Money/Credit/Debt

Highlights Duration: The Fed will ignore inflation for the time being and focus on its “maximum employment” target to decide when to lift rates off the zero bound. As a result, bond investors should also ignore inflation and focus on the employment data. We anticipate that significant positive nonfarm payroll surprises will start in late-summer/early-fall and that they will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. Keep portfolio duration below benchmark. Fed Operations: We see no implications for the Fed’s balance sheet or interest rate policies stemming from the recent uptick in ON RRP usage. It is possible that the Fed will decide to slightly increase the IOER or ON RRP rates at this month’s FOMC meeting in an effort to move the funds rate closer to the middle of its target range, but we don’t view this as a pressing need. Inflation: Inflation will moderate in the coming months, but 12-month core inflation will remain close to or above the Fed’s target at least through the end of 2022. Baffling Bond Market Strength We’ve received more questions than usual in recent days, mostly from readers seeking to understand why long-dated bond yields fell during a week that saw one of the strongest CPI prints of the past 40 years and the Treasury dump $38 billion of new 10-year supply on the market. We believe we can explain the conundrum. First, consensus expectations are finally starting to catch up with the pace of economic recovery. Economic surprise indexes measure the strength of economic data relative to consensus expectations and they have fallen a lot compared to the elevated levels seen last year (Chart 1). In fact, if it weren’t for incredibly strong inflation data these indexes would be much closer to “negative surprise” territory. The Industrial Sector and Labor Market components of the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index have already dipped well below the zero line (Chart 1, bottom panel). Encouragingly, the fall in surprise indexes has more to do with investor expectations ratcheting higher than it does with a slowdown in the pace of economic growth, or at least that is the message you get from the CRB/Gold ratio, an excellent coincident indicator for bond yields (Chart 2). The CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index serves as a proxy for global economic growth and it remains in a solid uptrend. What has changed in the past few weeks is that gold is also staging a rally (Chart 2, bottom panel). This tells us that bond yields are not falling because of a slowdown in economic growth. Rather, they are falling because investors see the Federal Reserve turning increasingly dovish. Chart 1Surprise Indexes Surprise Indexes Surprise Indexes Chart 2CRB/Gold Ratio CRB/Gold Ratio CRB/Gold Ratio Why might investors have this impression of Fed Policy? During the past few months the Fed has successfully convinced markets that it will not lift rates until its “maximum employment” target is achieved, irrespective of what happens with inflation or inflation expectations (more on this in the section titled “A Checklist For Liftoff” below). This explains why bond investors are ignoring positive inflation surprises and focusing instead on the employment data, which have been disappointing. Nonfarm payroll growth came in significantly below consensus expectations in both May and April (Table 1). In light of those disappointing numbers, investors have pushed out expectations for the timing of Fed liftoff and bond yields have fallen as a result. Table 1Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Results Versus Consensus Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation In For A Jolt Chart 3Labor Demand Is Not The Problem Labor Demand Is Not The Problem Labor Demand Is Not The Problem We view the recent drop in yields as a bond market over-reaction to weak employment data. Investors are focusing on the weaker-than-expected nonfarm payroll numbers but ignoring skyrocketing indicators of labor demand such as the JOLTS Job Openings Rate, the NFIB Jobs Hard To Fill survey and the Consumer Confidence Jobs Plentiful less Hard To Get survey (Chart 3). As we have noted in past reports, the demand for labor has already fully recovered from the pandemic and it is the lack of labor supply that is holding back the employment recovery.1 That is, people are not making themselves available to work. When we think about possible reasons why people are not making themselves available for job opportunities, the most obvious candidates relate to the pandemic and the fiscal response to the pandemic. Table 2 shows the net number of jobs lost since February 2020 broken down by major industry group. It shows that the Leisure & Hospitality sector (mostly restaurants and bars) accounts for about one third of the net job loss. Together, the Education & Health Services and Government sectors account for another third. A lot of these missing jobs are close-proximity service industry jobs that pay a relatively low average hourly wage. It therefore shouldn’t be too surprising that people are reluctant to take these jobs due to fears of contracting COVID and the fact that they have received large income supplements from the federal government in the form of stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits. Table 2Employment By Industry Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation It seems unlikely that these constraints to labor supply will persist beyond the next few months. Virus fears will ebb over time, as long as the case count remains low, and government income support will also go away. There will be no more stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire in September. Chart 4S&L Government Hiring Will Increase S&L Government Hiring Will Increase S&L Government Hiring Will Increase With this in mind, we expect that labor supply constraints will ease by end-summer/early-fall and the result will be significant upside surprises to nonfarm payroll growth. Bond yields will likely stay rangebound in the near-term, but the next significant move will be an increase in yields driven by strong employment data. As a final point on the labor market, we noted above that the Government sector accounts for about 15% of the net job loss since February 2020. In fact, all those missing government jobs are from state & local governments.2 State & local governments cut expenditures drastically last year, but thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in tax revenues and generous transfers from the federal government, they actually saw overall revenues exceed expenditures in 2020 and again in the first quarter of 2021 (Chart 4). The upshot is that state & local governments are now in a position to ramp up spending, and their pace of hiring should accelerate in the coming months. Bottom Line: The Fed will ignore inflation for the time being and focus on its “maximum employment” target to decide when to lift rates off the zero bound. As a result, bond investors should also ignore inflation and focus on the employment data. We anticipate that significant positive nonfarm payroll surprises will start in late-summer/early-fall and that they will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. Keep portfolio duration below benchmark. A Note On Reverse Repos And Fed Operations Chart 5An Over-Supply Of Reserves An Over-Supply Of Reserves An Over-Supply Of Reserves Many investors have noticed that usage of the Fed’s Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) has surged during the past few weeks, and many are also wondering if this will force the Fed to alter its interest rate or balance sheet policies. The short answer is no. In fact, the increased take-up of the ON RRP is a sign that the Fed’s operational strategy is working as intended. Let’s explain. The Fed’s main task is to set a target range for the federal funds rate and then ensure that the funds rate stays within that range. Today, that target range is between 0% and 0.25%. The fed funds market is where banks trade reserves amongst each other. If the Fed has over-supplied the market with reserves, then they will be very cheap to acquire and the fed funds rate will fall. Conversely, if the Fed has under-supplied the market with reserves, they will be more expensive to acquire and the fed funds rate will rise. At present, the market is awash with reserves. This is the result of the Fed’s asset purchases and the Treasury department’s ongoing policy of reducing its cash holdings.3 This over-supply of reserves is forcing the fed funds rate down, toward the lower-end of the Fed’s target band (Chart 5). This is where the ON RRP comes to the rescue. Through the ON RRP, the Fed pledges to borrow reserves from any eligible counterparty at a rate of 0% using a security off its balance sheet as collateral. This effectively gives any eligible counterparty the option of depositing excess reserves at the Fed in return for a rate of 0%. The result is that the ON RRP establishes a firm floor of 0% under the fed funds rate. Chart 6An Under-Supply Of Reserves An Under-Supply Of Reserves An Under-Supply Of Reserves This is why we say that the ON RRP is working as intended. The market is currently over-supplied with bank reserves and the ON RRP is absorbing that excess while keeping the funds rate anchored within the Fed’s target range. We should note that, in addition to the ON RRP rate, the Fed also pays a rate of interest on excess reserves (IOER). This IOER rate is currently 0.10%. Much like the ON RRP, the IOER should function as a floor on interest rates since it promises banks a rate of 0.10% for excess reserves deposited at the Fed. The problem is that the IOER is only available to primary dealer banks that have accounts at the Federal Reserve. There are other major players in overnight money markets, such as the GSEs and large money market funds, and these institutions do not have access to the IOER, only to the ON RRP. It is this broader counterparty access that makes the ON RRP the true floor on interest rates. It’s also interesting to look back at a time when the Fed was grappling with the opposite issue. In September 2019 the Fed was supplying the market with too few reserves and the fed funds rate was rising as a result (Chart 6). During this period, the fed funds rate actually did briefly break above the top-end of the Fed’s target range. This is because the Fed does not have a standing facility to put a ceiling above rates the way that the ON RRP provides a floor. In September 2019, the Fed had to conduct ad-hoc repo operations – lending reserves in exchange for securities – in order to bring the funds rate back down. Fortunately, the Fed has plans to rectify this problem. The minutes from the last FOMC meeting reveal that a “substantial majority of participants” supported the establishment of a standing repo facility to serve as a ceiling on interest rates in the same way that the ON RRP serves as a floor. The establishment of such a facility will make it easier for the Fed to shrink the size of its balance sheet when the time comes. All in all, we see no implications for the Fed’s balance sheet or interest rate policies stemming from the recent uptick in ON RRP usage. It is possible that the Fed will decide to slightly increase the IOER or ON RRP rates at this month’s FOMC meeting in an effort to move the funds rate closer to the middle of its target band (the fed funds rate is currently 0.06%), but we don’t view this as a pressing need. It is more likely that the Fed will stay the course, knowing that the over-supply of reserves will abate once the Treasury’s cash balance re-normalizes and that the ON RRP will keep the funds rate well-anchored in the meantime. A Checklist For Liftoff Table 3The Fed’s Liftoff Checklist Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation At the beginning of this report we claimed that, in determining when to lift rates off the zero bound, the Fed will ignore inflation and inflation expectations and will be guided only by the labor market. This claim stems from the three criteria that the Fed has said will determine the timing of liftoff (Table 3). Yes, above-target inflation is one of the items on the checklist. However, the checklist places no upper limit on inflation that would cause the Fed to ignore the checklist’s “maximum employment” criteria. Further, it’s highly likely that inflation will remain close to or above the Fed’s target at least through the end of 2022. In essence, this means that the inflation portion of the Fed’s liftoff checklist has been achieved and it is only employment that will determine the timing of liftoff. Inflation To see why inflation is likely to remain close to or above target levels we look at 12-month core CPI (Chart 7A) and 12-month core PCE (Chart 7B) and run some scenarios based on future monthly growth rates of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%. For context, core CPI grew 0.9% in April and 0.7% in May. Core PCE grew 0.7% in April and May data have not yet been released. Chart 7A12-Month Core CPI Scenarios 12-Month Core CPI Scenarios 12-Month Core CPI Scenarios Chart 7B12-Month Core PCE Scenarios 12-Month Core PCE Scenarios 12-Month Core PCE Scenarios Charts 7A and 7B show that an average monthly growth rate of 0.2%, a significant drop from current rates, will cause 12-month core CPI and core PCE to level-off either at or above target levels and this leveling-off won’t even occur until the middle of next year. Given that we are likely to see at least a few more elevated monthly inflation prints, it is highly likely that inflation will be at or above the Fed’s target by the end of 2022. Employment As for the Fed’s “maximum employment” criteria, we have updated our scenarios for the average monthly pace of nonfarm payroll growth required to reach “maximum employment” by specific dates in the future. As a reminder, we define “maximum employment” as an unemployment rate between 3.5% and 4.5% and a labor force participation rate of 63.3%, equal to its February 2020 level. Our results are presented in Tables 4A-4C. We calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between +378k and +462k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. As noted above, we expect that nonfarm payroll growth will come in far above this range starting in late-summer/early-fall. Table 4AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation Table 4BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation Table 4CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Watch Employment, Not Inflation Watch Employment, Not Inflation All in all, we think that the Fed’s maximum employment and inflation criteria will both be met in time for a rate hike in 2022.