the Russian financial system, and war-related supply chain disruptions are causing current Russian metal export disruptions.7 So far, Western sanctions on commodities have not directly interfered with metal flows from Russia. But markets are taking it day to day. Supply disruptions and sanctions force the formation of new trade patterns, as private entities aim to maximize arbitrage opportunities. For example, high European aluminum price spreads incentivized shipments from China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined aluminum. Normally, Europe relies on Russia for aluminum supplies. Rising European physical premiums for delivered metal, caused by Russian export disruptions, will see trading companies take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in other commodities as well. Europe's Risk Profile Rising Since the Ukraine war began, rising European physical premiums in commodities ranging from metals to natgas indicate the continent – more so than others – is particularly vulnerable to Russian export disruptions. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and its supply disruptions will raise operating costs for smelters and refiners on the continent, threatening smelter shutdowns similar to those we saw this past winter. Markets were expecting power price relief over the warmer months and higher smelting activity. Elevated fuel and power prices, however, will constrain metals refining in Europe, and could shut or close even more smelters, keeping refined metals supply scarce and prices high. Rebuilding Europe's Defenses EU leaders are scheduled to take up a new energy and defense funding proposal today, which media reports are describing as "massive" (no detail provided ahead of the meeting, of course). This program reportedly will be akin to the EU's $2 trillion COVID-relief fund.8 The EU's fast response to defense shortfalls comes against the backdrop discussed above regarding super-tight metals markets, which now face a further complication of unpredictable local politics in metals-producing states. Some of these states have voted left-of-center governments into office, which now appear to be intent on nationalizing mining operations.9 Chile, e.g., accounts for ~ 30% of global copper ore output, and is in the process of re-writing its constitution, which will change tax and royalty law, and could pave the way for nationalization of copper and lithium mines. This political risk compounds any long-term planning operations by consumers like the EU and producers. Investment Implications Energy markets – broadly defined to include oil, gas and coal along with the base metals required for renewables and their supporting grids and electric vehicles – are being rocked by Russia's war with Ukraine. Base metals, in particular, will have to find price levels that destroy demand among competing uses, if the EU's dual-track plan to build out its renewables generation and restore a military capability is approved. A "massive" funding effort in Europe, coupled with equally massive efforts in the US and China – both intent on building out their renewable generation and grids, as well as expanding their defensive capabilities – will be extremely difficult to pull off. Critical base metals inventories remain low, and prices are high because demand exceeds supply for the foreseeable future (Chart 6). Chart 6Tight Inventories Spike Metals Commodities' Watershed Moment Commodities' Watershed Moment The EU will join a world in which the other two great economic centers – the US and China – will engage in a geopolitical competition over access to and control of scarce base metals, oil, gas and coal resources. Russia will remain aggressive toward the West, at least until the Putin regime falls, and will play an ancillary role to China. Fossil fuels and base metals have been starved for capex for more than a decade. Governmental pronouncements will not reverse this. These markets will remain tight, and will get tighter in order to allocate increasingly scarce supply with rapidly growing demand. As such, we remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF, and the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks producers and traders.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russian tankers at sea despite ‘big unknown’ over who will buy oil, published by ft.com on March 7, 2022. 2     Please see Explained: Knightian uncertainty, published by mit.edu for discussion. 3    Please see Oil Risk Premium Abates, But Still Remains, which we published on February 25, 2022. 4    Please see Germany Revives LNG Import Plans to Cut Reliance on Russian Natural Gas in Marked Policy Shift, published by naturalgasintel.com on March 1, 2022. 5    Please see Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas, published by bbc.co.uk on March 8, 2022, and The EU plan to drastically ramp renewables to replace Russian gas, published by pv-magazine.com on March 9, 2022. 6    Please see Russia to Omit Raw Material Exports but Omits Details, published by Bloomberg on March 9, 2022. 7     Please see here for Which companies have stopped doing business with Russia? 8    Please see Ukraine: ECB governing council to meet as crisis intensifies, published on March 8, 2022 by greencentralbanking.com. 9    Please see Chile a step closer to nationalizing copper and lithium, published by mining.com on March 7, 2022, and Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Executive Summary On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally. But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. Fractal trading watchlist: Brent crude oil, and oil equities versus banks equities. The DAX Has Sold Off ##br##Because It Expects Profits To Plunge… The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... …But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off ##br##Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off   Bottom Line: In the Ukraine crisis, the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market, before the cavalry of lower bond yields ultimately charges to the rescue. Feature Given the onset of the largest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War, with the potential to escalate to nuclear conflict, you would have thought that the global stock market would have crashed. Yet since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24 to the time of writing, the world stock market is down a modest 4 percent, while the US stock market is barely down at all. Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Admittedly, since the invasion, European bourses have fallen – for example, Germany’s DAX by 10 percent. And stock markets were already falling before the invasion, meaning that this year the DAX is down 20 percent while the S&P 500 is down 12 percent. But there is a crucial difference. While the DAX year-to-date plunge is due to an expected full-blooded profits recession that the Ukraine crisis will unleash, the S&P 500 year-to-date decline is due to the sell-off in the long-duration bond (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). This difference in drivers will also explain the fate of these markets as the crisis evolves, just as in the pandemic.   