Monetary

Highlights Fed: The Fed will be forced to clarify its definition of “maximum employment” in 2022, and the path of inflation will ultimately dictate how far the Fed tries to push the labor market. We expect Fed rate hikes to start in December 2022 and that the pace of hikes will proceed more quickly than is currently priced in the yield curve. Duration: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in anticipation of a rate hike cycle starting in December 2022. Yield Curve: Investors should position in Treasury curve flatteners. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Feature Chart 1Bonds De-Coupled From Inflation In 2021 Bonds De-Coupled From Inflation In 2021 Bonds De-Coupled From Inflation In 2021 One of our themes this year is that US bond investors should pay more attention to the employment data than the inflation data.1 This is because the Fed has successfully convinced markets that it will not lift rates until “maximum employment” is achieved, even if inflation is strong.2 This story has played out during the past few months as bond yields have remained low despite surging prices (Chart 1). Our view is that the muted reaction in bonds is due to the widespread belief that the labor market remains far from “maximum employment” and that rate hikes are therefore a long way off. In this environment, only surprisingly strong employment prints can upset the market’s narrative and send bond yields higher. This playbook for the bond market will continue to function for the next few months. Strong employment data will pull bond yields higher and disappointing employment data will push them down. Inflation prints will be largely irrelevant for the market. But this will change next year. In fact, we see the employment data taking a back seat to the inflation data in the minds of bond investors in 2022. A More Explicit Definition of “Maximum Employment” Must Emerge In 2022 Almost everyone agrees that the US labor market is far from “maximum employment” today, but that will no longer be the case in 2022. The Appendix to this report shows the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different possible definitions of “maximum employment” by a few specific future dates. For example, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 414 thousand would cause the unemployment rate to reach 3.8% and the labor force participation rate to reach 63% by the end of 2022. Our sense is that the US economy will be able to add more than 414 thousand jobs per month between now and December 2022. This means that if Fed officials believe that an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 63% meet the definition of “maximum employment”, then they will start to lift interest rates by then. This example sets the scene for what will become next year’s most important monetary policy debate. What constitutes “maximum employment”? Does our example of a 3.8% unemployment rate and a 63% participation rate meet the definition? Or does the Fed have different targets in mind? The Fed will be forced to clarify its position on the topic as the labor market gets closer to reasonable definitions of “maximum employment”. Our sense is that, as of now, there are a range of views on the committee with some FOMC participants taking a more hawkish view of how much slack is left in the labor market and some adopting a more dovish posture. We outline the differences between the hawkish and dovish positions below, but ultimately the path of inflation in 2022 will determine which camp wins out. If inflation remains high next year, then the Fed will be quicker to declare that the labor market is at “maximum employment”, and vice-versa. The Fed’s reliance on the inflation data to settle the argument of what constitutes “maximum employment” will make inflation the most important economic indicator for bond yields in 2022. Labor Market Slack: The Hawkish Case Chart 2The Unemployment Rate Is Falling Fast The Unemployment Rate Is Falling Fast The Unemployment Rate Is Falling Fast The hawkish case for the US labor market reaching “maximum employment” sooner rather than later was outlined nicely last month by our own Bank Credit Analyst.3 First, the Bank Credit Analyst points out that the US labor market was likely beyond “maximum employment” before COVID-19 struck. The implication being that the Fed may move to lift interest rates before the unemployment and participation rates fully recover their pre-pandemic levels. Notice that the unemployment rate (adjusted for the post-COVID surge in people employed but absent from work) was 3.5% in February 2020, well below the Congressional Budget Office’s 4.5% estimate of the natural rate of unemployment (Chart 2).4 Today, the adjusted unemployment rate is 5.5%, not that far above the 3.5%-4.5% range of FOMC participant estimates of the natural rate. If this year’s rate of decline continues, the unemployment rate will hit 4.5% by January 2022 and 3.5% by May 2022. Of course, we know that the Fed takes a broader view of labor market utilization than just the unemployment rate. In particular, we observed sharp declines in labor force participation rates across a wide range of demographic groups when the pandemic struck last year (Chart 3). While the Fed will want to see some improvement in labor force participation, it might be unrealistic to expect the overall labor force participation rate to return to its pre-pandemic level. This is because the aging of the US population imparts a structural downtrend to the participation rate. The dashed line in Chart 4 shows where the participation rate would be if the rate of labor force participation of every individual age cohort remained constant at its February 2020 level. Even in this case, the greater flow of people into the older age groups causes the part rate to fall over time. The message from Chart 4 is that even if the participation rates of every age cohort tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics rebound to their February 2020 levels, we would still only expect an overall participation rate of 62.8% by the end of 2022, significantly below the 63.3% seen in February 2020. Chart 3Labor Force Participation By Age Cohort Labor Force Participation By Age Cohort Labor Force Participation By Age Cohort Chart 4The Demographic Downtrend In Participation The Demographic Downtrend In Participation The Demographic Downtrend In Participation On top of the demographic argument, we also notice that the pandemic led to a surge in the number of retired people last year, a number that continues to rise quickly (Chart 5). While we should probably expect some increase in the flow of people coming out of retirement to re-join the labor force as the economy recovers, it’s also logical to assume that there will be at least some hysteresis among the retired population. That is, the longer someone is retired, the less likely they are to re-enter the labor force at all. To the extent that the increase in retired people is sticky, it may be ambitious to expect a full convergence of the 55-year+ part rate back to February 2020 levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). All else equal, this will cause the labor market to reach “maximum employment” more quickly than even our demographic trendline for participation suggests. Chart 5A Surge In Retirees A Surge In Retirees A Surge In Retirees The question of how many FOMC participants agree with the above arguments remains open, but our sense is that there are some who will be eager to declare that “maximum employment” has been achieved before we see a full rebound in the unemployment and participation rates back to pre-COVID levels. For example, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida mentioned the “demographic trend” in labor force participation in his most recent speech.5 Also, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said the following in a recent interview: We’ve had 3 million retirements since February 2020. […] Some of these workers will come back into the workforce, but some of these workers are 55 and older and they’re in reasonably good financial shape and COVID has caused them to re-think whether they really want to re-enter the workforce.6 Labor Market Slack: The Dovish Case There are also good arguments on the side of those who think that an appropriate definition of “maximum employment” involves an unemployment rate closer to 3.5% than 4.5% and a participation rate that does return to pre-COVID levels, and maybe even moves higher. First, a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City noted that the bulk of the recent increase in the number of retired people is explained, not by an increase in the number of retirements, but by a reduction in the flow of people from retirement back into the workforce (Chart 6).7 This suggests that pandemic-related health risks are the likely culprit behind the increase in the number of retired people, casting doubt on the idea that the increase in retired people will be sticky. Chart 6Increased Retirees: A Closer Look 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Second, there is a strong case to be made that even the February 2020 labor force participation rate is not high enough to meet the definition of “maximum employment”. If we look at the participation rates for 25-54 year old men and women, we see that both were in strong uptrends prior to the pandemic (Chart 7), and there is every reason to believe that they would have continued to move higher if COVID hadn’t cut the recovery short. Chart 7Part Rates Were Rising Pre-Pandemic Part Rates Were Rising Pre-Pandemic Part Rates Were Rising Pre-Pandemic Consider what some FOMC participants were saying prior to the pandemic: The strong labor market is also encouraging more people in their prime working years – ages 25 to 54 – to rejoin or remain in the labor force, […] So far, we have made up more than half the loss in the Great Recession, which translates to almost 2 million more people in the labor force. But prime age participation could still be higher. - Jerome Powell, November 20198 Whether participation will continue to increase in a tight labor market remains to be seen. But I note that male prime-age participation still remains below levels seen in previous business cycle expansions. - Richard Clarida, November 20199 In a more recent interview, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari expressed skepticism about the idea that labor force participation is destined to remain in a long-run structural downtrend and said that he’s “not convinced we were actually at maximum employment before the COVID shock hit us.” He also said: Getting [labor force participation] and employment-to-population at least back to where they were before [the pandemic], but not necessarily even declaring victory when we do that. I think that’s a reasonable thing for us to try to achieve.10   Inflation: The Ultimate Argument Settler What the above arguments make clear is that there are good reasons to think that the US labor market will reach some policymakers’ definitions of “maximum employment” perhaps by as early as the middle of next year. However, there are also some policymakers who will adopt a more dovish view of what constitutes “maximum employment”. Ultimately, the path of inflation will determine which camp wins out. This is because the entire concept of “maximum employment” is only meaningful when viewed alongside inflation. If employment is pushed beyond its “maximum”, it definitionally means that labor market tightness is leading to unwanted inflationary pressures. With that in mind, the Fed will increasingly refer to the inflation data next year as it tries to make its definition of “maximum employment” more precise. Crucially, what will matter for the Fed (and for the bond market) is where inflation is next year, not where it is right now. Right now, core inflation is well above the Fed’s price stability target, but it is well known that the recent increase in inflation is concentrated in a few sectors – COVID-impacted services and autos – where prices will decelerate as post-pandemic bottlenecks ease (Chart 8). Just as the Fed ignored surging prices in those sectors this year, it will ignore plunging prices in those sectors next year. What will matter for monetary policy is whether core inflation excluding COVID-impacted services and autos remains contained or rises above levels consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 8, bottom panel). The Fed will also be inclined to declare that “maximum employment” has been achieved if wage growth is accelerating. Currently, there is some evidence of rising wages but also some major supply bottlenecks in the labor market, as evidenced by the all-time high in job openings (Chart 9). Labor supply constraints should ease next year, but the Fed will be watching closely to see if wage growth moderates in kind or continues to increase. Chart 8Watch CPI (ex. COVID-Impacted Services And Autos) In 2022 Watch CPI (ex. COVID-Impacted Services And Autos) In 2022 Watch CPI (ex. COVID-Impacted Services And Autos) In 2022 Chart 9Watch Wages In 2022 Watch Wages In 2022 Watch Wages In 2022 Finally, the Fed will keep a close eye on inflation expectations next year. In particular, it will monitor the Common Inflation Expectations Index and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 10). If either of these indicators break above levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target, then policymakers will be more inclined to think that “maximum employment” has been attained. Chart 10Watch Inflation Expectations In 2022 Watch Inflation Expectations In 2022 Watch Inflation Expectations In 2022 Bottom Line: The Fed will be forced to clarify its definition of “maximum employment” in 2022, and the path of inflation will ultimately dictate how far the Fed tries to push the labor market. The key indicators to monitor to decide when the Fed will declare that “maximum employment” has been attained are: core inflation excluding COVID-impacted services and autos, wage growth, inflation expectations and the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate (Chart 3, panel 2). Investment Implications For bond markets, the question of when the Fed decides that the labor market has reached “maximum employment” is crucial because it will determine the start of the next rate hike cycle. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for Fed liftoff in January 2023 and for a total of 78 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 11). Chart 11Rate Hike Expectations Rate Hike Expectations Rate Hike Expectations Our expectation is that the Fed will start lifting rates in December 2022 and that rate hikes will proceed more quickly than what is currently priced in the market. The unemployment rate will be close to 3.5% by December 2022 and inflation will be sufficiently above the Fed’s target that policymakers will be inclined to view the labor market as at “maximum employment”. Investors should run below-benchmark duration in US bond portfolios to profit from this outcome. We also recommend that investors position for a flatter yield curve by the end of 2022. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Table 1A shows fair value estimates for the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year yields as of the end of 2022 assuming the market moves to price-in the following path for the fed funds rate: The first 25 bps rate hike occurs in December 2022 Rate hikes proceed at a pace of 100 bps per year The fed funds rate levels-off at a terminal rate of 2.08%11 Table 1ATreasury Curve Fair Value Estimates: December 2022 Liftoff Scenario 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation In that example, the 2-year and 5-year yields both rise by much more than the 10-year yield and both exceed the change that is priced into the forward curve by more than the 10-year yield. Table 1B shows the results from a similar scenario, the only difference is that the liftoff date is pushed back to March 2023. Both the 2-year and 5-year yields also rise by more than the 10-year yield in this scenario, though the delayed liftoff dampens the relative upside in the 2-year yield. Table 1BTreasury Curve Fair Value Estimates: March 2023 Liftoff Scenario 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Bottom Line: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and position in Treasury curve flatteners in anticipation of a rate hike cycle that will start in December 2022. Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a more or less complete recovery of the labor force participation rate back to February 2020 levels (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 62.8%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +414k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents 2022 Will Be All About Inflation 2022 Will Be All About Inflation Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth continues to print at the same level as last month, then we could anticipate a Fed rate hike by June 2022. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 2 Specifically, the Fed’s forward guidance states that it will not lift interest rates until (i) inflation is above 2%, (ii) inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time and (iii) the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. 