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on the lack of labor supply please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 2 The federal government has added a net 24 thousand jobs since Feb. 2020. State & local governments have lost a net 1.2 million. 3  For more details on how the Treasury department’s cash management policy is influencing the supply of bank reserves please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The yen is the most underappreciated currency in developed markets today. Our bullish thesis on the yen rests on a simple pillar: Japan will successfully overcome the pandemic like its Western counterparts. This good news is not yet reflected in the price of the yen or Japanese assets. The Japanese economy is also one of the best candidates for generating non-inflationary growth, a bullish backdrop for any equity market or currency. Remain short USD/JPY. The biggest risk to our view is a big rebound in US Treasury yields that catalyzes outflows from Japan and bids up the dollar. Feature The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new Covid-19 cases is at the highest level per capita in developed Asia (Chart I-1). As a result, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the region (and the developed world for that matter), even though global demand for goods is booming. As an industrial powerhouse very much dependent on external growth, this result has been both surprising, and a severe blow to the domestic recovery. A third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector, pinning its recovery well behind its global peers. The combination has led to an underperformance of both the Japanese currency and stock market (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Japan Is A Basket Case In Developed Asia Japan Is A Basket Case In Developed Asia Japan Is A Basket Case In Developed Asia Chart I-2The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged The Japanese Recover Has Lagged The Japanese Recover Has Lagged There are a variety of hypotheses for Japan’s anemic recovery. The initial government response to the pandemic was slow and botched, with a nationwide lockdown only implemented on April 16 last year, much later than other economies. The health response has also been disappointing – despite a high availability of hospital beds, only a small percentage were used to treat Covid-19 patients. As a matter of fact, only a fifth of Japan’s 8,000+ hospitals are public, which has slowed the pace of both treatments and more recently, vaccinations. This is dampening both business and consumer sentiment, crippling the recovery. In this report, we explore how fast and how soon Japan can emerge from crisis management mode. More importantly, with Japanese shares and the currency laggards in this recovery, has the stage been set for a coiled-spring rebound? Our bias is that most of the bad news may already be reflected in depressed asset prices, while an inevitable economic recovery is not. Mapping The Japanese Recovery The pace of vaccination is accelerating in Japan and should soon hit the critical 50%-60% threshold necessary to reach herd immunity (Chart I-3). Shipments of the vaccine have been increasing since May, with 100 million Pfizer doses, and 40 million Moderna shots expected by the end of June. According to government officials, Japan aims to secure enough doses to inoculate its entire population by the end of September. Chart I-3AAn Accelerating Pace Of Vaccinations In Japan An Accelerating Pace Of Vaccinations In Japan An Accelerating Pace Of Vaccinations In Japan Chart I-3BCurrency Returns Have Roughly Tracked Vaccination Progress The Case For Japan The Case For Japan A turnaround in the vaccination campaign would not only boost public opinion about the Covid-19 response but would also be a welcome fillip to much subdued consumer and business sentiment. Economic surprises in Japan have flipped from being the most disappointing in the developed world to the most robust. Expectation surveys are also pointing to rising optimism about future growth (Chart I-4). It should only be a matter of time for hard data to follow suit. The first catalyst for a recovery will come from consumption, particularly around the Olympics. While foreign spectators will not be allowed in Japan, athletes, organizers and sponsors should jumpstart the pickup in inbound tourism. At the peak in 2019, tourist arrivals were almost 25% of the entire Japanese population, compared to almost zero today (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Green Shoots In Japan Green Shoots In Japan Green Shoots In Japan Chart I-5Nowhere To Go But Up Nowhere To Go But Up Nowhere To Go But Up More importantly, a pickup in tourism will also coincide with improvement in labor market conditions. Real wages are accelerating at the fastest pace in a decade. This is boosting household spending, as the unemployment rate declines. Should a recovery trigger less need for precautionary savings, this will further boost consumption (Chart I-6). It is important to note that significant headwinds to Japanese consumption are now abating. The consumption tax hike in 2019 delivered a severe punch to aggregate demand. COVID-19 eventually dealt a near-fatal blow. The silver lining is that those two shocks have led to a massive build in pent-up demand, which should be unleashed in the coming quarters. Government outlays have also gone a long way towards boosting aggregate demand during the pandemic. A new budget to be compiled in October or November should help ease the fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart I-7). The fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger in a liquidity trap, so it will be important for the government to resist the urge to rein in spending amidst a surging debt profile. Chart I-6A Recovery In ##br##Consumption A Recovery In Consumption A Recovery In Consumption Chart I-7The Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Be Less Negative The Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Be Less Negative The Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Be Less Negative Our bias is that a vigorous rebound in Japanese consumption, as was witnessed in other developed economies, could jumpstart the economic recovery. The Risk Of A China Slowdown A boom in external demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth, especially amidst weak domestic demand. The risk is that this tailwind becomes a headwind as Chinese growth slows. In our view, this risk should be monitored, but is likely overstated. First, while 23% of Japanese sales go to China, other developed and emerging markets account for the lion’s share of exports. For example, exports to the US account for 18% of sales while EU exports account for 9%. One of the most cyclical components of Japanese exports is machine tool orders, which continue to inflect higher. If Chinese growth does indeed slow, it accounts for large but not overwhelming 30% of overall orders (Chart I-8).  From a much broader perspective, rising infrastructure spending and an economic recovery around the world should continue to buffer foreign machinery orders and demand for Japanese goods, keeping industrial production humming (Chart I-9). Chart I-8A Boom In Foreign Demand A Boom In Foreign Demand A Boom In Foreign Demand Chart I-9A Renewed Industrial Cycle A Renewed Industrial Cycle A Renewed Industrial Cycle Japanese Growth, Inflation And The Yen The best environment for any currency is when the economy can generate non-inflationary growth. Japan may well be entering this paradigm. Like most other economies, Japan saw the worst private-sector contraction in decades. For an economy whose interest rates have lingered near zero since the 1990s, this is not good news. However, whenever the structural growth rate of the Japanese economy (proxied as private-sector GDP) has begun to recover from very low levels (and even before), the trade-weighted yen has staged powerful rallies (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth Part of the reason is that any Japanese growth improvement is likely to be non-inflationary. Most developed economies are seeing both realized or expected inflation at or exceeding their central bank’s targets. This is not the case in Japan (Chart I-11). This means that real rates should remain quite elevated, a positive for the currency. The three key variables the authorities pay attention to for inflation, core CPI, the GDP deflator and the output gap, are low and falling (Chart I-12). Always forgotten is that the overarching theme for prices in Japan is a rapidly falling (and ageing) population. This means that generating inflation is a more arduous task than in other developed economies. Meanwhile, with almost 50% of the Japanese consumption basket in tradeable goods, domestic inflation is as much driven by the influence of the BoJ as it is by globalization. Chart I-11Higher Real Rates In Japan Higher Real Rates In Japan Higher Real Rates In Japan Chart I-122% = Mission Impossible? 2% = Mission Impossible? 2% = Mission Impossible?   Real rates are likely to stay positive in Japan for the foreseeable future. For one, there is not much the BoJ can do in terms of easing policy. The central bank already owns 50% of outstanding JGBs, and about 89% of ETFs. As such, the supply side puts a serious limitation on how much more stimulus the BoJ can provide (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Stealth Tapering By The BoJ? Stealth Tapering By The BoJ? Stealth Tapering By The BoJ? Meanwhile, the most potent policy for the Bank of Japan is to keep Japanese rates low as global yields are rising. This is because yield curve control will incrementally lower the appeal of higher Japanese real yields. We expect that in an environment where global inflationary pressures are normalizing (3-6 months), this is much less of a risk. The Yen In The Current Global Context Foreigners have a huge sway on the performance of Japanese assets, especially equities. Foreign holders account for near 30% of the Japanese equity float (Chart I-14). The size of day-to-day flows could be much bigger. As such, a call on the yen is also predicated on substantial inflows from foreign buying. The yen and the Japanese equity market have historically been negatively correlated. However, it is possible that Japanese domestic profits are no longer driven only by translation effects, but true underlying productivity gains (Chart I-15). On this note, the return on equity of Japanese shares has overtaken that of the euro area, even though they still trade at a price-to-book discount to their European counterparts. This could result in less yen hedging by foreign investors, which would restore a positive relationship between the relative share price performance and the currency. Chart I-14Large Foreign Participation In Japanese Stocks Large Foreign Participation In Japanese Stocks Large Foreign Participation In Japanese Stocks Chart I-15A Breakdown In ##br##Correlation? A Breakdown In Correlation? A Breakdown In Correlation?   As a counter-cyclical currency, the yen usually weakens against other developed market currencies when global growth picks up. However, this is less likely in an environment where global yields remain anchored at low levels. Real interest rates are already higher in Japan, and any improvement in Japanese growth will revive talks about normalization from the BoJ. Even if the BoJ eventually stands pat, the starting point is extremely short positioning by speculators, which could trigger a potent short squeeze (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Dollar Weakness = Yen Strength (Usually) Dollar Weakness = Yen Strength (Usually) Dollar Weakness = Yen Strength (Usually) Finally, the yen rises versus the dollar not only during recessions, but also during most episodes of broad-based dollar weakness. As such as a low-beta currency, the yen could weaken on its crosses, but still rise versus the dollar. Stay short USD/JPY. FX Trading Model We regularly update our FX trading model as a mechanical check on what could otherwise be subjective currency biases. Fortunately, our model agrees with us for the month of June, with recommendations to short the US dollar, mostly against the yen (Chart I-17). For risk management purposes, we are also tightening stops on our short AUD/MXN, and long Scandinavian currency basket positions to protect profits. Chart I-17ATrading Model Is Bullish Yen Trading Model Is Bullish Yen Trading Model Is Bullish Yen Chart I-17BTrading Model Is Bearish NZD Trading Model Is Bearish NZD Trading Model Is Bearish NZD   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The recent data out of the US have been robust: The May employment report showed an increase of 559K jobs, versus expectations of a 650K increase. The unemployment rate declined from 6.1% to 5.8% in May.  