Chart I-1The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge...   Chart I-2...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off During The Pandemic, Central Banks And Governments Saved The Day… We can think of a stock market as a real-time calculator of the profits ‘run-rate.’ In this regard, the real-time stock market is several weeks ahead of analysts, whose profits estimates take time to collect, collate, and record. For example, during the pandemic, the stock market had already discounted a collapse in profits six weeks before analysts’ official estimates (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts Chart I-4The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead ##br##Of Analysts The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts We can also think of a stock market as a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. Just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like when bond yields change. It turns out that the long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond, while the shorter-duration German stock market has the same duration as a 7-year bond. Pulling this together, and assuming no change to the very long-term structural growth story, we can say that: The US stock market = US profits multiplied by the 30-year bond price (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). The German stock market = German profits multiplied by the 7-year bond price (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-5US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... Chart I-6...Equals The US Stock Market ...Equals The US Stock Market ...Equals The US Stock Market Chart I-7German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... Chart I-8...Equals The German Stock Market ...Equals The German Stock Market ...Equals The German Stock Market When bond yields rise – as happened through December and January – the greater scope for a price decline in the long-duration 30-year bond will hurt the US stock market both absolutely and relatively. But when bond yields decline – as happened at the start of the pandemic – this same high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. When bond yields decline, the high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. During the pandemic, the 30-year T-bond price surged by 35 percent, which more than neutralised the decline in US profits. Supported by this surge in the 30-year bond price combined with massive fiscal stimulus that underpinned demand, the pandemic bear market lasted barely a month. What’s more, the US stock market was back at an all-time high just four months later, much quicker than the German stock market. …But This Time The Cavalry May Take Longer To Arrive Unfortunately, this time the rescue act may take longer. One important difference is that during the pandemic, governments quickly unleashed tax cuts and stimulus payments to shore up demand. Whereas now, they are unleashing sanctions on Russia. This will choke Russia, but will also choke demand in the sanctioning economy. Another crucial difference is that as the pandemic took hold in March 2020, the Federal Reserve slashed the Fed funds rate by 1.5 percent. But at its March 2022 meeting, the Fed will almost certainly raise the interest rate (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As the pandemic was unequivocally a deflationary shock at its outset, it was countered with a massive stimulatory response from both central banks and governments. In contrast, the Ukraine crisis has unleashed a new inflationary shock from soaring energy and food prices. And this on top of the pandemic’s second-round inflationary effects which have already dislocated inflation into uncomfortable territory. Our high conviction view is that this inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, and thereby ultimately morph into a deflationary shock. Yet the danger is that myopic policymakers and markets are not chess players who think several moves ahead. Instead, by fixating on the immediate inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices, they will make the wrong move. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market. Compared with the pandemic, both the sell-off and the recovery will take longer to play out. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. One further thought. The Ukraine crisis has ‘cancelled’ Covid from the news and our fears, as if it were just a bad dream. Yet the virus has not disappeared and will continue to replicate and mutate freely. Probably even more so, now that we have dismissed it, and Europe’s largest refugee crisis in decades has given it a happy hunting ground. Hence, do not dismiss another wave of infections later this year. The Investment Conclusions Continuing our chess metaphor, a tactical investment should consider only the next one or two moves, a cyclical investment should be based on the next five moves, while a long-term structural investment (which we will not cover in this report) should visualise the board after twenty moves. All of which leads to several investment conclusions: On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. How Can Fractal Analysis Help In A Crisis? When prices are being driven by fundamentals, events and catalysts, as they are now, how can fractal analysis help investors? The answer is that it can identify when a small event or catalyst can have a massive effect in reversing a trend. In this regard, the extreme rally in crude oil has reached fragility on both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. Meaning that any event or catalyst that reduces fears of a supply constraint will cause an outsized reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile Equally interesting, the huge outperformance of oil equities versus bank equities is reaching the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has reliably signalled major switching points between the sectors (Chart I-12). Given the fast-moving developments in the crisis, we are not initiating any new trades this week, but stay tuned. Chart I-12The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Biotech To Rebound Biotech Is Starting To Reverse Biotech Is Starting To Reverse US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece’s Brief Outperformance To End Greece Is Snapping Back Greece Is Snapping Back Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 We look at the Ukraine crisis in the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary, because the economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to a generalized demand destruction. Bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond. The ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on banks, add alternative electricity, and review bitcoin. Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Bottom Line: The recent rise in bond yields and the associated outperformance of cyclical sectors such as banks, ‘value’, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move within a much bigger structural downtrend. This structural downtrend is now set to resume. Feature Suddenly, nobody is worried about Covid and everybody is worried about nuclear war. Or as Vladimir Putin warns, “such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.” The life lesson being that every shock is always supplanted by a new shock. Hence, in this report we look at the Ukraine crisis through a wider lens. We look at the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. The Predictability Of Shocks Shocks are very predictable. This sounds like a contradiction, but we don’t mean the timing or nature of individual shocks. As specific events, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the global pandemic were ‘tail-events’ that did come as shocks. Yet the statistical distribution of such tail-events is very predictable. This predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term strategy for investment, or life in general. The predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term investment strategy. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent, albeit this is just one definition.1On this definition, the Ukraine crisis is not yet a far-reaching economic or financial shock, but it is certainly well-placed to become one. Applying this definition of a shock through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of shocks over any long period is well-defined and very predictable. For example, over a ten-year period the number of shocks exhibits a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33 (Chart I-1), while the time between shocks exhibits an Exponential distribution with parameter 3.33. Chart 1The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Very Predictable The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Many economists and investment strategists present their long-term forecasts for the economy and financial markets, yet completely ignore this very predictable distribution of shocks – making their long-term forecasts worthless! The question to such economists and strategists is why are there no shocks over your forecasting horizon? Their typical answer is that it is not an economist’s job to predict ‘acts of god’ or ‘black swans.’ But if insurance companies can incorporate the very predictable distribution of acts of god and black swans, then why can’t economists and strategists? Over any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certainty, at 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period, it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2On A Multi-Year Horizon, Another Shock Is A Near-Certainty The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Witness that since just 2016 we have experienced Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as US president. These were binary-outcome events where we could ‘visualise’ the tail-event in advance, but many dismissed it as implausible. Then we had a global pandemic, and now Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the crucial question is not whether we will experience shocks. We always will. The crucial question is, will the shock be net deflationary or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The Danger From Higher Energy Prices: The Obvious And The Not So Obvious Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned that the Ukraine crisis has lifted the crude oil price to a near-trebling since October 2020, not to mention the massive spike in natural gas prices? Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns. Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders. The obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they are demand destructive to both energy and non-energy consumption. In this regard, the good news is that the economy is becoming much less energy-intensive – every unit of real output requires about 40 percent less energy than at the start of the millennium (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, even if the scope to hurt is lessening, higher energy prices are still demand destructive. Chart I-3The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The not so obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they risk driving up the long-duration bond yield and thereby tipping more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. This was the where the greater pain came from in both 2000 and 2008 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Chart I-5Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fortunately, the recent decline in the 30-year T-bond yield suggests that the bond market is looking through the short-term inflationary impulse of higher energy prices (Chart I-6). Instead, it is focussing on the deflationary impulse that will come from the demand destruction that the higher prices will trigger. Chart I-6Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will only lead to additional demand destruction. Sanctions restrict trade and economic and financial activity – therefore they hurt both the side that is sanctioned and the side that is sanctioning. This mutuality of pain caused the West to balk at both the timing and severity of its sanctions. But absent an unlikely backdown from Russia, the sanctions noose will tighten, choking growth everywhere.   If bond yields were to re-focus on inflation and move higher, it would add a further headwind to the economy and markets, forcing the 30-year T-bond yield back down again from a ‘line in the sand’ at around 2.4-2.5 percent. So, the long-duration bond yield will go down directly or via a short detour higher. Either way, bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Given the very tight connection between bond yields and stock market sector, style, and country allocation, it will become clear that the recent outperformance of cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move in a much bigger structural downtrend (Chart I-7). This structural downtrend is set to resume. Chart I-7When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Yet, the over-arching message from the anatomy of shocks is that the ultimate structural low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond.   Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on banks, adds alternative electricity, and reviews bitcoin. Supporting the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, the recent outperformance of banks has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled several important turning-points through the past decade (Chart 1-8). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short world banks versus world consumer services, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.  Chart I-8The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- 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 ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6 Indicators 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