3 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, dated August 26, 2021. 4 For details on the adjustment we make to the unemployment rate please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overreaction”, dated July 13, 2021. 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm 6  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-09/dallas-fed-president-rob-kaplan-on-the-economy-and-monetary-policy-right-now?sref=Ij5V3tFi 7 https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/what-has-driven-the-recent-increase-in-retirements/ 8 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20191125a.htm 9 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191114a.htm 10 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-16/neel-kashkari-on-the-fed-s-quest-to-get-to-full-employment?srnd=oddlots-podcast&sref=Ij5V3tFi 11 We assume a target range of 2% to 2.25% for the terminal fed funds rate. We also assume that the effective fed funds rate trades 8 bps above the lower-end of its target band, as is presently the case. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights The equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002. It follows that any significant rise in bond yields will cause risk-asset prices to collapse, quickly flipping any incipient inflationary shock into a deflationary shock. Shorting bonds yielding 2 percent is a ‘widow maker’ trade, as anybody who has tried this with a long list of government bonds has learned to their cost, the most recent being UK gilts. Hence, the next on the list for the ‘widow maker’ is shorting the US 30-year T-bond which is now yielding 2 percent. In fact, the US 30-year T-bond is a must-own structural investment. Fractal analysis: Medical equipment versus healthcare services. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 Mainstream investments are now priced to deliver negative, zero, or at best, feeble long-term investment returns. Mainstream investments are now priced to deliver negative, zero, or at best, feeble long-term investment returns. For example, the US 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Security (TIPS) and the UK 10-year index linked gilt are yielding -1.3 percent and -2.8 percent respectively. Meaning that anybody who buys and holds these bonds to redemption is guaranteed a deeply negative 10-year real return. Meanwhile, in nominal yield space, 10-year government bonds yield -0.35 percent in Germany and Switzerland, 0.7 percent in the UK, and 1.3 percent in the US. What about equities? Unlike a bond’s redemption yield, equities do not offer a guaranteed long-term return for buy-and-hold investors. So, some analysts assume that the equity market’s earnings yield is the proxy for this long-term return. According to these analysts, the US equity market’s earnings yield of 4.4 percent means that it will deliver a prospective long-term real return of 4.4 percent per annum. Compared to the 10-year TIPS real yield of -1.3 percent, they argue that this offers an excess return or ‘equity risk premium’ of a comfortable +5.7 percent. Therefore, claim these analysts, equities are reasonably valued, relative to bonds, and in absolute terms.  But as we will now demonstrate, this analysis is deeply flawed. The Equity Risk Premium Has Turned Negative The equity market’s earnings yield is a valuation metric, so clearly there is some connection between it and the prospective return delivered by the equity market. Nevertheless, the crucial point to grasp is that: The equity market’s earnings yield does not equal its prospective return. Charts I-2 - I-3 should make this point crystal clear. As you can see, the earnings yield rarely equals the delivered prospective 10-year return, either real or nominal. When the earnings yield is elevated, the prospective return turns out higher. Conversely, when the earnings yield is depressed, as now, the prospective return turns out to be much lower. Chart I-2The Equity Market's Earnings Yield Does NOT Equal Its Prospective Return, Either In Real Terms... The Equity Market's Earnings Yield Does NOT Equal Its Prospective Return, Either In Real Terms... The Equity Market's Earnings Yield Does NOT Equal Its Prospective Return, Either In Real Terms... Chart I-3...Or In Nominal ##br##Terms ...Or In Nominal Terms ...Or In Nominal Terms Therefore, to take the current earnings yield of 4.4 percent and subtract the real bond yield of -1.3 percent to derive an equity risk premium of +5.7 percent is analytically flawed, just as it is analytically flawed to subtract apples from oranges. To derive the equity risk premium, the correct approach is first to translate the earnings yield into a prospective 10-year return based on the established mathematical relationship between these variables. Chart I-4 does this and shows that, based on a very tight mathematical relationship through the past thirty five years, an earnings yield of 4.4 percent translates into a prospective 10-year nominal return of just 1 percent. Chart I-4We Must Mathematically Map The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Return... We Must Mathematically Map The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Return... We Must Mathematically Map The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Return... Having translated the earnings yield into a prospective 10-year nominal return of 1 percent, we can now make an apples-for-apples comparison with the 10-year T-bond yield of 1.3 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5...And Only Then Subtract The Bond Yield ...And Only Then Subtract The Bond Yield ...And Only Then Subtract The Bond Yield Derived correctly therefore, the equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002 (Chart of the Week). We deduce that the equity market is very richly valued both in absolute terms and relative to bonds. And crucially, that this rich valuation is contingent on bond yields remaining ultra-low, or going even lower. Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A ‘Widow Maker’ All of which brings us to one of the most pressing questions we get from clients. When a bond is offering a feeble yield, what is the point in owning it? Maybe the best people to answer are the casualties of the now infamous ‘widow maker’ trades. The original widow maker trade was the idea that the yield on the Japanese Government Bond (JGB), at 2 percent, was so feeble that there was no point in owning it. Furthermore, with massive Japanese fiscal stimulus coming down the pike, the ‘no-brainer’ investment strategy was not just to disown the JGBs, but to take an outright short position, as it seemed that the only direction that JGB yields could go was up. In fact, JGB yields did not go up, they continued to trend down. As feeble yields became even feebler, the owners of the short positions got carried out of their careers, feet first. Meanwhile, those investors who owned 30-year JGBs yielding a ‘feeble’ 2 percent in 2013 reaped returns of 75 percent, and even now, are sitting on handsome profits of 55 percent. Some people protest that Japan is an exceptional and isolated case, rather than a template for economies which will not repeat their putative policy-errors. Such protests have always struck us as factually wrong, blinkered, and even prejudiced. Nevertheless, let’s indulge these prejudices with a simple rejoinder – forget Japan, what about Switzerland, or the UK? (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A 'Widow Maker' Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A 'Widow Maker' Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A 'Widow Maker' Just like the JGB widow maker, anybody who shorted UK gilts yielding 2 percent is nursing heavy losses. Meanwhile, those investors who owned 30-year UK gilts yielding a ‘feeble’ 2 percent in 2018 reaped returns of 40 percent, and even now are sitting on tidy profits of 30 percent. Just like the JGB widow maker, anybody who shorted UK gilts yielding 2 percent is nursing heavy losses. Bear in mind that a 30-year bond yielding a feeble 2 percent will deliver a cumulative return of more than 80 percent to redemption. And that if the feeble yield becomes even feebler, this return will get front-end loaded, creating widow makers for the short positions and spectacular gains for the long positions, as witnessed in JGBs and UK gilts. The 30-Year T-Bond Is A Must-Own Structural Investment The next candidate for the widow maker is shorting the US 30-year T-bond, which is yielding, you guessed it, 2 percent. Remember that while Japan may not be a great template for the US, the UK certainly is – because the US and UK have very similar economic, financial, political, social, and cultural structures. Until recently therefore, bond yields in the US and UK were moving in near-perfect lockstep (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Difference Between US And UK Bond Yields Is Just That The UK Has Had One More Deflationary Shock The Difference Between US And UK Bond Yields Is Just That The UK Has Had One More Deflationary Shock The Difference Between US And UK Bond Yields Is Just That The UK Has Had One More Deflationary Shock So, what happened? The one word answer is: Brexit. The recent difference between US and UK bond yields is simply that the UK has had one more deflationary shock than the US. Put the other way around, the US is just one deflationary shock away from a UK level of bond yields – meaning the 30-year yield not at 2 percent, but at 1 percent. But why can’t the next shock be an inflationary shock resulting in much higher yields? The simple answer is that the equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002. Moreover, as we pointed out in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation the extremely rich valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate is also highly contingent on ultra-low bond yields. It follows that any significant rise in bond yields will collapse the value of $500 trillion of risk-assets. In a $90 trillion global economy, this will quickly flip any incipient inflationary shock into a deflationary shock. Any significant rise in bond yields will collapse the value of $500 trillion of risk-assets. We conclude that the US 30-year T-bond is a must-own structural investment. Fractal Analysis Update As hospitals have rushed to clear their backlog of non-pandemic treatments and procedures, medical equipment stock prices have surged. This is particularly true for US medical equipment (ticker IHI) which, since June, is up by 25 percent versus US healthcare services (Iqvia, Veeva, or loosely proxied by ticker XHS). Given that the backlog of treatments will eventually clear, and that the intense rally is now extremely fragile on its 65-day fractal structure (Chart I-8), a recommended countertrend trade is to short US medical equipment versus healthcare services. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8.5 percent.  Chart I-8The Intense Rally In Medical Equipment Stocks Has Become Fragile The Intense Rally In Medical Equipment Stocks Has Become Fragile The Intense Rally In Medical Equipment Stocks Has Become Fragile   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   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  

Highlights Chart 1Employment Growth Will Rebound Employment Growth Will Rebound Employment Growth Will Rebound August’s weak employment growth reflects the surge of Delta variant COVID cases in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that Leisure & Hospitality sector payrolls held flat in August after having grown by 415k in July and 397k in June (Chart 1). While Delta could still be a drag on employment growth for another month or two, there is mounting evidence that the daily new case count is close to its peak. Leisure & Hospitality employment growth will regain its prior pace as new Delta cases trend down. This will lead to a resumption of strong monthly payroll reports (500k – 1000k) as we head into the new year. For monetary policy, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 414k will be sufficient for the Fed to start rate hikes before the end of 2022 (bottom panel). We anticipate that this threshold will easily be met. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as employment growth improves and the market prices-in an earlier start and quicker pace of Fed rate hikes. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and stay short the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +166 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 91 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled for corporate bond excess returns.1 It shows that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend that investors shift into high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereigns and corporates. We also advise investors to favor long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* The Delta Drag The Delta Drag High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +502 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.0% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first seven months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report looked at the incremental spread pick-up investors can earn by moving out of investment grade corporates and into junk.4 It concluded that the extra spread available in high-yield is worth grabbing and that B-rated bonds look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms.   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -67 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 4 bps in August. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 2 bps in August (panel 2), and it is now starting to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 38 bps, below the 56 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 20 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 35 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 122 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 8 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +44 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 9 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +382 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +30 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds outperformed US corporates in August and relative valuation between the two sectors is starting to equalize (panel 4). That said, we retain a preference for EM sovereigns over US corporates, particularly the bonds of Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar where value remains attractive. A recent report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.6 It found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. It also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +262 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 GO munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a 5% breakeven tax rate versus corporates with the same credit rating and duration. 12-17 year Revenue munis actually offer a before-tax yield pick-up (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 23% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields moved higher in August, with the 5-year and 7-year maturities bearing the brunt of the sell-off. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 115 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 1.93%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is not that far below our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.21% in one year’s time and 1.47% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 146 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 265 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell.  TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS performed in line with the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index in August, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +578 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates both fell by 7 bps in August. At 2.37%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.21%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month investment horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation continues to moderate from its current extremely high level. This will lead to some modest steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). While the inflation curve has some room to steepen, we don’t see it returning to positive territory. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one. This is because the Fed’s new framework calls for it to attack its inflation target from above rather than from below. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +40 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +30 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +529 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month. It currently sits at 35 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of August 31st, 2021) The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of August 31st, 2021) The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 12 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 12 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of August 31st, 2021) The Delta Drag The Delta Drag Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 For ideas on how to increase the average spread of a US bond portfolio please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021.