The Jolts job opening survey showed an increase from 8.3mn to 9.3mn. CPI came in at 5% year on year in May, outpacing expectations of a 4.7% rise. Month on month, CPI grew by 0.6% in May, above the 0.4% consensus. Core CPI came in at 3.8% year on year in May, beating the expected 3.4%. The US dollar DXY index was down 0.4% this week. The broad theme in FX markets has been a normalization in US yields, despite a strong CPI report and an otherwise robust jobs report. This suggests market participants are already positioned for an upside surprise in US data. We are agnostic towards the US dollar in the next 1-3 months but will use any bounce as a selling opportunity. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area remain upbeat: The euro Sentix confidence index bounced from 21 to 28.1 in June. Both employment and GDP growth in the first quarter were better than expectations. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold but upgraded its economic forecasts for both 2021 and 2022. The euro was up 0.4% this week. While the focus on the euro has been on the possibility of the ECB tapering asset purchases, the biggest driver of the currency has been relative growth. We expect eurozone GDP to continue inflecting higher, in line with the ECB’s revised forecasts. This is bullish the euro. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan was robust: Average cash earnings rose 1.6% year on year in April. Overtime pay rose by 6.4%. The GDP report was revised upward, with year on year growth at -3.9% for the first quarter, compared to a previous assessment of -4.8%. The Eco Watchers Survey for May came in at 38.1, with the outlook component actually rising. Machine tool orders are inflecting higher, rising 141% year on year in May. The yen was up by 0.8% against the USD this week. The yen is the most underappreciated currency in developed markets today. Our bullish thesis on the yen rests on a simple pillar: Japan will successfully overcome the pandemic like its Western counterparts. This good news is not yet reflected in the price of the yen or Japanese assets. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 The recent data out of UK have been solid: Halifax house prices are rising almost 10% year on year as of May. The BRC retail sales monitor also remains robust at 18.5% year on year in May. The pound was up by 0.4% this week against the USD. Cable has already priced dividends from a fast vaccine rollout, and the positive impact on the domestic UK economy. As such, more pronounced GBP gains will need to stem from an improvement in UK productivity. We are bullish on GBP over the long-term based on valuation but will stand aside in the near term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week: The AIG Services index rose from 61 to 61.2. While the NAB business confidence index edged lower from 23 to 20 in May, the survey component was more upbeat, rising from 32 to 37. The AUD was up by 1.3% this week against the USD. Price pressures remain weak in Australia and the vaccination progress continues to lag, even though it has been accelerating lately. This will keep the RBA dovish. This provides a small window to short the AUD, as other central banks turn more hawkish. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 The was scant data out of New Zealand this week: ANZ busines confidence came in at -0.4% in Q1, versus 1.8% last quarter. Electronic card retail sales increased by 1.7% month on month in May after a 4.4% increase in April. The NZD was up by 0.7 % this week against the dollar. The biggest risk to the New Zealand economy is a self-reinforcing deflationary spiral from a currency that rallies too far, too fast. However, in a context of slowing Chinese growth, this is less likely. We are short the NZD against the CHF, as insurance should a riot point in markets develop. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada have been as expected: Canada lost 68K jobs in May, but this was mostly tied to the lockdowns. Losses were concentrated to part-time employment. The unemployment rate did rise from 8.1% to 8.2%. The May Ivey PMI rose from 60.6 to 64.7. The Canadian trade balance improved from -C$1.4bn to a surplus of C$0.6bn in April. The Bank of Canada kept policy on hold this week, both in terms of interest rates and asset purchases. The CAD was flat against USD this week. Most of the normalization by the BoC has already been priced in the OIS curve, which is denting any near-term policy impact on the CAD. In our view, near term catalysts for the exchange rate will stem from what happens to crude oil prices as well as the Canadian recovery, as the world economy reopens. On this front, we remain bullish. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 The was scant data out of Switzerland this week: The unemployment rate fell to 3% in May, from 3.2%. CPI came in at 0.6% in May, double the rate of the previous month. The Swiss franc was up by 1% this week against the USD. The franc currently sits in a “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” juncture. It is cheap with a real effective exchange rate that is at one standard deviation below fair value. As such, should the pickup in global trade continue, this will buffet the franc. That said, the franc also benefits from bouts of volatility as a safe-haven currency. On this basis, we are long CHF/NZD as contrarian play. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 The was scant data out of Norway this week: Core CPI came in at 2.7% in May, lower than the previous month. PPI growth registered a 29.4% increase in April, year on year. The NOK was up by 1.3% this week against the dollar, the best performing G10 currency. Our special report on the NOK last week pointed to many catalysts that should keep the currency an outperformer in the coming quarters. We remain short both USD/NOK and EUR/NOK and are tightening stops this week to protect profits.  Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data from Sweden have been positive: The current account surplus rose from SEK 69.8bn to SEK 78.3bn in Q1. Industrial production came in at 26.4% year on year in April. CPI came in at 1.8% year on year and 0.2% month on month in May, in line with expectations. CPIF registered at 2.1% year on year and 0.2% month on month increase in May, both below the consensus. The SEK was up by 1.2% this week against the USD. Sweden stands to be one of the economies that benefits most from a renewed industrial cycle. This is by virtue of its export orientation and huge industrial concentration compared other economies. Meanwhile, the SEK remains one of the cheapest currencies in our models. We are short both EUR/SEK and USD/SEK. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The Fed’s independence from politics is illusory. President Biden has the potential to reshape the Fed’s Board of Governors through three personnel picks, two of which are due by January 2022. While monetary policy could only get marginally more dovish, the Democratic Party’s goals would be furthered by new appointments. If Biden retains Powell then he is convinced that Powell is fully committed to today’s ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy. If he does not, then the new Fed chair will be still more dovish. Nevertheless the excessive expansion of the US money supply is reminiscent of the Arthur Burns era and suggests that any Fed chair faces a sea of troubles from 2022-26. For now stay long TIPS, infrastructure plays, cyclicals, and value stocks. Feature I do not recall a single instance where somebody in the political realm said, “We need to raise rates, they’re too low.”                         -Alan Greenspan, CNBC, October 18, 2018 Just before the 2020 election I held a call with a client in New York and the question arose of whether the expected winner, then candidate Joe Biden, would reappoint Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell when his term expired on January 31, 2022. I argued that the odds of Biden keeping Powell in place were higher than one might think. After all, Powell reversed his stance on rate hikes in the winter of 2018-19 and then oversaw the Fed’s adoption of a new monetary policy strategy that deliberately targets an inflation overshoot. Powell would be a reliable dove for a president who would seek economic recovery above all things. The client drily responded, “There is no way that is going to happen.”   We still do not know what President Biden will decide with seven months before the decision is due. Personnel appointments are a matter of information and intelligence, not political or macroeconomic analysis. From a macro point of view all that can be said is that Biden does not face the situation President Trump faced: Biden has entered early in the business cycle, under a new, ultra-easy average inflation targeting regime at the Fed. Trump entered in the middle of a business cycle, while the Fed was hiking rates (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden's and Powell's Context Biden's and Powell's Context Biden's and Powell's Context Almost any new Fed chair will be largely constrained by the policy consensus on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Biden is an establishment player whose appointments so far suggest that he is unlikely to nominate a maverick capable of bucking the entire FOMC. But personalities can still make a difference at critical junctures. Nobody should be surprised if Biden opts to replace Powell with a candidate who is marginally more committed to keeping rates lower for longer.   Investors should bet on dovish surprises for three reasons. First, the Fed as an institution has reached a consensus on its current policy framework, which is geared toward an inflation overshoot. Second, Powell may wish to retain his job. Third, the aforementioned client could be right and Biden may replace Powell with a more fervent proponent of ultra-easy policy. The takeaway is bullish for the time being. The Dependency Of Central Banks Central banks are part of the political bureaucracy of the nation state. Insofar as they achieve policy autonomy, or independence, it is at the forbearance of the executive or legislative branch. The ability to contain personal influences shows institutional maturity but institutions can never be fully independent. Fiscal policy is controlled by the ruling party, which will legislate in its interest. The “political business cycle” is an empirical phenomenon in which policymakers attempt to manipulate fiscal policy ahead of elections either to help or hurt the incumbent. A “political monetary cycle” also exists but its prevalence is debatable. It is more widely observed in developing countries.1 Politics in the developed world are more democratic and institutionalized so central banks have achieved considerable autonomy. In many cases their independence is enshrined in law, although the legal basis is often questionable and exaggerated.2  Not only are there checks and balances but they are reinforced by asynchronous cycles between the institutions. Term limits constrict politicians as much as or more so than monetary policymakers. Federal Reserve chairmen William McChesney Martin, Arthur F. Burns, and Jerome H. Powell were not immune to political influence but were able in their own ways to “wait out” the tenure of manipulative presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, and Donald J. Trump. Still, the latter examples highlight that developed markets cannot claim to be purely rationalist in their conduct of monetary policy. President Trump publicly asked, “Who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” Yet this was mild compared to the treatment that Nixon gave Burns and especially that Johnson gave Martin. Johnson physically shoved Martin around a private room demanding policy easing and accused him of not caring about the lives of young American soldiers dying in Vietnam. Martin held his ground and hiked rates in 1966 despite the war.3 Arthur Burns was subjected to a relentless campaign of public and private verbal abuse by Nixon and his staffers. Nixon was convinced that he lost the 1960 election because of overly tight Fed policies and was determined not to let it happen again in 1972. Greenspan kept rates low during the Iraq war and inflated the housing bubble. Plenty of unsavory examples of political influence and interference can be drawn from other developed markets.4 All governments and monetary systems are built and run by humans and therefore fallible. Even aside from individuals and anecdotes, structural forms of central bank manipulation within the developed world include: (1)  Debt accommodation: Central banks face an inexorable pressure to provide liquidity to governments running irresponsible fiscal deficits. The consequences if they refused could be devastating (Chart 2). Chart 2The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt (2)  Appointments: Presidents and executives appoint and remove leaders. In the US, the tendency for members of the Board of Governors to resign often gives the president substantial influence even aside from picking the Fed chairman, who can indeed be removed at will.5 (3)  Bureaucracy: Administrative structures exert a powerful influence over the personnel, policy frameworks, and behavior of central bank leadership and staff. The candidates for top positions are heavily filtered – and once they achieve high office, their options are constrained.6 Today’s Federal Reserve supports these three points: it is highly accommodative toward the US’s soaring federal debt and its leadership consists of a tight coterie of experts and academics who share a robust consensus regarding the appropriate theory and practice of monetary policy. The outstanding question stems from item number two, appointments, where President Biden has the opportunity to influence the Fed’s board. But the third point mostly controls the available personnel. Still, the choice of the Fed chair could prove decisive under unforeseen circumstances. Historical accounts of the Fed show that the chairman exerts substantial influence over monetary policy decisions.7 Most investors know from experience that individuals and leaders can still exert an outsized influence at critical junctures. For example, premature monetary tightening occurred with negative consequences in the US in 1937, Japan in 2000, and Europe in 2011. Investors are safest to bet on institutions rather than individuals. But the choice of the Fed chair can hardly be ignored. The current context features an extraordinary expansion of the money supply, and “excess money supply,” comparable only to the inflationary 1970s (Chart 3). The Fed chair in the coming years faces an unstable and difficult sea of troubles to navigate.  Chart 3Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Fed Chairs Care About Their Careers But Not Midterm Elections Political influence over monetary policy is measurable. A substantial body of academic literature reveals not only the above structural political factors but also that ideological affiliation – i.e. the political party whose president appointed the Fed chair – influences interest rates. So do elections and the career interests of Fed chairmen. Consider the following findings:  Abrams and Iossifov show evidence of abnormally expansionary monetary policy if the president and the chair are affiliated with the same political party.8 Gamber and Hakes show evidence of a lowered federal funds rate if the Fed chair stands for reappointment in the two years following a national election – i.e. Fed chairmen accommodate political pressures in the latter part of term to increase odds of reappointment.9 Dentler shows that while the Fed funds rate does not fall in advance of elections to help presidents in general, it is found to fall when the Fed chair and president have the same partisan affiliation, especially when the Fed chair’s reappointment is looming. Also the Fed funds rate is abnormally high before elections if the Fed chair hails from the opposite party of the incumbent president.10 Dentler shows specifically that Fed chair career motivations matter. If you omit career considerations, then it is not so much partisan affiliation as partisan opposition that can influence monetary policy. In effect, there is a potential increase in policy rate before elections. Dentler calls this a “reverse political monetary policy cycle.”11 In essence, a Fed chair is more likely to lean into his partisan affiliation as an incumbent president seeks reelection. It is hard to prove this behavior is partisan because it conforms with the idea of a staunchly independent central bank. Now let us look at the data first hand. In the following analysis we focus on the nominal Fed funds rate alongside (1) the headline consumer price index and (2) an implied policy rate following a simple Taylor Rule using potential GDP, the core PCE deflator, and the unemployment rate.12 We chose the nominal Fed funds rate and headline consumer price index because they should provide an indication of how the US president and public perceived interest rates and inflation. These factors are critical for the president’s decisions as to whether to reappoint or replace sitting Fed chairmen. However, we also use the Taylor Rule as a proxy for the correct or appropriate policy rate at the time, recognizing that headline CPI is insufficient. We observe the following: Burns worked closely with President Nixon and his tenure has always been controversial. The simple evidence shown here suggests that he accommodated Nixon in 1972 but did not accommodate President Ford’s bid for the presidency in 1976. He might have stayed easy a bit longer than necessary in 1977 ahead of President Carter’s decision on whether to reappoint him (Chart  4).  Chart 4AArthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Chart 4BArthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Miller’s tenure was marred by stagflation. He did not accommodate the Democrats during the 1978 midterm election and probably could not have done so. Carter promoted him to Treasury Secretary as a way of removing him from the Fed chair. The episode is a reminder that the president can remove the Fed chair – as the best constitutional studies show – but he may need to get creative about how to do it to avoid a political storm (Chart 5). Volcker may have accommodated Carter somewhat but not entirely in 1980. His actions are debatable around Reagan’s election in 1984. But Volcker laid inflation low and his reappointment by Reagan in 1983 makes sense in the context of that triumph (Chart 6).  Chart 5William Miller As Fed Chair William Miller As Fed Chair William Miller As Fed Chair Chart 6Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Greenspan cannot really be said to have accommodated Bush in 1992 though rates fell. He cracked down on inflation regardless of the 1994 midterm election, which turned out badly for President Clinton and the Democrats. But Clinton did not hold it against him – inflation had been brought down without a recession. Greenspan was tame during Clinton’s reelection bid in 1996 despite rising inflation – he hiked rates immediately thereafter. Clinton reappointed him in the midst of a rate-hike cycle justified by rising inflation, regardless of any risk to the Democratic bid in the 2000 election (Chart 7).   Chart 7AAlan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Chart 7BAlan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Bernanke’s tenure was dominated by the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession. He cannot be said to have accommodated the Republicans in 2008, though they were doomed anyway. President Obama’s decision to reappoint him in 2009 was a clear example of an urgent need to maintain policy continuity. Obama announced his replacement in 2013, after the crisis had passed (Chart 8). Chart 8ABen Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Chart 8BBen Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Yellen’s decision to pause hiking interest rates in 2016 is debatable and can be said to have accommodated the Democratic Party that year. She was replaced by President Trump in the midst of a rate-hike cycle justified by conditions (Chart 9). Powell hiked rates four times in 2018 despite the onset of a trade war with China. Powell cannot be said to have accommodated the Republicans in the 2018 midterm election. His behavior in 2020 was dominated by the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 10). Chart 9Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Chart 10Jerome Powell As Fed Chair Jerome Powell As Fed Chair Jerome Powell As Fed Chair The point is not to claim that politics is the driving factor behind monetary policy but rather to observe the cruxes in which personal and political motivations are at least mixed with technocratic and institutional decisions. Incidentally our observations largely corroborate the relevant academic literature.  If there is one solid rule that emerges from this analysis, it is that Fed chairmen and chairwomen do not accommodate midterm elections. There are no exceptions in the data shown here. If anything they are more hawkish. At the same time, it is true (though sometimes exaggerated) that rate hikes tend to be put on pause during presidential election years. And this tendency is observable not only during times in which a crisis makes rate hikes impossible. Furthermore a close examination of these charts supports the contention that Fed chairs tend to avoid or delay rate hikes prior to the president’s decision whether to reappoint them. There are exceptions but the charts do not disconfirm the hypothesis, which is intuitive because it fits with the central banker’s self-interest.  Biden Faces Zero Risk From A New Chair Or Some Risk From Powell A flat application of the rules of thumb in the previous section would suggest that Powell will push for easier policy than necessary ahead of Biden’s decision whether to reappoint him. It would also suggest that, if reappointed, Powell will not make any special accommodation for the Democrats in the critical 2022 midterms or in 2023. Obviously the reality might work out differently this time. But it is legitimate to suggest that retaining Powell poses a risk to the Democrats’ control of the economy ahead of the 2024 elections, even though we know we will get hate mail for saying it. Investors should not assume that there is a powerful norm in favor of the president’s retaining the sitting Fed chair in the name of continuity and “doing no harm.” The modern period of the Federal Reserve begins with the Fed-Treasury Accord in 1951. There have been seven changes of the Fed chair since that time and three of them occurred because of a change of political party in the White House (Martin to Burns, Burns to Miller/Volcker, and Yellen to Powell). While President Obama retained Bernanke, the reappointment came in early 2009, in the midst of a historic crisis. Biden has much greater flexibility than that today. And while Clinton retained Greenspan, the above analysis suggests that Democrats may warn Biden against doing the same. Most importantly Biden is president at a period of peak polarization in the US, when most of his Democratic Party and the US political establishment believe that democracy itself is at risk of dying at the hands of the Trumpist populism that is overtaking the Republican Party. If this is the view then even marginal risks to Democratic election prospects over the next four years should not be willingly taken. Biden’s dilemma can be illustrated easily by game theory. If he retains Powell he runs some risk of a hawkish surprise, however small, whereas if he replaces Powell he can avoid that risk. Powell regains some individual discretion if he is reappointed and therefore a hawkish surprise cannot be ruled out. The game theory implies that Biden will opt to remove Powell, but obviously that is up to Biden. Note that there is no stable equilibrium as Powell’s decision is shown as data-dependent and indifferent to the outcome (which may not truly be the case) (Diagram 1).   Diagram 1Game Theory: Will The President Reappoint The Fed Chair? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Biden must also choose a replacement for Vice Chair Richard Clarida, whose term expires in January 2022. Later, in June 2023, John Williams’s tenure on the board will expire (Diagram 2). With three new appointments Biden would be able to remake the board both slightly more dovish and considerably more diverse. Diversity and inclusiveness in top government positions are key aspects of Biden’s and the Democrats’ overall agenda.  Diagram 2Biden Could Replace At Least Three Fed Governors Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? The history of the Fed shows that leaders tend to be captured by the institution. Powell is fully absorbed into the new Fed consensus and his personal legacy depends on executing the new ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy that he himself ushered into being. While Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has made great strides, it is not easy for Biden to get a true believer confirmed in the Senate. In this sense, it does not matter whether Biden replaces Powell – the result will be largely the same and in line with the Fed’s current policy framework. We have a lot of sympathy with this argument. It emphasizes the checks and balances on the individual policymaker, which is the method we use to analyze US politics. The Fed has given very explicit criteria for lifting rates off the zero lower bound that are tied to specific economic outcomes. They have removed a lot of the discretion from that decision. Anyone qualified to take up the Fed chair would understand that it would be very risky to deviate from that specific guidance: the Fed would lose a lot of credibility. It would have to be a very non-mainstream pick to do that. That is not likely to happen. But again – personalities can matter at inflection points. Some would argue that Biden will not be able to find any credible candidates who can pass Senate confirmation and still be significantly more dovish than Powell (the Senate being divided equally between the two parties). However, Lael Brainard, Raphael Bostic, and Neel Kashkari are all Fed insiders who would be likely to pass the Senate and marginally more dovish than Powell, albeit supporters of the current policy framework. They would also advance the diversity agenda in different ways. They are more likely nominees than other potential candidates (Table 1).   