Highlights A trio of ECB hawks raised the prospect of an ECB taper. In the past, the current set of economic conditions in the Euro Area would have prompted the ECB to tighten policy. A potential economic deceleration this fall, the transitory nature of the Eurozone’s inflation spike, and the level of inflation expectation in the region limit the ECB’s ability to taper this week. We expect a one-off return to the pre-Q2 2021 level of asset purchases couched in a very dovish forward guidance. Peripheral bonds and European corporate bonds will outperform German and other core European paper. Stay long European curve steepeners, while buying US curve flatteners. Overweight German Bunds versus US Treasury Notes, on a USD-hedged basis. European productivity will remain structurally hampered compared to that of the US. US real bond yields will rise relative to Europe. Feature Last week, a chorus of ECB Governing Council members raised the idea among investors that the central bank may soon begin to taper its asset purchases, which prompted Bund yields to hit -0.35% on Wednesday. Robert Holzmann of Austria, Klaas Knot of the Netherlands, and Jens Weidmann of Germany all suggested that monetary conditions were too accommodative for the Eurozone and that the ECB needed to remedy this problem. The complaints of this hawkish trio reflect the current environment. In August, the Eurozone HICP reached a 3% annual rate while the preliminary estimate for core CPI clicked in at 1.6%. Meanwhile, July PPI rose to 12.1%. Such robust inflation readings are at odds with the low level of interest rates in the Eurozone, where the yields on European IG credit and 10-year Italian BTPs average a paltry 0.45% (Chart 1). Beyond the level of inflation, its broad geographic nature is an additional source of concern. Headline CPI is accelerating across all the bloc’s nations, and it stands above 2% in 82% of the members’ states. Historically, this kind of inflationary backdrop resulted in either higher interest rates or some tapering of asset purchases, especially when economic activity was also improving in the Eurozone (Chart 2). Chart 1A Gap For The Hawks A Gap For The Hawks A Gap For The Hawks Chart 2In The Past, The ECB Would Have Tightened In The Past, The ECB Would Have Tightened In The Past, The ECB Would Have Tightened Will the ECB listen to its most hawkish members and follow its past script? We do not believe that the Governing Council is about to start a sustained period of decreased bond buying, even if a return to the pre-Q2 2021 pace of buying is likely this fall. Thus, a dovish taper is the most likely outcome of this week’s meeting. The ECB’s Three Constraints The outlook for growth, the temporary nature of the current spike in European inflation, and the low-level of Euro Area inflation expectations limit the ECB’s ability to remove monetary accommodation. First, European economic growth is at its apex and will decelerate over the next six months. Currently, domestic activity as approximated by the Services PMI stands at near a 15-year high of almost 60. Moreover, despite the spike in COVD-19 cases linked to the Delta variant, mobility remains very robust. If anything, the decline in cases in Spain and France should lead to further improvement in mobility (Chart 3). Nonetheless, the recent fall in consumer confidence and the recent US experience, which the European economy usually follows, point to a deceleration in the Services PMI. The case for a decline in manufacturing activity is more pronounced. The European manufacturing sector responds strongly to the fluctuation of the global industrial sector. US consumer spending on durable goods is 21% above its pre-pandemic trend and is beginning to weaken as pent-up demand for such products has been satiated and households shift their spending back toward services. Moreover, the Chinese credit cycle, which leads the Eurozone Manufacturing PMI by nine months, indicates a greater deceleration in the coming quarters, because European exports to China will slow (Chart 4, top and middle panels). In response to these two forces, Europe will not diverge from the deterioration in our Global Activity Nowcast (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3So Far, No Delta Impact So Far, No Delta Impact So Far, No Delta Impact Chart 4The Coming Manufacturing Slowdown The Coming Manufacturing Slowdown The Coming Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 5Abnormal Goods Inflation Abnormal Goods Inflation Abnormal Goods Inflation Second, most evidence still suggests that the current inflation increase will be temporary, despite its violence. To begin with, the spike in inflation remains consigned to the goods sectors, while services inflation stands at 1.1%, in line with the experience of the past 10 years (Chart 5). Even within goods prices, the spike in CPI is limited to sectors facing bottlenecks or linked closely to commodity and shipping prices. As Chart 6 illustrates, the categories experiencing abnormal inflation are directly related to higher energy prices, cars, complex machinery, hotels, and fresh food. Meanwhile, underlying inflation as estimated by our trimmed-mean CPI measure is bottoming, but remains at a very low 0.2% annual rate (Chart 7). Chart 6Inflation Remains A Commodity and Bottleneck Story The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma In the same vein, the surge in Selling Price Expectations of the European Commission Business Survey is a function of commodity inflation (Chart 8). In other words, companies feel they can increase their selling prices, because natural resource prices have spiked. However, inflation across many commodities is currently peaking, which suggests that Selling Price Expectations will soon do so as well. Moreover, this process indicates that headline inflation should hit its summit by year end, because Selling Price Expectations are a coincident indicator of inflation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7Narrow Inflation Narrow Inflation Narrow Inflation Chart 8Rising Selling Prices And Commodities Rising Selling Prices And Commodities Rising Selling Prices And Commodities A wage-inflation spiral also remains far away. Historically, rapidly accelerating wage growth marked periods of elevated inflation. Despite current fears, such a development is not taking place in the Eurozone. For the whole bloc, negotiated wages are growing at a modest 1.7% annual rate (Chart 9). Even in Germany, negotiated wages are only increasing at the same rate. While some labor shortages have been reported, total hours worked remain below the equilibrium level based on the Euro Area demographic profile (Chart 9, bottom panel). Furthermore, the past ten years reveal that labor shortages only caused stronger salary growth with a multi-year delay. Third, the market doubts the credibility of the ECB when it comes to achieving a 2% inflation target. So far, survey-based inflation expectations remain below 2% at all tenors (Chart 10, top panel). The same is true of market-based measures, which are still lower than the levels that prevailed before the sovereign debt crisis of the past decade (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 9No Wages/Inflation Spiral No Wages/Inflation Spiral No Wages/Inflation Spiral Chart 10The ECB's Inflation Mandate Is Not Yet Credible The ECB's Inflation Mandate Is Not Yet Credible The ECB's Inflation Mandate Is Not Yet Credible Bottom Line: Risks to growth over the winter, the transitory nature of the recent inflation shock, and inflation expectations that remain significantly below target are constraints limitating the ability of the ECB to announce a true tapering of its asset purchases this Thursday. A Dovish Taper? Considering the current set of conditions prevailing in the Eurozone, we expect the ECB to announce a return to the pace of asset purchases that existed prior to Q2 2021. However, the Governing Council (GC) will go out of its way to issue clear forward guidance that strongly indicates this is not the beginning of a taper campaign. Instead, the GC will hint at the transmutation of a large proportion of the PEPP monthly buying into the PSPP after March 2022. The inflation target change enacted at the conclusion of the ECB’s strategy review in July limits the central bank’s ability to go back to its old rule book and tighten policy at the first hint of inflation. First, the ECB must believe that inflation will overshoot 2% on a durable basis, which will necessitate an upgrade to its long-term inflation forecast above the target. Too many members of the GC do not share this view, which makes it unlikely that inflation forecasts will rise this much this week. Moreover, inflation expectations are also too low to warn of a meaningful change in the behavior of European economic agents, especially if the current spike in inflation proves to be transitory. Another problem for the ECB is the Fed. If the ECB were to announce a durable tapering of its asset purchase this week, it would be doing so ahead of the Fed. The GC fears that this action would put considerable upward pressure on EUR/USD, which would create a grave deflationary tendency in the Eurozone (Chart 11). Despite these shackles, the ECB will also acknowledge that the current emergency pace of asset purchases is no longer warranted. Starting Q2 2021, the ECB increased its average monthly purchase from EUR80 billion in the August 2020 to March 2021 period, to EUR95 billion since April 2021 (Chart 12). However, these increased purchases followed a 0.1% GDP contraction in Q1 in the wake of a spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths, which prompted a large reduction in mobility. Moreover, the larger bond buying also followed large increases in bond yields across the main economies of the continent, a rise which, if it had been left unchecked, would have exacerbated the economic malaise. Chart 11The ECB Fears A Strong Euro The ECB Fears A Strong Euro The ECB Fears A Strong Euro Chart 12Normalizing Purchases The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma None of these factors are still present. The increasing level of vaccination has dulled the economic impact of the third wave of infection. The economy is expanding robustly and, even if it slows in the months ahead, growth will remain well above trend. Crucially, financial conditions are much more generous than in the first half of the year, with a euro that trades 4% below its January peak and with yields in the bloc’s four largest economies 25 to 45 basis points below their spring peaks. Bottom Line: In response to the aforementioned crosscurrents, we anticipate the ECB to announce a return of its monthly asset purchases to the level that prevailed in the August 2020 to March 2021 period. However, the GC will also clearly indicate, as it did last March, that this policy shift is a one-off, and that investors must not anticipate any further curtailment of asset purchases over the next six months. To reinforce this guidance, we expect the ECB’s inflation forecast to show a return of HICP below 2% by the end of 2023. The GC might also hint at the roll-over of the PEPP program into the PSPP after March 2022. Investment Implications An ECB that conducts a dovish taper on Thursday will support our main fixed-income themes in Europe. First, it will remain a tailwind behind an overweight position in peripheral government bonds versus German bonds. The combination of continued purchases of EUR80 billion a month of bonds over the foreseeable future, above-trend growth, and the fiscal risk mutualization from the NGEU and REACT EU programs means that investors can continue to safely pocket the yield premium offered by BTPs and BONOs. Moreover, our geopolitical strategists expect a left-wing coalition to govern Germany after the September 26 election, which will limit the pressures to tighten budgets in the periphery over the coming years. Chart 13European Corporates Remain Attractive European Corporates Remain Attractive European Corporates Remain Attractive Second, continued liquidity injections by the ECB are also consistent with a preference for European corporate credit over government securities, especially in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. European breakeven spreads for IG and high-yield debts are in the 18th and 13th percentile rank, respectively (Chart 13). Easy monetary conditions and above-trend growth will facilitate further yield-seeking behavior in the Eurozone. This process will allow these securities to offer continued excess returns over at least the next six months. Third, we hold on to our box trade of being long Eurozone curve steepeners and long US curve flatteners. In our base case scenario, the Fed will soon indicate the beginning of its tapering campaign and will be on track to raise rates by early 2023, while the ECB will still conduct a very easy monetary policy. In this context, the US yield curve will flatten relative to the European one, driven by a more rapid increase at the short end of the curve. Chart 14Still Favor Bunds Over T-Notes The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Finally, in a global bond portfolio, it still makes sense to overweight German Bunds (hedged into USD) relative to US Treasury Notes. Bunds display a significantly lower yield beta than their US counterparts, which creates an attractive defensive feature in an environment in which global yields are likely to rise. Moreover, as the model in Chart 14 highlights, the US/German 10-year yield spread is roughly 50bps below an equilibrium estimate based on relative inflation, unemployment and policy rates, and the size of the Fed and ECB balance sheets. US inflation is likely to remain perkier than that of Europe over the coming quarters, and the US unemployment rate will decline faster as well. Additionally, in the unlikely scenario that the Fed declines to taper its purchases this year, but the ECB does, inflation expectations will rise in the US relative to the Euro Area, which will put upward pressure on yield spreads. Bottom Line: A dovish ECB taper, whereby the GC executes a one-off adjustment in asset purchases with an easy forward guidance, will support our overweight in peripheral government bonds relative to bunds, our preference for European corporate credit relative to government paper, our Europe / US box trade, and BCA’s underweight in Treasurys relative to Bunds. Europe’s Productivity Deficit Is Not Over Compared to the US, GDP growth in the Eurozone has been trending lower since the introduction of the euro in 1999. While a weaker demographic profile has hurt Europe, so has slower productivity growth. Going forward, the gap between European and US productivity growth will somewhat narrow compared to last decade, but it will still favor the US. The cross-Atlantic gap in output per hour growth between has a cyclical and a structural component. The cyclical element is set to ebb. Last decade, the Eurozone suffered a double-dip recession, as the European sovereign debt crisis raged. As a result, capex and debt accumulation in Europe lagged that of the US, which hurt demand and, thus, output-per-hour worked (Chart 15, top panel). Going forward, the European debt crisis has been addressed, the ECB has demonstrated its willingness to do “whatever it takes” to support the monetary union and both the European Commission and the German government have thrown their full weight behind the integrity of Europe, even if it means bailing out their profligate southern neighbors. Despite this positive, some structural headwinds will continue to handicap European productivity. Since 2000, total factor productivity in the major Euro Area economies has lagged that of the US (Chart 15, bottom panel). Many factors suggest this will not change: Chart 15Europe’s Productivity Deficit The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma The Eurozone’s big four economies continue to linger well behind the US in terms of ICT investment, which in recent decades has been a crucial driver of productivity. R&D represents a significantly lower share of GDP in the Eurozone than it does in the US (Chart 16). More investment in intangible assets has been linked to higher productivity growth. Additionally, Ortega-Argilés et al. have shown that EU companies do not convert R&D into productivity gains as well as US businesses do, because they generate lower return on investments.1 Confirming this insight, an empirical study using microdata on R&D spending for EU and US firms highlights that both R&D intensity and productivity are lower for EU firms than for their US counterparts.2 For a 10% increase in R&D intensity, US businesses generated a 2.7% increase in productivity, while EU firms enjoyed a much smaller 1% gain. The gap is larger for high-tech companies, where the same rise in R&D intensity produced a 3.3% productivity gain in the US, but only a 1.2% one in the EU. The European economy remains much more fragmented than that of the US, and the greater prevalence of small firms in the Euro Area results in a less efficient use of the human and capital stocks. Finally, the low rate of investments in recent years has caused the European capital stock to age faster than that of the US. An older pool of assets is further away from the technological frontier and thus weighs on TFP and overall labor productivity (Chart 17). Chart 16Lagging European R&D The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Chart 17The Ageing European Capital Stock The Ageing European Capital Stock The Ageing European Capital Stock Notwithstanding cyclical fluctuations related to the global debt cycle, the Eurozone profit margins and RoEs will not converge meaningfully toward US levels on a structural basis because of this productivity problem. Europe’s lower industry concentration ratios, lower markups, and greater share of output absorbed by wages will only accentuate this problem. Chart 18TIPS Yields Vs Real Bunds TIPS Yields Vs Real Bunds TIPS Yields Vs Real Bunds As a result of the lower trend growth rate caused by lower productivity and its inferior return on invested capital, Europe’s R-Star is unlikely to catch up meaningfully to US levels. Consequently, the gap between US and Germany real rates will remain wide and will drive the increase in US yields relative to those of Germany, as the Fed begins to tighten policy while the ECB stands pat (Chart 18). Bottom Line: Europe’s productivity deficit is not the only consequence of last decade’s sovereign debt crisis. Thus, the Euro Area’s potential GDP growth and return on invested capital will lingers behind those of the US. As a corollary, the Eurozone’s R-star is well below that of the US. Hence, we expect higher real rates to drive the increase in US yields over Germany as the Fed tightens policy ahead of the ECB.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1R. Ortega-Argilés, M. Piva, and M. Vivarelli, “The Transatlantic Productivity Gap: Is R&D the Main Culprit?,” Canadian Journal of Economics 47.4 (2014), pp. 1342-71. 2D. Castellani, M. Piva, T. Schubert, and M. Vivarelli, “The Productivity Impact of R&D Investment: A Comparison between the EU and the US,” IZA Discussion Papers 9937 (2016). Tactical Recommendations The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Cyclical Recommendations The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Structural Recommendations The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Closed Trades The ECB Taper Dilemma The ECB Taper Dilemma Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Highlights An Iran crisis is imminent. We still think a US-Iran détente is possible but our conviction is lower until Biden makes a successful show of force. Oil prices will be volatile. Fiscal drag is a risk to the cyclical global macro view. But developed markets are more fiscally proactive than they were after the global financial crisis. Elections will reinforce that, starting in Germany, Canada, and Japan. The Chinese and Russian spheres are still brimming with political and geopolitical risk. But China will ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months. Afghanistan will not upset our outlook on the German and French elections, which is positive for the euro and European stocks. Feature Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Iran is now the most pressing geopolitical risk in the short term (Chart 1). The Biden administration has been chastened by the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and will be exceedingly reactive if it is provoked by foreign powers. Nuclear weapons improve regime survivability. Survival is what the Islamic Republic wants. Iran is surrounded by enemies in its region and under constant pressure from the United States. Hence Iran will never ultimately give up its nuclear program, as we have maintained. Chart 2Biden Unlikely To Lift Iran Sanctions Unilaterally Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could still agree to a deal in which the US reduces economic sanctions while Iran allows some restrictions on uranium enrichment for a limited period of time (the 2015 nuclear deal’s key provisions expire from 2023 through 2030). This would be a stopgap measure to delay the march into war. The problem is that rejoining the 2015 deal requires the US to ease sanctions first, since the US walked away from the deal in 2018. Iran would need domestic political cover to rejoin it. Biden has the executive authority to ease sanctions unilaterally but after Afghanistan he lacks the political capital to do so (Chart 2). So Biden cannot ease sanctions until Iran pares back its nuclear activities. But Iran has no reason to pare back if the US does not ease sanctions. Iran is now enriching some uranium to a purity of 60%. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz says it will reach “nuclear breakout” capability – enough fissile material to build a bomb – within 10 weeks, i.e. mid-October. Anonymous officials from the Biden administration told the Associated Press it will be “months or less,” which could mean September, October, or November (Table 1). Table 1Iran Nearing "Breakout" Nuclear Capability Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Meanwhile the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who is tipped to take over as Supreme Leader once Ali Khamenei steps down, is implying that it will not rejoin negotiations until November. All of these timelines are blurry but the implication is that Iran will not resume talks until it has achieved nuclear breakout. Israel will continue its campaign of sabotage against the regime. It may be pressed to the point of launching air strikes, as it did against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 under what is known as the “Begin Doctrine.” Chart 3Israel Cannot Risk Losing US Security Guarantee Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) The constraint on Israel is that it cannot afford to lose America’s public support and defense alliance since it would find itself isolated and vulnerable in its region (Chart 3). But if Israeli intelligence concludes that the Iranians truly stand on the verge of achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon, the country will likely be driven to launch air strikes. Once the Iranians test and display a viable nuclear deterrent it will be too late. Four US presidents, including Biden, have declared that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Biden and the Democrats favor diplomacy, as Biden made clear in his bilateral summit with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett last week. But Biden also admitted that if diplomacy fails there are “other options.” The Israelis currently have a weak government but it is unified against a nuclear-armed Iran. At very least Bennett will underscore red lines to indicate that Israel’s vigilance has not declined despite hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu’s fall from power. Still, Iran may decide it has an historic opportunity to make a dash for the bomb if it thinks that the US will fail to support an Israeli attack. The US has lost leverage in negotiations since 2015. It no longer has troops stationed on Iran’s east and west flanks. It no longer has the same degree of Chinese and Russian cooperation. It is even more internally divided. Iran has no guarantee that the US will not undergo another paroxysm of nationalism in 2024 and try to attack it. The faction that opposed the deal all along is now in power and may believe it has the best chance in its lifetime to achieve nuclear breakout. The only reason a short-term deal is possible is because Khamenei may believe the Israelis will attack with full American support. He agreed to the 2015 deal. He also fears that the combination of economic sanctions and simmering social unrest will create a rift when he dies or passes the leadership to his successor. Iran has survived the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions but it is still vulnerable (Chart 4). Chart 4Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Moreover Biden is offering Khamenei a deal that does not require abandoning the nuclear program and does not prevent Iran from enhancing its missile capabilities. By taking the deal he might prevent his enemies from unifying, forestall immediate war, and pave the way for a smooth succession, while still pursuing the ultimate goal of nuclear weaponization. Bringing it all together, the world today stands at a critical juncture with regard to Iran and the unfinished business of the US wars in the Middle East. Unless the US and Israel stage a unified and convincing show of force, whether preemptively or in response to Iranian provocations, the Iranians will be justified in concluding that they have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pursue the bomb. They could sneak past the global powers and obtain a nuclear deterrent and regime security, like North Korea did. This could easily precipitate a war. Biden will probably continue to be reactive rather than proactive. If the Iranians are silent then it will be clear that Khamenei still sees the value in a short-term deal. But if they continue their march toward nuclear breakout, as is the case as we go to press, then Biden will have to make a massive show of force. The goal would be to underscore the US’s red lines and drive Iran back to negotiating table. If Biden blinks, he will incentivize Iran to make a dash for the bomb. Either way a crisis is imminent. Israel will continue to use sabotage and underscore red lines while the Iranians will continue to escalate their attacks on Israel via militant proxies and attacks on tankers (Map 1). Map 1Secret War Escalates In Middle East Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Bottom Line: After a crisis, either diplomacy will be restored, or the Middle East will be on a new war path. The war path points to a drastically different geopolitical backdrop for the global economy. If the US and Iran strike a short-term deal, Iranian oil will flow and the US will shift its strategic focus to pressuring China, which is negative for global growth and positive for the dollar. If the US and Iran start down the war path, oil supply disruptions will rise and the dollar will fall. Implications For Oil Prices And OPEC 2.0 The probability of a near-term conflict is clear from our decision tree, which remains the same as in June 2019 (Diagram 1). Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Shows of force and an escalation in the secret war will cause temporary but possibly sharp spikes in oil prices in the short term. OPEC 2.0 remains intact so far this year, as expected. The likelihood that the global economic recovery will continue should encourage the Saudis, Russians, Emiratis and others to maintain production discipline to drain inventories and keep Brent crude prices above $60 per barrel. OPEC 2.0 is a weak link in oil prices, however, because Russians are less oil-dependent than the Gulf Arab states and do not need as high of oil prices for their government budget to break even (Chart 5). Periodically this dynamic leads the cartel to break down. None of the petro-states want to push oil prices up so high that they hasten the global green energy transition. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Keeps Price Within Fiscal Breakeven Oil Price Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 6Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs As long as OPEC 2.0 remains disciplined, average Brent crude oil prices will gradually rise to $80 barrels per day by the end of 2024, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy (Chart 6). Imminent firefights will cause prices to spike at least temporarily when large amounts of capacity are taken offline. Global spare capacity is probably sufficient to handle one-off disruptions but an open-ended military conflict in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz would be a different story. After the next crisis, everything depends on whether the US and Israel establish a credible threat and thus restore diplomacy. Any US-Iran strategic détente would unleash Iranian production and could well motivate the Gulf Arabs to pump more oil and deny Iran market share. Bottom Line: Given that any US-Iran deal would also be short-term in nature, and may not even stabilize the region, some of the downside risks are fading at the moment. The US and China are also sucking in more commodities as they gear up for great power struggle. The geopolitical outlook is positive for oil prices in these respects. But OPEC 2.0 is the weak link in this expectation so we expect volatility. Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Markets have wavered in recent months over softness in the global economic recovery, COVID-19 variants, and China’s policy tightening. The world faces a substantial fiscal drag in the coming years as government budgets correct from the giant deficits witnessed during the crisis. Nevertheless policymakers are still able to deliver some positive fiscal surprises on the margin. Developed markets have turned fiscally proactive over the past decade. They rejected austerity because it was seen as fueling populist political outcomes that threatened the established parties. Note that this change began with conservative governments (e.g. Japan, UK, US, Germany), implying that left-leaning governments will open the fiscal taps further whenever they come to power (e.g. Canada, the US, Italy, and likely Germany next). Chart 7Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 7 updates the pandemic-era fiscal stimulus of major economies, with light-shaded bars highlighting new fiscal measures that are in development but have not yet been included in the IMF’s data set. The US remains at the top followed by Italy, which also saw populist electoral outcomes over the past decade. Chart 8US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 The Biden administration is on the verge of passing a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill. We maintain 80% subjective odds of passage – despite the messy pullout from Afghanistan. Assuming it passes, Democrats will proceed to their $3.5 trillion social welfare bill. This bill will inevitably be watered down – we expect a net deficit impact of around $1-$1.5 trillion for both bills – but it can pass via the partisan “budget reconciliation” process. We give 50% subjective odds today but will upgrade to 65% after infrastructure passes. The need to suspend the debt ceiling will raise volatility this fall but ultimately neither party has an interest in a national debt default. The US is expanding social spending even as geopolitical challenges prevent it from cutting defense spending, which might otherwise be expected after Afghanistan and Iraq. The US budget balance will contract after the crisis but then it will remain elevated, having taken a permanent step up as a result of populism. The impact should be a flat or falling dollar on a cyclical basis, even though we think geopolitical conflict will sustain the dollar as the leading reserve currency over the long run (Chart 8). So the dollar view remains neutral for now. Bottom Line: The US is facing a 5.9% contraction in the budget deficit in 2022 but the blow will be cushioned somewhat by two large spending bills, which will put budget deficits on a rising trajectory over the course of the decade. Big government is back. Developed Market Fiscal Moves (Outside The US) Chart 9German Opinion Favors New Left-Wing Coalition Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Fiscal drag is also a risk for other developed markets – but here too a substantial shift away from prudence has taken place, which is likely to be signaled to investors by the outperformance of left-wing parties in Germany’s upcoming election. Germany is only scheduled to add EUR 2.4 billion to the 25.6 billion it will receive under the EU’s pandemic recovery fund, but Berlin is likely to bring positive fiscal surprises due to the federal election on September 26. Germany will likely see a left-wing coalition replace Chancellor Angela Merkel and her long-ruling Christian Democrats (Chart 9). The platforms of the different parties can be viewed in Table 2. Our GeoRisk Indicator for Germany confirms that political risk is elevated but in this case the risk brings upside to risk assets (Appendix). Table 2German Party Platforms Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) While we expected the Greens to perform better than they are in current polling, the point is the high probability of a shift to a new left-wing government. The Social Democrats are reviving under the leadership of Olaf Scholz (Chart 10). Tellingly, Scholz led the charge for Germany to loosen its fiscal belt back in 2019, prior to the global pandemic. Chart 10Germany: Online Markets Betting On Scholz Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 11Canada: Trudeau Takes A Calculated Risk Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) In June, the cabinet approved a draft 2022 budget plan supported by Scholz that would contain new borrowing worth EUR 99.7 bn ($119 billion). This amount is not included in the chart above but it should be seen as the minimum to be passed under the new government. If a left-wing coalition is formed, as we expect, the amount will be larger, given that both the Social Democrats and the Greens have been restrained by Merkel’s party. Canada turned fiscally proactive in 2015, when the institutional ruling party, the Liberals, outflanked the more progressive New Democrats by calling for budget deficits instead of a balanced budget. The Liberals saw a drop in support in 2019 but are now calling a snap election. Prime Minister Trudeau is not as popular in general opinion as he is in the news media but his party still leads the polls (Chart 11). The Conservatives are geographically isolated and, more importantly, are out of step with the median voter on the key issues (Table 3). Table 3Canada: Liberal Agenda Lines Up With Top Voter Priorities Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Nevertheless it is a risky time to call an election – our GeoRisk Indicator for Canada is soaring (Appendix). Granting that the Liberals are very unlikely to fall from power, whatever their strength in parliament, the key point is that parliament already approved of CAD 100 billion in new spending over the coming three years. Any upside surprise would give Trudeau the ability to push for still more deficit spending, likely focused on climate change. Chart 12Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japanese politics are heating up ahead of the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election on September 29 and the general election, due by November 28. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s sole purpose in life was to stand in for Shinzo Abe in overseeing the Tokyo Olympics. Now they are done and Suga will likely be axed – if he somehow survives the election, he will not last long after, as his approval rating is in freefall. The Liberal Democrats are still the only game in town. They will try to minimize the downside risks they face in the general election by passing a new stimulus package (Chart 12). Rumor has it that the new package will nominally be worth JPY 10-15 trillion, though we expect the party to go bigger, and LDP heavyweight Toshihiro Nikai has proposed a 30 trillion headline number. It is extremely unlikely that the election will cause a hung parliament or any political shift that jeopardizes passage of the bill. Abenomics remains the policy setting – and consumption tax hikes are no longer on the horizon to impede the second arrow of Abenomics: fiscal policy. Not all countries are projecting new spending. A stronger-than-expected showing by the Christian Democrats would result in gridlock in Germany. Meanwhile the UK may signal belt-tightening in October. Bottom Line: Germany, Canada, and Japan are likely to take some of the edge off of expected fiscal drag next year. Emerging Market Fiscal Moves (And China Regulatory Update) Among the emerging markets, Russia and China are notable in Chart 7 above for having such a small fiscal stimulus during this crisis. Russia has announced some fiscal measures ahead of the September 19 Duma election but they are small: $5.2 billion in social spending, $10 billion in strategic goals over three years, and a possible $6.8 billion increase in payments to pensioners. Fiscal austerity in Russia is one reason we expect domestic political risk to remain elevated and hence for President Putin to stoke conflicts in his near abroad (see our Russian risk indicator in the Appendix). There are plenty of signs that Belarussian tensions with the Baltic states and Poland can escalate in the near term, as can fighting in Ukraine in the wake of Biden’s new defense agreement and second package of military aid. China’s actual stimulus was much larger than shown in Chart 7 above because it mostly consisted of a surge in state-controlled bank lending. China is likely to ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months to secure the recovery in time for the national party congress in 2022. But China’s regulatory crackdown will continue during that time and our GeoRisk Indicator clearly shows the uptick in risk this year (Appendix). Chart 13China Expands Unionization? China Expands Unionization? China Expands Unionization? The regulatory crackdown is part of a cyclical consolidation of Xi Jinping’s power as well as a broader, secular trend of reasserting Communist Party and centralization in China. The latest developments underscore our view that investors should not play any technical rebound in Chinese equities. The increase in censorship of financial media is especially troubling. Just as the government struggles to deal with systemic financial problems (e.g. the failing property giant Evergrande, a possible “Lehman moment”), the lack of transparency and information asymmetry will get worse. The media is focusing on the government’s interventions into public morality, setting a “correct beauty standard” for entertainers and limiting kids to three hours of video games per week. But for investors what matters is that the regulatory crackdown is proceeding to the medical sector. High health costs (like high housing and education costs) are another target of the Xi administration in trying to increase popular support and legitimacy. Central government-mandated unionization in tech companies will hurt the tech sector without promoting social stability. Chinese unions do not operate like those in the West and are unlikely ever to do so. If they did, it would compound the preexisting structural problem of rising wages (Chart 13). Wages are forcing an economic transition onto Beijing, which raises systemic risks permanently across all sectors. Bottom Line: Political and geopolitical risk are still elevated in China and Russia. China will ease monetary and fiscal policy gradually over the coming year but the regulatory crackdown will persist at least until the 2022 political reshuffle. Afghanistan: The Refugee Fallout September 2021 will officially mark the beginning of Taliban’s second bout of power in Afghanistan. Will Afghanistan be the only country to spawn an outflux of refugees? Will the Taliban wresting power in Afghanistan trigger another refugee crisis for Europe? How is the rise of the Taliban likely to affect geopolitics in South Asia? Will Afghanistan Be The Last Major Country To Spawn Refugees? Absolutely not. We expect regime failures to affect the global economy over the next few years. The global growth engine functions asymmetrically and is powered only by a fistful of countries. As economic growth in poor countries fails to keep pace with that of top performers, institutional turmoil is bound to follow. This trend will only add to the growing problem of refugees that the world has seen in the post-WWII era. History suggests that the number of refugees in the world at any point in time is a function of economic prosperity (or the lack thereof) in poorer continents (Chart 14). For instance, the periods spanning 1980-90 and 2015-20 saw the world’s poorer continents lose their share in global GDP. Unsurprisingly these phases also saw a marked increase in the number of refugees. With the world’s poorer continents expected to lose share in global GDP again going forward, the number of refugees in the world will only rise. Chart 14Refugee Flows Rise When Growth Weak In Poor Continents Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Citizens of Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar today account for two-thirds of all refugees globally. To start with, these five countries’ share in global GDP was low at 0.8% in the 1980s. Now their share in global GDP is set to fall to 0.2% over the next five years (Chart 15). Chart 15Refugee Exporters Hit All-Time Low In Global GDP Share Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Per capita incomes in top refugee source countries tend to be very low. Whilst regime fractures appear to be the proximate cause of refugee outflux, an economic collapse is probably the root cause of the civil strife and waves of refugee movement seen out of the top refugee source countries. Another factor that could have a bearing is the rise of multipolarity. Shifting power structures in the global economy affect the stability of regimes with weak institutions. Instability in Afghanistan has been a direct result of the rise and the fall of the British and Russian empires. American imperial overreach is just the latest episode. If another Middle Eastern war erupts, the implications are obvious. But so too are the implications of US-China proxy wars in Southeast Asia or Russia-West proxy wars in eastern Europe. Bottom Line: With poorer continents’ economic prospects likely to remain weak and with multipolarity here to stay, the world’s refugee problem is here to stay too. Is A Repeat Of 2015 Refugee Crisis Likely In 2021? No. 2021 will not be a replica of 2015. This is owing to two key reasons. First, Afghanistan has long witnessed a steady outflow of refugees – especially at the end of the twentieth century but also throughout the US’s 20-year war there. The magnitude of the refugee problem in 2021 will be significantly smaller than that in 2015. Secondly, voters are now differentiating between immigrants and refugees with the latter entity gaining greater acceptance (Chart 16). Chart 16DM Attitudes Permissive Toward Refugees Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 17Refugees Will Not Change Game In German/French Elections Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Concerns about refugees will gain some political traction but it will reinforce rather than upset the current trajectory in the most important upcoming elections, in Germany in September and France next April. True, these countries feature in the list of top countries to which Afghan refugees flee and will see some political backlash (Chart 17). But the outcome may be counterintuitive. In the German election, any boost to the far-right will underscore the likely underperformance of the ruling Christian Democrats. So the German elections will produce a left-wing surprise – and yet, even if the Greens won the chancellorship (the true surprise scenario, looking much less likely now), investors will cheer the pro-Europe and pro-fiscal result. The French election is overcrowded with right-wing candidates, both center-right and far-right, giving President Macron the ability to pivot to the left to reinforce his incumbent advantage next spring. Again, the euro and the equity market will rise on the status quo despite the political risk shown in our indicator (Appendix). Of course, immigration and refugees will cause shocks to European politics in future, especially as more regime failures in the third world take place to add to Afghanistan and Ethiopia. But in the short run they are likely to reinforce the fact that European politics are an oasis of stability given what is happening in the US, China, Brazil, and even Russia and India. Bottom Line: 2021 will not see a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis. Ironically Afghan refugees could reinforce European integration in both German and French elections. The magnitude of the Afghan crisis is smaller than in the past and most Afghan refugees are likely to migrate to Pakistan and Iran (Chart 17). But more regime failures will ensure that the flow of people becomes a political risk again sometime in the future. What Does The Rise Of Taliban Mean For India? The Taliban first held power in Afghanistan from 1996-2001. This was one of the most fraught geopolitical periods in South Asia since the 1970s. Now optimists argue that Taliban 2.0 is different. Taliban leaders are engaging in discussions with an ex-president who was backed by America and making positive overtures towards India. So, will this time be different? It is worth noting that Taliban 2.0 will have to function within two major constraints. First, Afghanistan is deeply divided and diverse. Afghanistan’s national anthem refers to fourteen ethnic groups. Running a stable government is inherently challenging in this mountainous country. With Taliban being dominated by one ethnic group and with limited financial resources at hand, the Taliban will continue to use brute force to keep competing political groups at bay. Chart 18Taliban In Line With Afghanis On Sharia Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) At the same time, to maintain legitimacy and power, the Taliban will have to support aligned political groups operating in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Second, an overwhelming majority of Afghani citizens want Sharia law, i.e. a legal code based on Islamic scripture as the official law of the land (Chart 18). Hence if the Taliban enforces a Sharia-based legal system in Afghanistan then it will fall in line with what the broader population demands. It is against this backdrop that Taliban 2.0 is bound to have several similarities with the version that ruled from 1996-2001. Additionally, US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive a range of latent terrorist movements in the region. This poses risks for outside countries, not least India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The US will remain engaged in counter-terrorism operations. To complicate matters, India’s North has an even more unfavorable view of Pakistan than the rest of India. With the northern voter’s importance rising, India’s administration may be forced to respond more aggressively to a terrorist event than would have been the case about a decade ago. It is also possible that terrorism will strike at China over time given its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. China’s economic footprint in Afghanistan could precipitate such a shift. Bottom Line: US withdrawal from Afghanistan is bound to add to geopolitical risks as latent terrorist forces will be activated. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist movements. Incidentally, it will take time for transnational terrorism based in Afghanistan to mount successful attacks at the West once again, given that western intelligence services are more aware of the problem than they were in 2000. But non-state actors may regain the element of surprise over time, given that the western powers are increasingly focused on state-to-state struggle in a new era of great power competition.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China’s credit tightening may have surpassed maximum strength. Monetary policy will remain accommodative and fiscal policy will become more supportive in the rest of the year. However, overall regulatory oversight is still restrictive, limiting the scope of reflationary effects on the economy. There were signs that the “cross-cyclical” approach – a new catchphrase from the July Politburo meeting - emerged even before the start of the pandemic. The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018. China’s new “common prosperity” plan, which sets up guidance for long-term policy direction, will likely have cyclical implications. Chinese investable stocks are in oversold territory and will probably rebound in the near term. In the next 6 to 12 months, however, we remain cautious given the lack of a catalyst to revive investor sentiment. Feature Chart 1Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms China’s economic momentum has slowed, while regulatory crackdowns show no signs of dissipating. Meanwhile, Chinese investable stocks in absolute terms have slumped into technically oversold territory (Chart 1). Global investors are looking at fiscal and monetary policy easing for clues to what may be next. A shift in policy direction from restrictive to reflationary will help to shore up market sentiment and the outlook for the economy. Fiscal policy implementation in 1H21 was tighter than budgeted, leaving room for more support in 2H21. The PBoC’s unexpected reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in early July may have been a signal that policy tightening has ended. In short, China’s financial tightening has most likely passed its peak strength. Chart 2Valuations Are Almost Back To 2018 Lows Valuations Are Almost Back To 2018 Lows Valuations Are Almost Back To 2018 Lows We have no doubt that China will announce some compensatory measures in the coming months in response to rising downward pressures on the domestic economy. However, we continue to hold the view that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. The policy focus pivoting from a countercyclical to cross-cyclical adjustment, the rising emphasis on common prosperity, and the ongoing regulatory clampdowns in an array of industries, all limit the extent to which authorities can deploy the expected magnitude in infrastructure spending and bank lending. Therefore, we continue to recommend investors remain underweight Chinese stocks versus their global peers – a stance we have maintained since earlier this year – despite cheapened relative valuations in Chinese equities (Chart 2).  Shifting To A Cross-Cycle Approach China’s policy shift to a cross-cyclical stance has gained more market attention since the late-July Politburo meeting. However, there were signs that the cross-cyclical approach emerged even before the start of the pandemic. Chart 3Size Of Stimulus Was Already Getting Smaller Size Of Stimulus Was Already Getting Smaller Size Of Stimulus Was Already Getting Smaller During the height of the 2018/19 US-China trade war, policymakers responded to the economic shocks from imposed import tariffs with much more measured stimulus than in previous cycles (Chart 3). President Xi repetitively used the “Long March” analogy during the trade war, warning Chinese citizens to prepare for protracted hardship stemming from conflict with the US.1 The metaphor had important market implications because the attitude was fundamental to how the government handled the cyclical slowdown in 2018/19. Despite aggressive RRR and policy rate cuts in the second half of 2018, authorities maintained tight restrictions on bank lending and local government spending. Consequentially, aggregate credit growth continued to slide through end-2018 (Chart 4). Furthermore, authorities became uneasy about the sharp rise in the rate of credit expansion in Q1 2019. Following a public spat between the Premier Li Keqiang and the central bank, bank lending slowed sharply in the rest of the year. As a result, the improvement in infrastructure investment growth was small and short-lived. Despite an acceleration in local government bond issuance in 2H18 and Q1 2019, infrastructure investment growth remained on a structural downward trend throughout most of 2018 and 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 4China: A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? China: A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? China: A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? Chart 5Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Chart 6Financial De-Risking Mode Is Still On Financial De-Risking Mode Is Still On Financial De-Risking Mode Is Still On The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018: while the central bank has kept interest rates at historically low levels and preemptively cut the RRR rate in July, lending standards remain tight and shadow bank credit continues to shrink (Chart 6).  In the past Chinese authorities stimulated substantially following exogenous shocks, but did not stimulate much when business cycle was slowing in an orderly manner.  A resurgence of domestic COVID cases and the severe flood in central China in July and August represent exogenous shocks and occured when the economy was losing steam. Hence, there are higher odds authorities will provide some support in response to these exogenous shocks. However, the recurring battle against COVID and lingering tensions with the US have likely prompted Chinese top leadership to extend their cross-cycle strategy. Officials may feel that a modest easing in both monetary and fiscal policies will be sufficient to offset the current economic weakness without overstimulating the economy.   Bottom Line: A cross-cycle policy approach means not only responding early to small shocks with piecemeal stimulus to stabilize growth but also limiting the scope of stimulus and preparing for “protracted battles”. The response from Chinese leaders during the trade war with the US in 2018/19 may be a roadmap for policy direction in the next 12 months.  Cyclical Implications From “Common Prosperity”  President Xi Jinping laid out a plan for “common prosperity”, a guideline for the country’s national policy in the coming decades, at the August 18th Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs.  Most of the plan’s objectives have 2035 deadlines and will be achieved gradually in multiple phases.2 However, in the next 12 months and leading to the 20th National Party Congress in the fall of 2022, we expect the authorities to accelerate some reform agendas that are consistent with the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). A key area that may gain momentum is increasing labor income and household consumption share in national output. Both labor compensation and household consumption as a share of GDP improved from 2011 to 2016, but the progress stalled in recent years and further deteriorated last year in the wake of the pandemic (Chart 7). Policy decision makers can reverse the falling share by either boosting income/consumption or lowering the share of capital formation in the national output, or a combination of both. Regulatory tightening in the property market has reduced investment growth in the sector, which accounts for 66% of the country’s total fixed-asset formation (Chart 8). We expect policy restrictions to continue curbing real estate investment in the rest of the year and into 2022, further shrinking the share of capital formation in the aggregate output.3 Chart 7China's Economic Rebalancing Progress Has Stalled In The Past Five Years China's Economic Rebalancing Progress Has Stalled In The Past Five Years China's Economic Rebalancing Progress Has Stalled In The Past Five Years Chart 8Policymakers Are Moving Away From The 'Old Economy' Pillars Policymakers Are Moving Away From The 'Old Economy' Pillars Policymakers Are Moving Away From The 'Old Economy' Pillars Chart 9Recovery In Household Income And Consumption Has Significantly Lagged Other Sectors Recovery In Household Income And Consumption Has Significantly Lagged Other Sectors Recovery In Household Income And Consumption Has Significantly Lagged Other Sectors Recovery in household income and consumption has significantly lagged other sectors in China’s recent economic rebound (Chart 9). In addition to short-term, pandemic-related factors, household consumption has been sluggish due to China’s long-standing imbalanced income distribution.  Given that China will be under more pressure to deliver economic progress in 2022, boosting wage growth and consumption will help to facilitate both the nation’s cross-cyclical economic strategy and President Xi’s longer-term reform plan for income and wealth redistribution. If successfully implemented, a rebalancing of labor income and consumption as a share of the national aggregate will have long-term economic benefits. However, for investors with a cyclical time frame, the transition will likely have the following implications on the market: Policymakers will keep a large fiscal budget deficit and increase spending in public services and social welfare, but there will be more pressure on the central government to keep local government debt in check. The increased fiscal burden also means that while the government will provide subsidies for households and key new-economy industries, policy at margin may move away from boosting investment in traditional infrastructure and construction (Chart 10). Chart 10Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Empirical research shows that lower-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume.4 Last year China refrained from meaningful stimulus to incentivize consumption. In contrast, the statement from the August 18th meeting indicated the focus is on securing living standards and wages among lower-income households. Common prosperity related policies may boost consumption of staples and some durable goods but will likely discourage splurging in high-end luxury goods and services. Large corporations and high-net-worth individuals will be expected to share social responsibility and the cost of reducing income inequality, either through higher and stricter tax burdens, raising minimum wages for employees, and/or donations. Bottom Line: The “common prosperity” theme will mostly entail long-term policy initiatives, but it may also have some cyclical market repercussions. Investment Recommendations Chart 11Tactical Bounce Gave Way To Cyclical Downturn In Previous Cycles Tactical Bounce Gave Way To Cyclical Downturn In Previous Cycles Tactical Bounce Gave Way To Cyclical Downturn In Previous Cycles We do not rule out the possibility of a tactical (within the next three months) / technical rebound in Chinese stocks. Our August 4th report discussed how prices managed to rebound strongly within 90 days of the policy-triggered market riots in both 2015 and 2018. However, the rallies quickly faded and stocks fell to new lows (Chart 11). Prices bottomed when policy decisively turned reflationary. For now, the risks to Chinese equities are largely to the downside. Although there are some remedial measures to ease monetary and fiscal policies, officials have not sent a clear signal to ease on the regulatory front. Conversely, there are two scenarios that could prompt us to upgrade Chinese stocks to either neutral or overweight in both absolute and relative terms. Chart 12No Clear Signal Chinese Policymakers Will Ease On The Regulatory Front No Clear Signal Chinese Policymakers Will Ease On The Regulatory Front No Clear Signal Chinese Policymakers Will Ease On The Regulatory Front The first scenario is that the economy does not slow further and a modest policy easing is sufficient to stabilize the economic outlook. This may happen if strong global economic growth and demand continue to support China’s export and manufacturing sectors, while domestic household consumption improves. In this case, the downside risks on the overall economy would abate, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's old economy would be intact. We would need an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or a reversal of industry policy tightening, to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight. We have argued in the past that housing appears to be the best candidate; the catalyst is missing at the moment (Chart 12). In the second scenario, Chinese policymakers may determine that the downside risks to growth are unacceptably large given existing slowdowns in the industrial and service sectors, and decide to temporarily reverse course on structural reforms. We will watch for indications of a shift in attitude. For now, we think that China’s leadership has a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this outcome is not yet probable.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1"Xi Jinping calls for ‘new Long March’ in dramatic sign that China is preparing for protracted trade war", South China Morning Post. 2"Xi stresses promoting common prosperity amid high-quality development, forestalling major financial risks", Xinhua, English.news.cn 3We use fixed-asset investment (FAI) as a proxy for gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) because the National Bureau of Statistics of China does not publish the GFCF breakdown by sectors. GFCF comprises FAI, less the purchase of existing fixed assets, land and some minor items. Historically, the two series have closely tracked each other. 