Table 1Potential Successors To Powell As Fed Chair Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Note that the focus on inclusiveness is not only about personnel but also about the inclusiveness of the economy and hence it could affect monetary policy decisions. Inclusiveness as well as climate change and inequality are concerns outside of the Fed’s official mandate, where monetary policy will have a limited effect, but any influence of these issues whatsoever would point to dovish surprises. Biden can advance this agenda without legislative change through appointments.   Investment Takeaways The Fed chair appointment is a misleading win-win situation for markets. If Biden retains Powell, it is because Powell has proved thoroughly committed to the Fed’s new ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy, whereas if Biden replaces him, the replacement will be ultra-dovish. However, this win-win is misleading because beyond the near term the Fed will have to normalize policy. The Fed will ultimately remain data-dependent and the rapid closing of the output gap combined with a historic increase in excess money supply will push up inflation and require Fed responses regardless of the future chairman or chairwoman (Chart 11). Our US Bond Strategist Ryan Swift emphasizes that the Fed’s policy framework is very explicit. In order to normalize policy it needs to see inflation above the 2% target, the economy at maximum employment, and a convincing inflation overshoot (Table 2). The first goal is already met, with 12-month PCE inflation above target. An inflation overshoot will necessarily follow from the first goal combined with the second goal. Therefore the focal point for investors should be the second goal, “maximum employment,” i.e. the unemployment rate and labor participation rate (Chart 12). Positive data surprises on the employment front will accelerate the time frame. Chart 11Output Gap To Close Rapidly Output Gap To Close Rapidly Output Gap To Close Rapidly Table 2Checklist For Fed Liftoff Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Chart 12Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff For now we remain long TIPS relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries in expectation of dovish policy surprises. We may modify this trade in the near future. The upside is limited now that ten-year breakevens and five-year/five-year forward breakevens have reached the point where they are consistent with the Fed’s goal of well-anchored inflation expectations. But the above analysis supports this trade. Of course, the Fed’s actions should be taken into context with fiscal policy as well as external events and the US dollar. In the near term we continue to advise a cautious approach given that the US dollar is resting at a critical juncture, around 90 on the DXY. If the dollar breaks down beneath this level then it could fall substantially further. From a macro perspective this is what we would expect given the standing of budget deficit and real interest rates. Today’s historic combination of loose fiscal, loose monetary policy is dollar-bearish (Chart 13). The implication is positive for equities, especially cyclical and value sectors, so we maintain our current positioning.  Chart 13Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Our sister Geopolitical Strategy highlights China among other foreign policy challenges to the bearish dollar view and global risk appetite. This summer should provide some clarity on whether global policy uncertainty will rise and reinforce the dollar’s floor (Chart 14).     Chart 14Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Biden is still highly likely to pass an infrastructure bill this year (80% subjective odds). Any failure of bipartisan talks with Republicans will simply result in an all-Democratic bill via budget reconciliation. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin will not prevent the passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill and/or Biden’s next reconciliation bill (the American Jobs Plan). Manchin’s current tensions with the Democratic caucus center on the so-called “For The People” voting rights bill and the Senate filibuster, not the question of infrastructure and corporate tax hikes. Indeed Manchin may be forced to accept a higher corporate tax rate than his preferred 25% if he wants to make peace with his party. It is not inconceivable that he could defect from his party – the Republicans lost a 50-seat majority in the Senate this way as recently as 2001. But we have long argued that Manchin will support Biden’s signature legislative achievement. The market may be temporarily disappointed by stimulus hiccups but we view the infrastructure bill as a “buy the rumor, sell the news” dynamic for US cyclicals. While a fiscal policy weak spot will develop late in 2021 and early 2022, after the American Rescue Plan Act’s provisions expire but before new funds arrive from the American Jobs Plan, nevertheless the recovery of the private economy both at home and abroad should provide a bridge. The implication of the above analysis is to stay invested in the stock market and maintain a constructive outlook over the cyclical (12-month) time horizon while exercising near-term caution due to the dollar and geopolitical risk.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A2Political Risk Matrix Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A3Political Capital Index Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter?   Footnotes 1     For political monetary cycles see Edward N. Gamber and David R. Hakes, “The Federal Reserve’s response to aggregate demand and aggregate supply shocks: Evidence of a partisan political cycle,” Southern Economic Journal 63:3 (1997), 680-91. For developed versus developing market political monetary cycles, see S. Alpanda and A. Honig, “The impact of central bank independence on political monetary cycles in advanced and developing nations,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 41:7 (2009), 1365-1389. 2     In the US, the Fed’s independence rests on dubious constitutional and legal supports but is nevertheless well-established in legal and political practice. See Peter Conti-Brown, “The Institutions of Federal Reserve Independence,” Yale Journal on Regulation 32 (2015), 257-310. 3    Lawrence Bauer and Alex Faseruk, “Understanding Political Pressures, Monetary Policy, and the Independence of the Federal Reserve in the United States from 1960-2019,” Journal of Management Policy and Practice 21:3 (2020), 41-63. 4    Kuttner and Posen (2007) demonstrate that financial markets respond to newsworthy developments with central bankers across the developed world. See footnote 7 below. 5    See Conti-Brown, footnote 2 above. See also Kelly H. Chang, Appointing Central Bankers: The Politics of Monetary Policy in the United States and European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2003). 6    See Alexander W. Salter and Daniel J. Smith, “Political economists or political economists? The role of political environments in the formation of Fed policy under Burns, Greenspan, and Bernanke,” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 71 (2019), 1-13. 7     See Dentler, 241. See also Ellen E. Mead, “The FOMC: Preferences, Voting, and Consensus,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Reivew 87:2 (2005), 93-101; Kenneth N. Kuttner and Adam S. Posen, “Do Markets Care Who Chairs the Central Bank?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13101 (May 2007), nber.org.  8    B. A. Abrams and P. Iossifov, “Does the Fed contribute to a political business cycle?” Public Choice 129 (2006), 249-62. 9    Gamber and Hakes, “The Taylor rule and the appointment cycle of the chairperson of the Federal Reserve,” Journal of Economics and Business 58 (2006), 55-66. 10   Alexander Dentler, “Did the Fed raise interest rates before elections?” Public Choice 181 (2019), 239-73. 11    Dentler, 259, characterizes the Fed chairs as follows: “We believe that Martin was more susceptible to political infuences than his colleagues, but he never worked in opposition to a president in our sample period. Neither did Arthur Burns; however, we find him to be a moderating force with respect to ideological biases, though he appears to have been vulnerable to threats regarding his career. We find Volcker to respond more strongly than most other chairs to ideological motives and career incentives. Greenspan, on the other hand, did not fall prey to biased behavior that characterizes the other chairs. Bernanke’s tenure is probably the most difficult to interpret.” 12    Real Potential GDP Growth + Core PCE Deflator + 0.5 * (Core PCE Deflator – 2% Target) - 0.5 * (Unemployment Rate – NAIRU). We prefer real potential GDP to estimates of the real neutral rate because it is simpler and more transparent.  

Highlights Bond Market Performance: Government bonds in the developed economies are currently trapped in ranges, consolidating the sharp upward moves seen in the first quarter of 2021. This is only a pause in the broader cyclical uptrend, however, with central banks under increasing pressure to turn less dovish amid surging inflation and tightening labor markets. Oversold USTs: Technical indicators of yield/price momentum and investor sentiment/positioning suggest that US Treasuries are oversold. Working off this condition can take another 2-3 months, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation for Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) investment horizon. Feature Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regularly weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, June 15 where I will discuss the outlook for global fixed income markets in the second half of 2021. Following that, we will be jointly publishing our bi-annual Global Central Bank Monitor Chartbook with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, June 18th. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 29th. Best Regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Tale Of Two Quarters A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The performance of government bond markets in the developed world so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. In Q1, yields were rising steadily on the back of upside surprises in global growth and emerging signs of the biggest inflation upturn seen in nearly a generation. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index delivered a total return of -2.7% (hedged into US dollars) during the quarter, with no country escaping losses (Chart of the Week). The biggest declines were seen in the UK (-7.5%) the US (-4.3%), with the smallest losses occurring in Japan (-0.3%) and Italy (-0.7%). Chart 2Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Q2 has been a different story, however. Yields have retreated somewhat from the year-to-date peaks seen at the end of Q1, leading to positive returns so far in Q2 in the UK (+0.8), the US (+1.2%) and Australia (+1.1%). The laggards are the low yielding euro area markets, most notably Italy (-0.7%) and France (-0.9%), that have seen yields move higher on the back of accelerating European growth. The Q2 returns look very much like a carry-driven market, with higher-yielding markets outperforming lower-yielding ones. That trend can persist if the current backdrop of low market volatility persists (Chart 2), although this calm will eventually be broken by a shift towards less dovish monetary policies. Some countries will make that shift at a faster pace than others, leading to relative value opportunities for bond investors in the latter half of 2021. This week, we discuss one such opportunity – Australia versus the US. US Treasuries: Oversold & Trendless – For Now After reaching a 2021 intraday high of 1.77% back on March 30, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a narrow 15bp range between 1.55% and 1.70%. From a fundamental perspective, US yields are lacking direction because inflation expectations have already made a major upward adjustment to the more inflationary backdrop, but real yields have remained depressed by the continued dovish messaging from the Fed – for now - with regards to the timing of tapering or future rate hikes. From a technical perspective, however, the sideways pattern for US Treasury yields is also consistent for a market that trying to work off an oversold condition. Most of the technical indicators for the US Treasury market that we monitor regularly were at or close to the most bearish/oversold extremes seen since 2000 (Chart 3): Chart 3US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition The 10-year Treasury yield is 39bps above its 200-day moving average, but that gap was as high as 84bps on March 19; The 26-week total return of the 10-year Treasury is -4.7%, after reaching a low of -8.8% on March 19; The JP Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders shows some of the largest underweight duration positioning in the 19-year history of the series; The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is in the bottom half of the range that has prevailed since 2000; The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures is the only one of our indicators that is not signaling an oversold market, with a small net long position of +3% (scaled by open interest). The overall message of these indicators suggests that price momentum and positioning reached such a bearish extreme by mid-March that some pullback in Treasury yields was inevitable. However, a look back at past periods when Treasuries became heavily oversold since the turn of the century shows that the duration and magnitude of such a pullback is highly variable – anywhere from two months to ten months. The main determining factors are the trends in economic growth and inflation in the US, and the Fed’s expected policy response to both. To show this, we conducted a simple study, updating work we first presented in a 2018 report.1 We looked at “oversold episodes” since 2000, which began when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 50bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield subsequently converged back to its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the length of the episode (in days), and the change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were nine such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we rank the episodes by the number of days it took to complete each one, based on our simple moving average rule. We also show the change in both the 10-year Treasury yield and its 200-day moving average during each episode, to show how the convergence between the two unfolds. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold Treasury Market A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields To describe the US economic backdrop during each episode, we looked at the change in the ISM manufacturing index and core PCE inflation during those oversold periods. We also show changes in two important determinants of the level of Treasury yields: inflation expectations using 10-year TIPS breakeven rates, and Fed rate hike expectations using our 12-month Fed discounter which measures the expected change in interest rates - one year ahead - priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. At the bottom of the table, we show the average for all nine oversold episodes, as well as the averages for the episodes were the ISM was rising and where core PCE inflation was rising. Chart 4US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 There are a few messages gleaned from the results in Table 1: The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between February 2018 and December 2018, when 305 days passed before the 10-year yield fell back to its 200-day moving average; The shortest correction was between June 2007 and August 2007, where only 52 days elapsed; Treasury yields typically decline during oversold periods, with two notable exceptions: 2018 and 2013/14, which were also the two longest episodes; During all of the oversold periods, markets reduced the amount of expected Fed tightening by an average of 26bps. However, that was entirely concentrated in four of the nine episodes - including three of the four shortest episodes – and is typically associated with a decline in inflation expectations. Growth momentum appears to be a bigger factor than inflation momentum in determining the length of an oversold episode, with longer episodes typically occurring alongside a rising ISM index, and vice versa. The notable exception was the longest episode in 2018, where the ISM declined by six points, although the bulk of that decline occurred in a single month at the end of the period (November 2018). For the more visually oriented, we present the time series for all the data in Table 1, shaded for the oversold periods, in Chart 4 (for the 2003-2007 period), Chart 5 (2008-2012), Chart 6 (2013-2017) and Chart 7 (2018 to today). We’ve added one additional variable – our Fed Monitor, designed to signal the need for tighter or looser US monetary policy – in the bottom panel of each of those charts. Chart 5US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 Chart 6US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 Chart 7US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today What does this look back tell us about looking ahead? The current episode, at only 105 days old, is still 62 days “younger” than the average oversold period, and 76 days “younger” than the average period where core inflation was rising. This would put the end of the current episode sometime in August. The ISM is essentially unchanged over the current episode so far, making it difficult to draw conclusions based on growth momentum – although the longest episode in 2018 shows that yields can trade sideways for a long time, even in the absence of a big slowing of growth, if the Fed is in a rate hiking cycle. However, the current episode differs dramatically from others in this analysis on two critical fronts. Core inflation has surged 1.6 percentage points since the oversold period began in February, far more than any other episode, while the gap between a rapidly increasing Fed Monitor and a flat 12-month Fed Discounter is also unique among post-2000 oversold periods. In other words, the Treasury market is still vulnerable to a repricing of Fed tightening expectations, especially with positioning and sentiment measures like the Market Vane survey and net futures positioning not yet at fully bearish extremes. Bottom Line: The current oversold condition in the US Treasury market can take another 2-3 months to unwind, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist Update: No Case For A Hawkish Turn Yet Australia has been one of the top performing government bond markets within the developed economies, as discussed earlier. This performance has occurred even with strong acceleration of both Australian economic momentum and market-based inflation expectations (Chart 8). Despite our RBA Monitor flashing pressure on the RBA to tighten, and the Australian OIS curve already discounting 48bps of rate hikes over the next two years, Australian bond yields have remained very well behaved during the “calm” second quarter for global fixed income. Chart 8RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields Chart 9RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms The continued dovish messaging from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is the main reason for the solid Australia bond performance. The central bank is signaling no imminent shift in its combination of 0.1% nominal policy rates, deeply negative real rates, yield curve control on 3-year bonds and quantitative easing on longer-maturity bonds (Chart 9). Other central banks are starting to inch towards reining in the massive monetary accommodation of the past year. Could the RBA be next? In a Special Report published back in January of this year, we outlined a list of variables to watch to determine when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) could be expected to turn less dovish.2 This checklist would also inform our country allocation view on Australian government bonds, which has remained neutral. A quick update on the latest readings from the RBA Checklist shows little pressure on the RBA to begin preparing markets for tighter monetary policy. 1. The vaccination process goes quickly and smoothly We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia has weathered COVID-19 far better than most other Western countries in terms of actual cases and deaths, but the vaccine rollout Down Under has been underwhelming. Only 16% of the population has received at least one vaccine jab, while a mere 2% is fully vaccinated. These are numbers that are more comparable to pandemic-ravaged emerging market countries like India and Brazil where access to vaccines is an issue (Chart 10). Chart 10A Slow Vaccine Rollout Down Under A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The slow vaccine rollout is less worrisome in light of the Australian government having secured enough vaccine doses to inoculate the entire population, and with the domestic economy facing limited remaining COVID-19 restrictions. The issue has been distribution and that is now occurring at a quickening pace. Until a much greater share of the population is vaccinated, however, Australia will continue to maintain aggressive COVID-related international travel restrictions – the government just announced that borders will remain shut until mid-2022 - that will be a major drag on the economically-important tourism sector. 2. Private sector demand accelerates alongside fiscal stimulus (✔) We ARE placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia’s fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic was one of the largest in the developed world. The stimulus was heavily focused on wage subsidies and income support measures like the JobSeeker program, which expired back in March. As the expensive stimulus programs are unwound, it is critical that the domestic economy can stand on its own without support. On that front, the news is good. Australia’s economy grew by 1.8% during Q1/2021, lifting the level of real GDP above the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 11). Both consumer spending and business investment posted solid growth during the quarter, fueled by surging confidence with the NAB business outlook measure hitting a record high in May (bottom panel). As a sign that the domestic economy is benefitting from a return to pre-pandemic habits, Q1 saw a 15% increase in spending in hotels, cafes and restaurants. That strength looked to extend into the Q2, with retail sales rising 1.1% in April, suggesting that Australian domestic demand is enjoying strong upward momentum. Chart 11A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand Chart 12China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports 3. China reins in policy stimulus by less than expected We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, so Chinese demand is always an important contributor to Australian economic growth. This is why we included a China element in our RBA Checklist. Specifically, we deemed the outcome that would potentially turn the RBA more hawkish would be Chinese policymakers pulling back monetary and fiscal stimulus by less than expected in 2021 after the big policy support in 2020. The combined fiscal and credit impulse for China has already slowed by 9% of GDP since December 2020, signaling a meaningful cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of 2021 that should weigh on demand for imports from Australia (Chart 12). However, Chinese import demand has already been severely impacted because of worsening China-Australia political tensions, which has led Beijing to impose restrictions on Australian imports for a variety of products, include coal, wine, beef, barley and cotton. The result is that there has been no growth in Australian total exports to China over the past year – an outcome that was flattered by the surge in iron ore prices - which has weighed on overall Australian export growth. Given this weak starting point for Chinese demand for Australian goods, the sharp reduction in the China stimulus is, on the margin, a factor that will not force the RBA to turn less dovish sooner than expected. 4. Inflation, both realized and expected, returns to the RBA’s 2-3% target We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australian inflation remains well below the RBA’s 2-3% target range, with the headline CPI and the less volatile trimmed mean CPI both expanding at only a 1.1% annual rate in Q1/2021 (Chart 13). The RBA is forecasting a brief boost to both measures in Q2, before settling back below 2% to the end of 2022. Chart 13No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation Chart 14Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing The RBA’s message on the inflation outlook has been very consistent. A sustainable move of realized inflation back to the 2-3% target range – that would prompt a normalization of monetary policy – cannot occur without a significant tightening of labor markets that drives wage growth back to 3% from the Q1/2021 reading of 1.5%. The RBA currently does not expect that outcome to occur before 2024. The RBA believes that the full employment NAIRU is between 4-4.5%, well below the OECD’s latest estimate of 5.4%. Given the sharp drop in Australian unemployment already seen over the past few quarters, there is the potential for an upside surprise in the wage data that could lead the RBA to change its policy bias. The central bank would need to see a few quarters of such wage surprises, however, before altering its forward guidance on the timing of future rate hikes. 