4"The Stimulative Effect of Redistribution", Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Jackson Hole: The message from Jackson Hole is that the majority of the FOMC – including Fed Chair Powell - is ready to begin tapering asset purchases before year-end. There is less unanimity within the FOMC over the timing of interest rate increases following the taper. Fed Policy: The Fed is trying to communicate a separation of the balance sheet and interest rate components of its monetary policy, hoping to limit bond volatility stemming from markets pulling forward the timing of rate hikes during the taper. A tightening US labor market will make that separation difficult given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. US Treasury Yields: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022. A September To Remember? Chart 1The Fed Faces Some Tough Decisions The Fed Faces Some Tough Decisions The Fed Faces Some Tough Decisions The much anticipated Jackson Hole speech from Fed Chair Jerome Powell offered a balanced tone.1 Powell did say that the Fed could begin tapering asset purchases by the end of this year, given the “substantial further progress” on the Fed’s 2% average inflation goal, if the US economy evolved in line with the Fed’s forecasts. However, Powell also noted that rate hikes would not occur without greater improvements in the US labor market, particularly given the Fed’s view that the current surge in US inflation will not prove lasting. Several other Fed officials speaking to the media before Powell’s speech hinted at a much more accelerated timetable, with tapering to begin in September and rate hikes potentially starting as soon as mid-2022. The Fed’s messaging is part of an extended conversation with financial markets to prepare for a withdrawal of pandemic-era policy stimulus from quantitative easing (QE). The FOMC is well aware that valuations on asset prices of all stripes have been boosted by loose monetary settings. Powell’s Jackson Hole comments were more nuanced than those of his FOMC colleagues, but this is no surprise as the words of the Fed Chair carry the greatest weight among investors. The Fed Chair does not want to risk a repeat of the 2013 Taper Tantrum in Treasury yields, or the December 2018 plunge in US equity prices, by sounding unexpectedly hawkish and triggering a market rout that tightens US financial conditions (Chart 1). Our baseline assumption has been that the Fed would signal a tapering at the December FOMC meeting and begin to slow asset purchases in January 2022, leading to an eventual liftoff of the fed funds rate by the end of next year. The comments from Powell and others have raised the risk that the Fed moves a bit faster than our expectations on tapering, and perhaps even for liftoff (Chart 2). This would also be faster than the expectations among bond investors. Chart 2The Fed May Be Set To Move Faster Than Our Expected Timeline The Fed’s Separation Anxiety The Fed’s Separation Anxiety The New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers in July showed that tapering is expected by Q1 of next year but a rate hike was not projected until the latter half of 2023 (Table 1). Current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) forward curve is a bit more hawkish than that, with a full 25bp rate hike discounted by January 2023. Table 1Primary Dealers Expect A Taper, Not Rate Hikes The Fed’s Separation Anxiety The Fed’s Separation Anxiety The Fed’s next move will depend on how the questions regarding the Delta variant, the true state of the US labor market and underlying US inflation momentum are resolved. Dismissing The Delta Threat? There has been a clear hit to US economic confidence from the spread of the variant. The August readings from the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey, the Philadelphia Fed business outlook survey and the ZEW survey of US growth expectations all showed sharp declines (Chart 3). The August flash estimate of the Markit PMIs fell to 8-month and 4-month lows, respectively, indicating that the pace of US economic activity slowed. Higher frequency data like restaurant reservations and hotel bookings have also dipped in recent weeks, potentially a sign of US consumers turning more cautious on leaving home during the Delta surge. Yet there is some tentative positive news on the spread of the variant. The 7-day moving average of new COVID-19 cases in the US appears to be rolling over (Chart 4). In the more stricken states in the US south like Florida, Texas and Louisiana, the effective reproduction number has fallen below one and cases are clearly peaking, suggesting that the transmission of Delta is slowing. If these trends continue, the full hit to US growth from the variant could prove to be minimal and potentially contained to only August data Chart 3A Hit To US Confidence From The Delta Variant A Hit To US Confidence From The Delta Variant A Hit To US Confidence From The Delta Variant Chart 4Has The US Delta Wave ##br##Peaked? Has The US Delta Wave Peaked? Has The US Delta Wave Peaked? Fed officials have been highlighting Delta as a potential near-term risk to the economy, but some comments made last week suggested only a modest level of concern that would not derail tapering plans. For example: Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan: “[…] what I'm seeing is, in certain sectors, as you would expect, travel-related, you're seeing weakness in some other sectors but by and large, predominantly, what we're seeing is resilience across the indicators that we look at.”2 Kansas City Fed President Esther George: “[…] by and large, I think, unlike what we experienced last year, people have mechanisms to continue to interact with the economy in a way that we didn't before. And so that gives me some confidence in the outlook that we see, that we could continue to push through this.”3 Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic: “What I have seen is some suggestion that things are slowing down, but they are still just slowing from extremely high levels. I have not seen big changes in the underlying dynamic.”4 Even Powell himself noted in his speech that “while the Delta variant presents a near-term risk, the prospects are good for continued progress toward maximum employment.” If the hit to the domestic US economy from Delta proves to be modest and short-lived, the Fed will want to see confirmation of this in the US employment data. Labor market slack overestimated? It is clear from other comments made last week that FOMC officials will be watching the August payrolls report very closely, especially given the perception that the US job market may be a lot tighter than the headline unemployment rate suggests. For example, Fed Governor Christopher Waller noted that “when you adjust the labor force for early retirements, if we get another million [jobs in August] we will recover about 85% of the jobs that were lost and that took almost seven years after the last recession.”5 Kaplan noted that “we do think that the labor market is much tighter than the headline statistics indicate. We've had 3 million retirements since February 2020.” Our colleagues at BCA Research’s The Bank Credit Analyst came to a similar conclusion on labor market tightness in a report published last week.6 They determined that the single largest factor driving the US labor force participation rate lower since the onset of the pandemic has been individuals choosing to retire (Chart 5). Only some of that decline has been related to early retirement decisions made in response to COVID. There has been a structural trend of a falling participation rate, by an average of 0.3 percentage points per year, since 2008 due to demographic factors. The labor force participation rate does not need to fully return to pre-pandemic levels for the Fed to conclude that its maximum employment goal has been reached, after accounting for retirements and other demographic shifts (Chart 6). This fits with the comments from Waller and Kaplan indicating that there has likely been enough labor market improvement to begin tapering asset purchases. Chart 5Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement The Fed’s Separation Anxiety The Fed’s Separation Anxiety Chart 6Full Employment Without A Pre-COVID Participation Rate Full Employment Without A Pre-COVID Participation Rate Full Employment Without A Pre-COVID Participation Rate Transitory or persistent inflation? In his Jackson Hole speech, Fed Chair Powell downplayed many of the factors that have driven US headline inflation higher in 2021 as “[…] the product of a relatively narrow group of goods and services that have been directly affected by the pandemic and the reopening of the economy.” He also noted that the current surge in durable goods inflation, which has contributed “about one percentage point to the 12-month measures of headline and core inflation”, was likely to end once current supply chain disruptions fade. Durables would then return to the deflationary trend of the past 25 years and help cool off current overheated US inflation. Chart 7US Inflation Is Not Slowing Down US Inflation Is Not Slowing Down US Inflation Is Not Slowing Down Powell also noted the absence of significant US wage growth as reason not to be overly worried about a sustained period of high inflation. He also highlighted that “there is little reason to think” that ongoing structural disinflationary forces like technology and globalization “have suddenly reversed or abated” and that “it seems more likely that they will continue to weigh on inflation as the pandemic passes into history.” This is the message that the Fed has consistently communicated over the past several months, that high inflation was merely “transitory” and the inevitable result of year-over-year base effect comparisons and temporary supply squeezes. The problem with this interpretation is that we are now well into the summer months of 2021, past the period where base effects would be expected to boost US year-over-year inflation rates (the level of both the CPI and PCE deflator indices fell between January and May 2020 before starting to climb again in June). The July 2021 readings on annual headline and core PCE inflation were 4.2% and 3.6%, respectively, the highest rates seen since 1991 (Chart 7, top panel). The year-over-year increase appears to have been concentrated in a few components, with the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean PCE 12-month inflation for July only climbing to 2.0%. However, the 6-month annualized measure was a more rapid 2.6% - the fastest such pace in 13 years - suggesting that the momentum of US inflation is both broadening and accelerating on the margin (second panel). Chart 8A Sustainable, Not Transitory, Rise In Global Inflation A Sustainable, Not Transitory, Rise In Global Inflation A Sustainable, Not Transitory, Rise In Global Inflation Powell, like many other developed market central bankers, is making a big bet that the “transitory” inflation narrative will prove to be correct and the current surge in inflation will soon subside. Yet already, global supply chain disruptions have lingered longer than the Fed has been expecting. There are also deeper underlying trends in inflation that are challenging the “transitory” narrative. The NFIB small business survey showed that a net 52% of respondents reported raising selling prices in July, while a net 44% planned future price hikes (third panel), both readings last seen during the days of double-digit US inflation in the late 1970s. US firms are successfully passing on rising input costs to US consumers, which is influencing US consumer inflation expectations. The University of Michigan consumer survey for August showed that US households expect inflation over the next year of 4.6% and over the next 5-10 years of 2.9%, with both series well above pre-pandemic lows (bottom panel). The trends in higher inflation seen in the US, and elsewhere, are not just limited to commodity prices where supply squeezes were most prevalent earlier this year and where price momentum is peaking (Chart 8). A GDP-weighted average of core inflation rates for 14 developed market economies reached 2.50% in June and 2.4% in July, levels last seen in the mid-1990s. Higher core inflation readings are consistent with intensifying price pressures stemming from diminished economic slack. The broad swings in our global core inflation measure correlate strongly with the IMF’s estimate of the output gap for the advanced economies (bottom panel). The current acceleration in global core inflation is entirely consistent with the rapid narrowing of the global output gap projected by the IMF for 2021 and, more importantly, 2022. This suggests that underlying inflation pressures, both within and outside the US, will linger into next year, providing an offset the expected drag on “non-core” inflation from slowing commodity price momentum. Already, lingering supply squeezes and stubbornly high US inflation are causing concern among some FOMC members, as noted in these comments last week: Robert Kaplan: “[…] headline PCE inflation next year, we think is going to be in the neighborhood of 2.5%, and there's risk that could be higher. And so we think some of these supply-demand imbalances for materials, some of them will not moderate, but some of them are going to persist longer than people think.” Esther George: “[…] if you continue to have supply constraints and strong demand, you might expect that those will persist more through this year or longer than we originally anticipated.” Chris Waller: “I do think it’s going to be more persistent than I may have thought back in May.” Chart 9Fed Tapering To Deal With Financial Stability Risks? Fed Tapering To Deal With Financial Stability Risks? Fed Tapering To Deal With Financial Stability Risks? Importantly, the senior FOMC leadership - Powell, Lael Brainard, Richard Clarida – has been sticking with the “transitory” narrative. However, even Clarida noted in a speech in early August that he would consider core PCE inflation at or above 3% at year-end to be “much more than a “moderate” overshoot” of the Fed’s 2% inflation objective.7 In his role as Fed Chair, Powell must speak on behalf of the entire FOMC, even if those views are not necessarily his own. Given the growing chorus of Fed voices expressing concern that US inflation could remain higher for longer, it will be increasingly difficult for Powell to do what he did at Jackson Hole – sound more dovish than the individual FOMC members with regards to inflation risks. What about financial stability risks from QE? Fed officials have been understandably cautious in their comments about how QE (and a 0% funds rate) could be influencing asset prices (Chart 9). However, with equity markets at record highs, corporate bond yields near record lows despite high levels of corporate leverage, and US house prices soaring – the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller national index rose 18.6% on a year-over-year basis in June, the fastest pace in its 35-year history - it is difficult not to see the role of the Fed’s easy money policies in boosting risk seeking, yield chasing activities. Stimulative financial conditions are also creating future upside growth risks, with the Conference Board leading economic indicator now reaccelerating (bottom panel). Robert Kaplan, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard have voiced concerns that QE, particularly the Fed’s buying of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), have played a significant role in the current US housing boom. The senior FOMC leadership has avoided any such comments for obvious reasons – imagine the market reaction if Powell expressed concerns about high house prices or equity market valuations. However, for those at the Fed already looking to begin tapering sooner, booming asset prices are an additional reason to vote that way as soon as the September FOMC meeting. Separating Tapering From Rate Hikes It seems clear that the majority of the FOMC is now leaning towards starting to taper before year-end, if US growth and employment maintain recent strength. The common message of Fed officials, from Powell on down, is that enough progress has been made on the Fed’s 2% average inflation target objective to justify tapering. Market-based inflation expectations from the TIPS and CPI swap markets are consistent with that interpretation, with breakevens and forward inflation rates within the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (Chart 10). Yet while our Fed Monitor continues to flag the need for tighter US monetary policy, only 100bps of rate hikes are discounted in the US OIS curve by the end of 2024 – and only after a first rate hike not expected to occur until January 2023. Despite the common messaging on the start of the taper, the Fed voices were singing a bit less in harmony about the potential timing of the first interest rate hike post-taper. Powell went out of his way to note in his Jackson Hole speech that “the timing and pace of the coming reduction in asset purchases will not be intended to carry a direct signal regarding the timing of interest rate liftoff, for which we have articulated a different and substantially more stringent test.” That test, of course, is when the Fed deems that its maximum employment objective has been reached. Can the Fed continue to successfully separate guidance on balance sheet decisions from guidance on future interest rate moves? Current pricing from US OIS and CPI swap forward curves indicates that the market is discounting negative real policy rates, with the Fed never raising rates above inflation, for the next decade (Chart 11). This goes a long way to explain the persistence of negative real US Treasury yields at a time of elevated inflation readings. Although a decade of negative real interest rates is also consistent with the market believing the equilibrium real interest rate (i.e. r-star) is negative – a view currently expressed by no one on the FOMC. Chart 10Too Few Rate Hikes Discounted In The US OIS Curve Too Few Rate Hikes Discounted In The US OIS Curve Too Few Rate Hikes Discounted In The US OIS Curve Chart 11Markets Believe The Fed Will Never Raise Rates Above Inflation Markets Believe The Fed Will Never Raise Rates Above Inflation Markets Believe The Fed Will Never Raise Rates Above Inflation That persistent pricing of negative real rates make sense when there is modest headline inflation and ample spare capacity in the US economy and labor markets. However, that complacency on future rate hikes will be shaken if the US economy approaches full employment and inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target – outcomes that we expect to occur by the second half of next year. That will lead to the first fed rate hike of the next cycle in Q4 2022, but only after the taper that we expect to start in either December 2021 or January 2022 is completed in Q3 2022. Bottom Line: A tightening US labor market will make the Fed’s current guidance on the separation of tapering from rate hikes increasingly unconvincing, given the shallow path for interest rates currently discounted in the US yield curve - particularly if the current surge in US inflation proves not to be as transitory as the Fed is expecting. Jackson Hole Investment Conclusion – Expect Higher US Treasury Yields Chart 12Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration With such a modest path for future rate hikes, and bond yields, discounted in US forward interest rate curves, we continue to advocate positioning for higher US Treasury yields on a strategic (6-18 months) basis (Chart 12). We see the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield eventually reaching a peak in the 2-2.25% range by the end of 2022. We recommend maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance in the US, while staying underweight US Treasuries in US and global bond portfolios. There is even a case to be made for a more tactical (i.e. shorter-term) bearish stance on US Treasuries with the US data surprise cycle set to turn towards upside surprises, especially if the negative impact of the Delta variant on confidence and spending begins to wane as case numbers start to decline in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Expect higher Treasury yields over the next 12-18 months as the Fed transitions from talking about tapering to actual tapering and, eventually, to rate hikes starting in H2/2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A transcript of Powell’s speech can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20210827a.htm 2 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dallas-fed-president-robert-kaplan-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-215700082.html 3 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kansas-city-fed-president-esther-george-yahoo-finance-transcript-august-2021-113024734.html 4 https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-bostic-says-reasonable-begin-bond-buying-taper-october-2021-08-27/ 5 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-gov-waller-strong-august-jobs-report-will-be-green-light-for-taper-202340105.html 6 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst September 2021 Section II, “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand US-China: War Preparation Pushes Commodity Demand Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.  