5. House price inflation begins to accelerate We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Given Australia’s past history with periods of surging home values, signs that housing markets were overheating could prompt the RBA to consider tighten monetary policy. The annual growth of median house prices has dipped from +8% in Q1 2020 to +4% in Q4 2020, despite robust housing demand as evidenced by the 40% growth in building approvals. At the same time, housing valuations have become less stretched with the ratio of median home prices to median household incomes falling -9% from the 2017 peak according to data from the OECD (Chart 14). The RBA remains sensitive to the potential financial stability risks from overvalued housing. The latest trends in the house price data, however, suggest that the central bank does not yet to have the use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to cool off an overheated housing market. Chart 15Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) In sum, the majority of items in our RBA Checklist are signaling no immediate pressure on the central bank to tighten policy. The first 25bp rate hike is not discounted in the Australian OIS curve until April 2023, a little ahead of RBA guidance but still consistent with a very dovish policy bias. The inflation data, in our view, will be the critical factor that could prompt the markets to pull forward expected monetary tightening, leading to a surge in Australian bond yields. With the RBA already expecting a surge in inflation in the Q2/2020 data, the central bank would likely want to see at least a couple of more quarterly inflation prints – both for the CPI and wage price index - before signaling a more hawkish policy shift. Thus, the RBA will likely stay dovish over the latter half of 2021 Therefore, we are moving to an overweight recommended stance on Australian government bonds on a tactical (0-6 months) basis. In our model bond portfolio on pages 16-17, we are “funding” that shift to an above-benchmark weighting in Australia out of US Treasury exposure. Given our view that the Fed will soon begin to signal a 2022 taper of its asset purchases, relative policy dovishness should lead Australian government bonds to outperform US Treasuries in the latter half of this year. In addition, Australian bonds have a lower yield beta to changes in US Treasury yields, relative to the high beta to changes in non-US developed market yields (Chart 15), making allocations out of the US into Australia attractive from a risk management perspective in a global bond portfolio. Bottom Line: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical investment horizon.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20, 2018. 2 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, I will be holding a webcast with my colleague Dhaval Joshi to discuss the future of cryptocurrencies. Dhaval thinks the price of Bitcoin is going to $125,000. I agree with the last three digits of his price target. Please join us for a lively debate at 10am EDT on Friday, June 4th.  Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Money growth has exploded in the US and to a lesser degree, in the other major developed economies. Not only has the monetary base increased, but this time around, broad money aggregates have also risen dramatically. In the US, M2 is up 30% since February 2020, the biggest 14-month jump on record.  The increase in US M2 has been largely driven by stimulus checks flooding into household bank accounts and increased precautionary savings by corporations. Fed asset purchases have also replaced private-sector holdings of Treasurys and MBS (which are not included in M2) with bank deposits and money market funds (which are included in M2). Bank lending has not accelerated in line with the sharp increase in broad money growth, however. After briefly jumping at the outset of the pandemic, US bank loans outstanding have been shrinking. The subdued pace of bank lending will mitigate inflationary pressures in the near term. However, inflation could still eventually rise in a sustained manner once the output gap disappears and the US economy begins to overheat. The decline in the Chinese credit impulse could weigh on metals prices over the coming months. As such, we are downgrading our 12-month view on bulk and base metals from bullish to neutral; longer term, we remain positive on them. Two new trades: As a tactical trade, go short the Global X Copper Miners ETF (COPX) versus the iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC). As a long-term trade, go long the December 2023 Eurodollar futures contract versus its March 2026 counterpart. Cranking Up The Printing Press Money growth has exploded in the US and to a lesser degree, in the other major developed economies. Chart 1 shows the evolution of base money and broad money (M2) in the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. As a reminder, the monetary base includes cash in circulation and commercial bank reserves held at the central bank. M2 excludes bank reserves but includes cash in circulation and money held in bank deposits and in money market funds (Table 1). Chart 1AMoney Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (I) Money Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (I) Money Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (I) Chart 1BMoney Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (II) Money Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (II) Money Growth Exploded During The Pandemic (II) Table 1Three Measures Of Money Supply Mo' Money Madness Mo' Money Madness Chart 2Record Money Growth In The US Record Money Growth In The US Record Money Growth In The US The chart reveals that the balance sheet response by the major central banks during the pandemic was even more aggressive than during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The Federal Reserve, for example, permitted base money to rise by nearly 10% of GDP between February and June of 2020. Base money in Canada and Australia more than doubled last year. Broad money growth also accelerated. US M2 growth peaked at 27% on a year-over-year basis in February 2021. As of April, M2 was 30% higher than in February 2020, the biggest 14-month increase on record (Chart 2).   A Fiscally-Driven, Fed-Abetted Monetary Expansion Chart 3Unlike Transfer Payments, Direct General Government Spending Barely Rose During The Pandemic Unlike Transfer Payments, Direct General Government Spending Barely Rose During The Pandemic Unlike Transfer Payments, Direct General Government Spending Barely Rose During The Pandemic What explains the surge in M2? To a large extent, the answer is “fiscal policy.” The US budget deficit ballooned from 5.7% of GDP in 2019 to 15.9% of GDP in 2020 and is set to clock in at 15.0% in 2021. Direct government spending on goods and services contributed very little to the increase in the budget deficit. Real federal government consumption and investment increased by only 5.8% between Q4 of 2019 and Q1 of 2021, while direct spending at the state and local level actually contracted (Chart 3). Rather, it was the surge in transfer payments to households, and to a lesser extent, businesses, that caused the budget deficit to soar. Chart 4Bank Deposits Have Increased Significantly Since The Pandemic Bank Deposits Have Increased Significantly Since The Pandemic Bank Deposits Have Increased Significantly Since The Pandemic Normally, when governments run budget deficits, they finance the red ink by selling debt to households and businesses. To use a simplified example, suppose the government gives Bob a stimulus check for $1000, which he deposits into his bank account. To finance the resulting increase in the budget deficit, the government then offers Bob a government bond for $1000 paying slightly more interest than his bank. Bob agrees to buy the bond, which brings his bank deposit back down to its original level. In the end, while Bob’s assets rise, the money supply does not increase since Bob’s government bond is not part of M2. In contrast, if the government sells the bond to the central bank, Bob’s bank balance will remain $1000 higher than before he received the stimulus check. In that case, M2 will increase. Over the course of the pandemic, not only did the Fed scoop up almost all newly-issued debt, but it bought the debt that the government had issued prior to the pandemic, along with other assets such as mortgage-backed securities (Chart 4). It was the combination of these asset purchases and decreased spending during the pandemic that pushed bank deposits up to record high levels.   Bank Credit: The Dog That Didn’t Bark What did commercial banks do with all the deposits they received? For the most part, the answer is nothing. They just parked the money at the Fed. Bank credit rose briefly at the outset of the pandemic as companies drew down their credit lines and obtained government-backed loans through the Paycheck Protection Program. However, credit outstanding then began to shrink as businesses shelved capex projects and households paid down their debts (Chart 5). Chart 5ASave For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (I) Save For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (I) Save For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (I) Chart 5BSave For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (II) Save For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (II) Save For Companies Drawing On Credit Lines, Private-Sector Loans Shrank During The Pandemic (II) Chart 6A Structural Trade: Long December 2023 Eurodollars Versus March 2026 Mo' Money Madness Mo' Money Madness In recent months, consumer credit has shown signs of stabilization, partly due to a rebound in auto lending. Our expectation is that overall US bank credit growth will turn positive later this year but will remain well below its pre-GFC pace. The subdued expansion in bank lending should help keep inflationary pressures in check. However, inflation could eventually rise significantly once the output gap disappears and the US economy begins to overheat. While this is not a major risk for the next 12-to-18 months, it is more of a concern over a 2-to-4 year horizon. With that in mind, we are going long the December 2023 Eurodollar contract (EDZ3) versus its March 2026 (EDH6) counterpart (Chart 6).The trade will benefit from our expectation that structurally, US inflation will be slow to rise, but when it does rise, it could do so in a meaningful way.   Falling Chinese Credit Impulse Could Temporarily Weigh On Metals Prices Total Social Financing, a broad measure of Chinese credit growth, slowed to 11.7% in April, down from a peak of 13.9% last October. The current pace of credit growth is broadly in line with nominal GDP growth. The authorities have made it clear that they want to stabilize the ratio of credit-to-GDP. Thus, further deliberate efforts to restrain credit formation are unlikely because if credit is expanding at the same rate as nominal GDP, the credit-to-GDP ratio will not change. Nevertheless, fine-tuning Chinese credit policy is no easy task. As such, there is a risk that credit growth will undershoot the government’s target. Moreover, even if credit growth does stabilize at current levels, the lagged effects from the earlier deceleration in credit growth could still weigh on economic activity over the coming months. China’s credit & fiscal impulse has rolled over (Chart 7).1 If history is any guide, this could reduce momentum in Chinese manufacturing activity. Given that China is a dominant consumer of metals, the price of bulk and base metals could also suffer. Ongoing efforts by the authorities to restrain “speculative” activity in Chinese commodity markets may further weigh on metals prices. Global metals prices tend to track the performance of Chinese cyclical stocks versus defensives (Chart 8). Chinese cyclicals have hooked down recently, which is a red flag for metals. Chart 7A Rollback In Chinese Stimulus Will Be A Headwind For Manufacturing And Metals A Rollback In Chinese Stimulus Will Be A Headwind For Manufacturing And Metals A Rollback In Chinese Stimulus Will Be A Headwind For Manufacturing And Metals Chart 8Chinese Cyclical Stocks Point To Softer Metals Prices Chinese Cyclical Stocks Point To Softer Metals Prices Chinese Cyclical Stocks Point To Softer Metals Prices With all that in mind, we are downgrading our 12-month view on bulk and base metals in the View Matrix at the end of this report from overweight to neutral. As a tactical trade, we are also recommending going short the Global X Copper Miners ETF (COPX) versus the iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC) (Chart 9). Unlike copper, oil demand is less sensitive to the vagaries of the Chinese economy. We expect to close the trade in 3-to-6 months. Chart 9A Tactical Trade: Short Metals/Long Energy A Tactical Trade: Short Metals/Long Energy A Tactical Trade: Short Metals/Long Energy Stay Positive On Metals Over A 5-To-10 Year Horizon Looking further out, we remain bullish on bulk and base metals. The shift to electric vehicles will boost demand for a variety of metals. For example, the typical EV contains about four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Chart 10China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential China will also continue to grow at a fairly fast pace. As Chart 10 illustrates, Chinese growth would still need to hit 6% in 2030 to keep output-per-worker on a path to converge with South Korea by the middle of the century. Admittedly, China’s investment-to-GDP ratio will fall over time as the country shifts to a more consumption-oriented economy. However, this will occur alongside an increase in China’s share of global GDP, which the IMF projects will rise from 18.3% in 2020 to 20.4% in 2026. China’s investment-to-GDP ratio currently stands at about 44%, double that of advanced economies. Even if China’s investment-to-GDP ratio were to decline, the global investment-to-GDP ratio could still increase as China’s weight in global GDP rises. Indeed, that is precisely what the IMF expects: The Fund projects a flat investment-to-GDP ratio in advanced economies over the next five years, a 1.8 percentage- point decline in China’s investment-to-GDP ratio, but nevertheless, a 0.4 percentage- point increase in the global investment-to-GDP ratio (Chart 11). Chart 11Globally, The Investment-To-GDP Ratio Could Increase As China's Share In Global GDP Rises Globally, The Investment-To-GDP Ratio Could Increase As China's Share In Global GDP Rises Globally, The Investment-To-GDP Ratio Could Increase As China's Share In Global GDP Rises Chart 12Looking Further Out, Higher Copper Prices Will Be Needed To Spur Mining Capex Looking Further Out, Higher Copper Prices Will Be Needed To Spur Mining Capex Looking Further Out, Higher Copper Prices Will Be Needed To Spur Mining Capex Meanwhile, investment in new mining capacity today is a fraction of its 2012 peak (Chart 12). All this suggests that any weakness in metals over the course of the next six months will set the stage for higher prices in the long run. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1 Remember that the impulse measures the change in the fiscal and monetary stance. To the extent that credit growth in China rose last year while the budget deficit increased, this generated a large positive impulse. Thus, even if the budget deficit and credit growth were to remain at last year’s levels, the impulse would still fall to zero. In actuality, a decline in credit growth could push the impulse into negative territory. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Mo' Money Madness Mo' Money Madness Special Trade Recommendations Mo' Money Madness Mo' Money Madness Current MacroQuant Model Scores Mo' Money Madness Mo' Money Madness