This week I have been holding client calls and roundtables with clients located in the EMEA region. In next week’s report we will share our answers to the most common client questions. In the meantime, this week we are sending you a report about Peru that discusses the political situation and the outlook for the nation’s financial markets. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan Highlights Do not bottom fish in Peruvian financial markets. Political volatility has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable. Either president Pedro Castillo will be impeached and massive protest will follow, or his party’s radical leftist agenda will be at least partially legislated. Neither scenario bodes well for Peru’s financial markets. Capital outflows and lower metal prices pose a threat to the exchange rate. Go short the sol versus the US dollar. Dedicated EM equity and fixed-income managers should continue underweighting Peru in their respective portfolios. Feature Chart 1Peru: Absolute And Relative Equity Performance Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru’s financial assets have plummeted due to the election of left-wing president Pedro Castillo. Some investors may be tempted to bottom fish in these markets due to their lower valuations and oversold conditions (Chart 1, top panel). Some may attempt to draw parallels with Brazil’s 2002 election of Lula da Silva which initially triggered a selloff in Brazilian financial markets followed by a substantial rally during the president’s two terms in office. Will that be the case with Peruvian markets? We do not think so. Unlike twenty years ago in Brazil, Peru is currently facing a much worse political and economic outlook. Overall, the political volatility as well as deteriorating macro fundamentals warrant a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Thus, we recommend investors underweight Peru within EM equity, local, and sovereign fixed-income portfolios (Chart 1, bottom panel). A Political Showdown Is Looming One could argue that Peruvian financial markets have hit a floor and that much of the bad news has already been priced. Another argument is that Castillo will not be able to pass sweeping socio-economic reforms because of strong opposition from congress. In our opinion, Peru has yet to reach peak political tensions, which may very well end with a bang. Given this heightened political uncertainty, investors should brace themselves for a rocky ride. We identify two main risks plaguing Peruvian politics. First, the unsustainable ideological divide within Castillo’s proposed cabinet between far-left militants and the pragmatic center-left. Second, the looming clash between a government that wants to upend the country’s socioeconomic system and a notoriously harsh congress keen on making the president’s job unbearable. Intra-Government Dichotomy The ideological divide in Castillo’s government is extreme. On one side is the Marxist-Leninist wing, headed by Free Peru’s party leader, Vladimir Cerrón, and prime minister candidate, Guido Bellido. On the other side is the left-to-center members, headed by Pedro Francke, the minister of finance candidate. The more extremist Marxist-Leninist camp constitutes the majority, while moderates are a minority. Critically, the Marxist-Leninist radicals will make few concessions to the moderate ministers, as the former believe they have a mandate from the people to upend the country’s socio-economic system. Nevertheless, the policies supported by the general public are more nuanced than that. According to a national Ipsos survey from August, 85% of respondents believe president Castillo should govern with technocrats in his governments’ key positions. Only 11% support him making the ideology of his party the centerpiece of his policies and promoting (radical) members of his party. This shows how Castillo’s victory was more of a national referendum against Fujimori and the corrupt political elites than support for a radical socialist government. We elaborated on this topic in our previous report on Peru. The wide ideological divide between the party and a few moderate members of the cabinet in key positions will make governing extremely difficult. Cracks are already beginning to form. Bellido and Francke hold different views on the role of the state in the economy. Bellido, on the one hand, has stated he supports state-owned companies in commodity-extracting sectors (particularly natural gas and hydroelectricity) and the drafting of a new constitution to give the state greater ownership of mining contracts. Francke, on the other hand, wants to reinstate fiscal spending caps and is less harsh with multinational companies, favoring an increase only in mining taxes. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty around the government’s official fiscal plan, as Francke has avoided giving clear figures on fiscal expenditures and social programs. To make matters worse, there is growing concern that it is party leader Cerrón who is de facto in charge, and that he has an enormous influence on Castillo. Cerrón is unpopular among voters as a result of his criminal allegations, close ties to the Cuban regime, and often apologetic stance toward the Maoist terrorist group, Shining Path. Although he intended to run as the presidential candidate for Free Peru, he was banned from the election because of ongoing criminal accusations, which is why he handpicked Castillo as his replacement. Without a doubt, he intends to be heavily involved in government decision-making. According to the same Ipsos poll we cited earlier, 61% of Peruvians believe Cerrón is either de facto in charge of the government or holds considerable sway over Castillo. The biggest risk to financial markets will be the eventual dismissal or resignation of finance minister Francke. This may happen as he eventually realizes that the radicals will concede very little. This would also lead to a resignation of orthodox central bank governor Julio Velarde, who Francke has been able to convince to remain in his post. These two resignations would result in another riot in Peruvian markets, as the investment and business communities fully lose confidence in Castillo’s government.  An Inevitable Clash Between The Government And Congress Being president in Peru is a notoriously difficult job due to the large sway that congress has on legislation and governing. The outcome of this constant confrontation between the president and congress has been five different presidents in the past five years alone. Critically, this tension has never been higher. The government and congress hold diametrically opposed views on the broad vision and strategy for the nation and how the economy should be managed. On the one hand, congress is mainly composed of traditional centrist parties and the opposition holds a majority—Castillo’s coalition has only about 39% of the seats. On the other hand, the government has just been elected on a far-left reformist platform. In essence, both the government and congress have incentives and the determination to be as obstructive as possible for each other. As tensions ramp up and confrontation becomes inevitable, the risks of unrest and clashes between supporters of Castillo and congress will rise. Table 1Peru: Voters Support More Moderate Politicians Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point In congress’s point of view, they have a mandate to serve as an opposing force to Castillo’s radicalism: There is some validity to this claim. The opposition holds a majority, and congress president Maricarmen Alva is by far more popular than the leaders of the Free Peru party like Cerrón and Bellido (Table 1). Given that Castillo’s ideology is a threat to the nation’s current socio-economic model and, thereby, to the political establishment, the majority in congress would prefer to block all radical legislation, including the appointments of controversial cabinet members. In addition, they will use all manner of accusations and alleged linkages between cabinet members and Shining Path to impeach Castillo. Congress needs only 87 votes, which means they need to convince only eight members from the governing alliance to impeach Castillo. In turn, the government argues it was elected to upend the country’s status quo and confront the unpopular political elites: Critically, the president has the ability to dissolve congress after two votes of no confidence, thereby putting pressure on congress to abide by the government’s radical proposals. This latter point and the fact that congress has little popular support provide leverage for the government over congress. Given the fact that current congressional members cannot be reelected, they might be more careful about how they maneuver, so that they do not provoke Castillo to dissolve congress. There are, therefore, two extreme possible outcomes. On one hand, congress may impeach the president, triggering a social revolt from Castillo’s hardline supporters against congress. On the other hand, congressional members may allow the passing of a leftist legislative agenda in order to maintain their seats, which would gravely reduce corporate profitability and productivity in Peru. Both scenarios would result in a collapse of investor and business confidence, leading to more capital flight and a riot in Peruvian financial markets. Bottom Line: Political volatility in Peru has not yet reached its apex. Clashes between the government and congress are inevitable, as well as among key cabinet members. Such elevated political volatility warrants a higher risk premium on Peruvian assets. Return Of Macro Instability Peru enjoyed a period of relative macro stability from the early 2000s until recently. Its currency, local interest rates, and sovereign spreads have fluctuated less than those in other Latin American countries. However, the nation’s economy and financial markets have entered a period of heightened volatility. Both domestic and external macro factors have turned into headwinds for the Peruvian economy and financial markets. Chart 2Peru: Business Confidence Will Continue Plummeting Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Domestically, the economic recovery has been uninspiring, and multiple indicators point to growth disappointments ahead: Business confidence took another serious hit with the election of Castillo and ensuing uncertainty (Chart 2). Imminent political volatility will further depress business confidence, and, consequently, capital expenditures and hiring in the coming months. This will curb household income growth and consumer spending. Peru remains one of the world’s deadliest COVID-19 hotspots (Chart 3, top panel). In addition, vaccination rates are the lowest among major Latin American economies (Chart 3, bottom panel). As the more infectious Delta variant becomes dominant, there will not be enough immunity to hold back new cases. Consequently, either the government will introduce lockdowns or people will voluntarily limit their activities, thereby inhibiting the nascent economic recovery. The unemployment rate remains far above its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). Thus, household income remains very depressed. The latter does not bode well for debtors’ ability to service debt. Chart 3Peru: The Government Has Grossly Mismanaged The Pandemic Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 4Peru: Labor Market Has Not Fully Recovered Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point   As a result, loan delinquencies will rise anew, weighing on banks’ appetite to lend. Notably, local currency loans to the private sector will contract (Chart 5).    Chart 5Peru: Prepare For A Credit Slump Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Commercial banking profitability is also vulnerable, as president Castillo aims to strengthen the state bank (Banco de la Nación) by expanding its operations and undercutting private banking fees. Given financials of the bourse’s market cap, poor banking profitability is a major risk to this stock market. Unrelenting currency depreciation—see below for a more detailed analysis of the exchange rate—will prompt the central bank to hike rates further. This will not only weigh on new credit demand, but also augment loan delinquencies in the banking system. As a result, banks will become very risk averse and shrink their balance sheets. A credit crunch will ensue. Even though fiscal spending will be increased, it is unlikely to propel economic growth. The basis is that fiscal primary spending accounted for less than 15% of GDP before the pandemic and is now 17% due to the pandemic distortion (Chart 6). In the meantime, consumer spending constitutes 63% of GDP, capital spending 21%, and exports 25%. Externally, deteriorating balance of payments dynamics will weigh down on the currency: Peruvian assets tend to move with the country’s trade balance and global metal prices. The fact that Peruvian stock prices have plummeted in the face of rising industrial and precious metal prices supports a bearish thesis on this bourse (Chart 7). Chart 6Peru: Fiscal Expenditures Have Risen Due To The Pandemic Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 7Rising Metal Prices Have Failed To Boost Peruvian Stocks Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 8China's Slowdown Portends A Fall In Commodities Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Export revenue will contract as a result of a decline in commodity prices brought on by China’s slowing “old economy” (Chart 8). Precious and industrial metals together account for 66% of Peru’s merchandise exports. A meaningful decline in metal prices will erode the trade surplus and weigh on the exchange rate. Furthermore, Peru is already experiencing capital flight. Potential anti-market policies from this government could trigger more capital exodus. The capital account deficit will widen as both FDI and portfolio inflows fall due to the negative commodity outlook as well as political uncertainty (Chart 9). Foreigners still hold 45% of local currency bonds, and they will reduce their holdings (Chart 10). Chart 9Peru: FDI Inflows Will Decline Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 10Peruvian Domestic Bonds: Will Banks Make Up For Foreign Investor Retrenchment? Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Chart 11Peru: The Dollarization Rate Has Room To Rise Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Currency depreciation will also be reinforced by locals converting their sol deposits into foreign currency. The dollarization rate—the ratio of foreign currency banking deposits to total deposits—will rise (Chart 11). A weakening currency will also lead to higher inflation expectations, to which the central bank will respond by raising rates. The monetary authorities already hiked the policy rate by 25 basis points this month due to higher-than-expected inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency. As Peru’s exchange rate continues to weaken, the central bank might also sell foreign currency reserves to prevent large fluctuations in the value of the currency. This foreign exchange intervention will, in turn, shrink banking system local currency liquidity and lift interbank rates (Chart 12). Chart 12FX Reserve Sales Will Shrink Banking Liquidity And Lift Interbank Rates Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point Peru: Approaching A Boiling Point In short, the central bank has enough international reserves to stabilize the exchange rate, but this will come at the cost of tighter liquidity and higher interest rates. The latter will only reinforce sluggish growth in domestic demand. Bottom Line: Heightened political volatility and lower metal prices are working against the Peruvian economy and its financial markets. Peru is experiencing large capital flight, which will exacerbate currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Keep an underweight allocation to the Peruvian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. We recommend currency traders go short the Peruvian sol versus the US dollar. While the sol has already depreciated considerably, the domestic and external headwinds entail more downside. For fixed-income investors, we maintain an underweight allocation to Peruvian sovereign credit in an EM credit portfolio. The basis for this position is that the nation’s fiscal policy may undergo a major shift, entailing larger fiscal spending and wider budget deficits. We are downgrading local bonds from neutral to underweight in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Critically, the share of foreign ownership of Peruvian local fixed income remains one of the highest in the EM universe—it has only fallen from around 55% to 45% of domestic fixed-income instruments in the past six months (Chart 10 on page 9). Thus, there is a major risk that foreign investors will sell domestic bonds as the currency depreciates further, which will weigh down on local bonds. Juan Egaña Research Analyst juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Highlights China’s new plan for “common prosperity” is a long-term strategic plan to bulk up the middle class that will strengthen China – if it is implemented successfully. The record on implementing reforms is mixed. Large budget deficits to provide subsidies for households and key industries are inevitable. But fiscal reforms will be more difficult. Implementation will proceed gradually and some provinces will move faster than others. Cyclically, the common prosperity plan will not be allowed to interfere with the post-pandemic economic recovery. Beijing will have to ease monetary and fiscal policy to secure the recovery. But large debt levels create a limit on the ability to push through key reforms. Macro policy easing is beneficial for the rest of the world but Chinese investors must deal with a rise in uncertainty and an anti-business turn in the policy environment. Beijing has centralized political power to move rapidly on reforms. However, centralization creates new structural problems while antagonizing foreign nations. Feature Chinese President Xi Jinping laid out a plan on August 18 for “common prosperity” in China that will help guide national policy over the coming decades. The plan seeks to reduce social and economic imbalances and hence strengthen China and reinforce the Communist Party’s rule. The plan confirms our top key view for the year – China’s confluence of internal and external risks – as well as our long-running theme that Chinese domestic political risk is greater than it looks because of underlying problems like inequality and weak governance. The market has woken up to these views and themes (Chart 1). Now Beijing is turning to address these problems, which is positive if it follows through. But investors will have to cope with new policies and laws that reverse the pro-business context of recent decades. In this report we review the new plan and its implications in the context of overall Chinese economic policy. The chief investment takeaway is that while China will push forward various reforms, Beijing cannot afford to self-inflict an economic collapse. Monetary and fiscal policy will ease over the coming 12 months. As such China policy tightening will not short-circuit the global recovery. However, Chinese corporate earnings and the renminbi will not benefit from the country’s anti-business turn. Chart 1Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk What Is In The Common Prosperity Plan? The first thing to understand about Beijing’s new plan for “common prosperity” is that it is aspirational: it contains few specific targets or concrete policies. It builds on existing policy goals set for 2049, the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic. Implementation will be gradual. The plan is consistent with the Xi administration’s previous emphasis on improving the country’s quality of life and tackling systemic risks. It takes aim at social immobility, income and wealth inequality, poor public services, a weak social safety net, and other problems that did not receive enough attention during China’s rapid growth phase over the past forty years. Left unattended, China’s socioeconomic imbalances could fester and eventually destabilize the regime. From the beginning, the Xi administration has tackled the most pressing popular concerns to try to rebuild the party’s legitimacy, increase public support, and avoid crises. Crackdowns on pollution and excessive debt are prime examples. China does indeed suffer from high income inequality and low social mobility, as we have highlighted in key reports. It is comparable to the United States as well as Italy, Argentina, and Chile, all of which have suffered from significant social and political upheaval in recent memory (Chart 2). By contrast, Japan, Germany, and Australia have been relatively politically stable. Chart 2China Risks Social Unrest Like The Americas China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Table 1 summarizes the common prosperity plan. The key takeaways are the long 2049 deadline, the emphasis on “mixed ownership” in the corporate sphere (retaining a big role for state control and state-owned enterprises but attracting private capital), the redistribution of household income (reform the tax code), the establishment of property rights, the censorship of media/discourse, and the need to reduce rural disparity. The most important point of all is that Beijing intends to grow the size and wellbeing of the middle class – the foundation of a country’s strength. Table 1China’s “Common Prosperity” Plan For 2049 China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Coastal China today has reached Taiwanese and Korean levels of per capita income and has slightly exceeded their levels of wealth inequality (Chart 3). These countries witnessed social unrest and regime change in the 1980s due to such problems. The urban-rural gap is even more problematic in China due to its large rural population and territory. The Chinese public is expected to become more demanding as it evolves. Hence Beijing is pledging to redistribute wealth, grow the middle class, speed up income growth among the poorest, reduce rural disparities, expand access to elderly care, medicine, and housing, and establish a better legal framework for business. These goals are positive in principle, especially for household sentiment, social stability, and political support for the administration. But they also entail a higher tax/wage/regulation environment for business and corporate earnings. The question for investors centers on implementation. Chart 3China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors What About Vested Interests? Table 1 above shows that the super-committee that issued the common prosperity plan also addressed China’s ongoing battle against financial risk. The financial policy statement was neither new nor surprising but it highlights something important: “preventing risks” will have to be balanced with “ensuring stable growth.” This balancing of reform and growth is essential to Chinese government and will guide the implementation of the common prosperity plan just as it has guided President Xi’s crackdown on shadow banking. This is an especially pertinent point today, as Beijing runs the risk of overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. While Beijing’s vision of a better regulated, more heavily taxed, and higher-wage society should not be underrated, reform initiatives will be delayed if they threaten to derail the post-pandemic recovery. Time and again the Xi administration has ruled against a rapid, resolute, and disruptive approach to reform, such as the “assault phase of reform” spearheaded by Premier Zhu Rongji in the late 1990s. In the plan’s own words: “achieving common prosperity will be a long-term, arduous, and complicated task and it should be achieved in a gradual and progressive manner.” Having said that, the pattern of reform has been a vigorous launch, a market riot, and then backtracking or delay. This means markets face more volatility first before things settle down. An initial volley of policy actions should be expected between now and spring of 2023, when the National People’s Congress solidifies the plans of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. As with the ongoing regulatory crackdown on Big Tech, the market may experience a technical rebound but the political assessment suggests government pressure will be sustained for at least the next 12 months. We do not recommend bottom feeding in Chinese equities. Will the reforms be effective over time? When the Xi administration took power in 2012-13, it issued a visionary policy document calling for wide-ranging reforms to China’s economy (“Decision on Several Major Questions About Deepening Reform”).1 Over the past decade these reforms have had mixed success. Rhodium Group maintains a reform tracker to monitor progress – the results are lackluster (Table 2). Some core principles, such as the claim that China would make market forces “decisive” in allocating resources, have been totally reversed. Table 2China’s Progress On Reforms Over Past Decade China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around While China’s government model is absolutist, there are still social and economic limits on what the government can achieve. Beijing cannot raise a nationwide property tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax overnight just to reduce inequality. In fact, the long saga of the property tax tells a very different story. Beijing is limited in how it can tax the bubbling property sector because Chinese households store their wealth in houses and because any sustained price deflation would lead to a national debt crisis. Officials have pledged to advance a nationwide property tax in the past three five-year plans with little progress. A serious effort to impose the tax in 2014 was only implemented in two provinces, notably Shanghai’s tax on second or third homes owned by the same household.2 The common prosperity plan entails that the government will revive the property tax but the rollout will still be gradual and step-by-step reform. The tax will focus on major urban areas, not minor ones where population decline could weigh on prices. The government work report in early 2023 will be a key watchpoint for where and when the property tax will be levied but there can be little doubt that it will gradually be levied for top-tier cities. Other aspects of the common prosperity plan will be implemented with provincial trial runs. It all begins with a “demonstration zone,” namely Zhejiang province, a wealthy coastal state where President Xi Jinping once served as party secretary and first army secretary. Zhejiang is expected to make some progress by 2025 and achieve most the goals by 2035 (in keeping with Xi’s 2035 strategic vision). The Zhejiang plan includes concrete numerical targets and as such sheds light on the broader national plan and how other provinces will implement it. The most important target is the desire to have 80% of the population earn an annual disposable income of CNY 100,000-500,000 ($15,400-77,000). The labor share of output should be greater than 50%, compared to a national average of 35%-40%. The urbanization rate should hit 75%, up from 72%. Urban incomes should be capped at just short of twice that of rural income. Enrollment rates in higher education will go up, life expectancy should reach above 80 years, pollution should be further controlled, and the unemployment rate should stay below 5.5%. A host of other goals, ranging from technology to fertility and the social safety net, are shown in Table 3. Table 3China: Zhejiang Province As Bellwether For “Common Prosperity” Plan China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Some of the plan’s intentions will be undermined by Chinese governance. It is difficult to improve social fairness and property rights in the context of autocracy because the central and local governments create distortions and cannot be held to account for their own mistakes and abuses. The immediate political context of the common prosperity plan should not be missed: the president is outlining a bright future to justify the fact that he will not step down from power as earlier term limits required in fall 2022. The president’s 2035 vision implies an important strategic window in which to accomplish ambitious goals but the lack of checks and balances suggests that the next 14 years could be very similar to the last 10 years, in which arbitrary and absolutist decisions govern policy. The problem is highlighted by China’s recent 10-point plan on government under rule of law, which is undercut by the arbitrary actions of regulators in the tech crackdown (see Appendix). In other words, while social stability may improve in many ways, the shift away from consensus rule, toward rule of a single person, will increase policy uncertainty and create new governance problems at the same time that could produce greater instability over the long run. Having said all that, it is essential to acknowledge that a comprehensive plan to grow the middle class and expand the social safety net could be very positive for China if implemented. A Global Social Justice Race? If investors are thinking that the Xi administration’s calls for “social fairness and justice” and big new investments in “elderly care, medical security, and housing supply” resemble those of US President Joe Biden in his American Families Plan, then they are right. But while the US is already at historic levels of social division after failing to deal with inequality, China is attempting to learn from the US’s problems and rebalance society before polarization, factionalization, and social unrest occur. The Communist Party tends to take major action in response to American crises. Beijing’s crackdown on extremism and domestic terrorism in the early 2000s followed from the September 11 attacks. Its crackdown on local government debt and shadow banking stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis. And its crackdown on Big Tech, social media, and inequality today responds to the rise of populism in the US and Europe. The fact that deindustrialization has led to political crises in the developed world, and that social media companies can both exacerbate social unrest and silence a sitting president, is not lost on the Chinese administration. Unfortunately, China’s approach will probably escalate conflict with the West. First, Beijing is coupling its new social agenda with an aggressive campaign of military modernization and technological acquisition. It is doubling down on advanced manufacturing as its future economic model. The liberal democracies will not only be forced to defend their own political systems and governance models but will also be pressured into more hawkish stances on foreign, trade, and defense policy toward China. So far China is still attractive to foreign investors but the combination of socialist policy, import substitution, and foreign protectionism should put a cap on investment flows over time (Chart 4). What is the net effect of social largesse at home and great power competition abroad? Larger budget deficits. Fiscal expansionism is the key mechanism for the US and China to reboot their economies, reduce social pressures, secure supply chains, and compete with other each other. And expansionary fiscal policies will boost inflation expectations on the margin. One thing is clear: China’s regime will be imperiled if instead of common prosperity and “national rejuvenation” it gets economic collapse. Beijing is already seeing capital outflows reminiscent of the crisis period in 2014-15 when aggressive reforms triggered a collapse in risk appetite and a stock market crash (Chart 5). The implication is that monetary and fiscal easing will accompany the reform agenda. Chart 4China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment Chart 5Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive That would be marginally positive for global growth and EM countries that export to China. Investors in China, however, will have to deal with greater policy uncertainty as China attempts to redistribute wealth while waging a cold war abroad. Investment Takeaways None of Beijing’s social goals can be met if overall growth and job creation slow too much. Reforms are constantly subject to the ultimate constraint of maintaining overall stability. Already in 2021 Beijing is verging on excessive monetary and fiscal policy tightening (Chart 6). The Politburo signaled in July that it would take its foot off the brakes but policy uncertainty is still wreaking havoc in the equity market and overall animal spirits are downbeat. We expect policy to ease over the coming year to ensure stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. This would be marginally good news for global growth, contingent on the effects of the global pandemic. Of course we cannot deny that more bad news for global risk assets may be necessary in the very near term to prompt the policy easing that we expect. Policymakers will backtrack on various policies when the market revolts or when the risk of debt-deflation rears its ugly head. Corporate and even household debt have expanded so much in recent years that Chinese policymakers have their hands tied when they try to push reforms too aggressively (Chart 7). A Japanese-style combination of a shrinking and graying population could create a feedback loop with debt deleveraging in the event of a sharp drop in asset prices. On the whole we maintain a pessimistic outlook on Chinese currency and assets. Chart 6China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy Chart 7Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1China: 10-Point Guidelines On Government Under Rule Of Law (2021-25) China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Footnotes 1     See Arthur R. Kroeber, “Xi Jinping’s Ambitious Agenda for Economic Reform in China,” Brookings, November 17, 2013, brookings.edu. 2     Chongqing’s property tax only affects luxury houses. Shenzhen and Hainan are the next pilot projects.