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK 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 – Province Of China Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: 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 high-profile jawboning draws attention to tightness in metals markets, and raises the odds the State Reserve Board (SRB) will release some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near future. Over the medium- to long-term, the lack of major new greenfield capex raises red flags for the IEA's ambitious low-carbon pathway released last week, which foresees the need for a dramatic increase in renewable energy output and a halt in future oil and gas investment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, according to an analysis by S&P, which, in line with our view, also sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year (Chart of the Week). A constitution re-write in Chile and elections in Peru threaten to usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining in these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk. We remain bullish copper and look to get long on politically induced sell-offs as the USD weakens. Feature Politicians are inserting themselves in the metals markets' supply-demand evolutions to a greater degree than in the past, which is complicating the short- and medium-term analysis of prices. This adds to an already-difficult process of assessing markets, given the opacity of metals fundamentals – particularly inventories, which are notoriously difficult to assess. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jawboning of market participants in iron ore, steel, copper and aluminum markets over the past two weeks has weakened prices, but, with the exception of steel rebar futures in Shanghai – down ~ 17% from recent highs, and now trading at ~ 4911 RMB/MT –  the other markets remain close to records.  Benchmark 62% Fe iron ore at the port of Tianjin was trading ~ 4% lower at $211/MT, while copper and aluminum were trading ~ 5.5% and 6.5% off their recent records at $4.535/lb and $2,350/MT, respectively. In addition to copper, aluminum markets are particularly tight (Chart 2). Jawboning aside, if fundamentals continue to keep prices elevated – or if we see a new leg up – China's high-profile jawboning could presage a release by the State Reserve Board (SRB) of some of its massive copper and aluminum stockpiles in the near term. In the case of copper, market guesses on the size of this stockpile are ~ 2mm to 2.7mm MT. On the aluminum side, Bloomberg reported CCP officials were considering the release of 500k MT to quell the market's demand for the metal. Chart of the WeekContinue Tightening In Copper Expected Continue Tightening In Copper Expected Continue Tightening In Copper Expected Chart 2Aluminum Remains Tight Aluminum Remains Tight Aluminum Remains Tight Brownfield Development Not Sufficient Our balances assessments continue to indicate key base metals markets are tight and will remain so over the short term (2-3 years). Economies ex-China are entering their post-COVID-19 recovery phase. This will be followed by higher demand from renewable generation and grid build-outs that will put them in direct competition with China for scarce metals supplies for decades to come. Markets will continue to tighten. In the bellwether copper market, we expect this tightness to remain a persistent feature of the market over the medium term – 3 to 5 years out – given the dearth of new supply coming to market. Copper prices are highly correlated with the other base metals (Chart 3) – the coefficient of correlation with the other base metals making up the LME's metals index is ~ 0.86 post-GFC – and provide a useful indicator of systematic trends in these markets. Chart 3Copper Correlation With LME Index Ex-Copper Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Copper ore quality has been falling for years, as miners focused on brownfield development to extend the life of mines (Chart 4). In Chart 5, we show the ratio of capex (in billion USD) to ore quality increases when capex growth is expanding faster than ore quality, and decreases when capex weakens and/or ore quality degradation is increasing. Chart 4Copper Capex, Ore Quality Declines Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Chart 5Capex-to-Ore-Quality Decline Set Market Up For Higher Prices Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Falling prices over the 2012-19 interval coincide with copper ore quality remaining on a downward trend, likely the result of previous higher prices that set off the capex boom pre-GFC. The lower prices favored brownfield over greenfield development. Goehring and Rozencwajg found in their analysis of 24 mines, about 80% of gross new reserves booked between 2001-2014 were due not to new mine discoveries but to companies reclassifying what was once considered to be waste-rock into minable reserves, lowering the cut-off grade for development.1 This is consistent with the most recent datapoints in Chart 5, due to falling ore grade values, as companies inject less capex into their operations and use it to expand on brownfield projects. Higher prices will be needed to incentivize more greenfield projects. A new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence shows copper reserves in the ground are falling along with new discoveries.2 According to the S&P analysts, copper demand is expected to exceed mined supply by 2028, which, in line with our view, sees refined-copper consumption exceeding production this year. Renewables Push At Risk Just last week, the IEA produced an ambitious and narrow path for governments to collectively reach a net-zero emissions (NZE) goal by 2050.3 Among its many recommendations, the IEA singled out the overhaul of the global electric grid, which will be required to accommodate the massive renewable-generation buildout the agency forecasts will be needed to achieve its NZE goals. The IEA forecasts annual investment in transmission and distribution grids will need to increase from $260 billion to $820 billion p.a. by 2030. This is easier said than done. Consider the build-out of China's grid, which is the largest grid in the world. To become carbon neutral by 2060, per its stated goals, investment in China’s grid and associated infrastructure is expected to approach ~ $900 billion, maybe more, over the next 5 years.4 The world’s largest fossil-fuel importer is looking to pivot away from coal and plans to more than double solar and wind power capacity to 1200 GW by 2030. Weening China off coal and rebuilding its grid to achieve these goals will be a herculean lift. It comes as no surprise that IEA member states have pushed back on the agency's NZE-by-2050 plan. This primarily is because of its requirement to completely halt fossil-fuel exploration and spending on new projects. Japan and Australia have pushed back against this plan, citing energy security concerns. Officials from both countries have stated that they will continue developing fossil fuel projects, as a back-up to renewables. Japan has been falling behind on renewable electricity generation (Chart 6). Expensive renewables and the unpopularity of nuclear fuel could make it harder for the world’s fifth largest fossil fuels consumer to move away from fossil fuels. Around the same time the IEA released its report, Australia committed $464 million to build a new gas-fired power station as a backup to renewables. Chart 6Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Japan Will Continue Building Fossil-Fuel Back-Up Generation Just days after the IEA report was published, the G7 nations agreed to stop overseas coal financing. This could have devastating effects for emerging and developing nations‘ electricity grids which are highly dependent on coal. In 2020 70% and 60% of India and China’s electricity respectively were produced by coal (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Economies Remain Reliant On Coal-Fired Generation Less Metal, More Jawboning Less Metal, More Jawboning Near-Term Copper Supply Risks Rise Even though inventories appear to be rebuilding, mounting political risks keep us bullish copper (Chart 8). Lawmakers in Chile and Peru are in the process of re-writing their constitutions to, among other things, raise royalties and taxes on mining activities in their respective countries. This could usher in higher taxes and royalties on mining for these metals producers, placing future capex at risk. In addition, Chile's state-owned Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world, fears a bill to limit mining near glaciers could put as much as 40% of its copper production at risk.6 None of these events is certain to occur. Peruvian elections, for one thing, are too close to call at this point, and Chile has a history of pro-business government. However, these are non-trivial odds – i.e., greater than Russian roulette odds of 1:6 – and if any or all of these outcomes are realized, higher costs in copper and lithium prices would result, and miners would have to pass those costs on to buyers. Bottom Line: We remain bullish base metals, especially copper. Another leg up in copper would pull base metals higher with it. We would look to get long on politically induced sell-offs, particularly with the USD weakening, as expected Chart 8Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y Global Copper Inventories Rebuilding But Still Down Y/Y   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Next Tuesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting appears to be a fairly staid affair, with little of the drama attending previous gatherings. Russian minister Novak observed the coalition would be jointly "calculating the balances" when it meets, taking into account the likely official return of Iran as an exporter, according to reuters.com. We expect a mid-year deal on allowing Iran to return to resume exports under the nuclear deal abrogated by the Trump administration in 2019, and reckon Iran has ~ 1.5mm b/d of production it can bring back on line, which likely would return its crude oil production to something above 3.8mm b/d by year-end. We are maintaining our forecast for Brent to average $64.45/bbl in 2H21; $75 and $78/bbl, in 2022 and 2023, respectively. By end 2023, prices trade to $80/bbl. Our forecast is premised on a wider global recovery going into 2H21, and continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Our stop-losses was elected on our long Dec21 copper position on May 21, which means we closed the position with 48.2% return. The stop loss on our long 2022 vs short 2023 COMEX copper futures backwardation recommendation also was elected on May 20, leaving us with a return of 305%. We will be looking for an opportunity to re-establish these positions. Precious Metals: Bullish We expect the collapse in bitcoin prices, the US Fed’s decision to not raise interest rates, and a weakening US dollar to keep gold prices well bid (Chart 10). China’s ban on cryptocurrency services and Musk’s acknowledgment of the energy intensity of Bitcoin mining sent Bitcoin prices crashing. The Fed’s decision to keep interest rates constant, despite rising inflation and inflation expectations will reduce the opportunity cost of holding gold. According to our colleagues at USBS, the Fed will make its first interest rate hike only after the US economy has reached "maximum employment". The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported that job openings rose nearly 8% in March to 8.1 million jobs, however, overall hiring was little changed, rising by less than 4% to 6 million. As prices in the US rise and the dollar depreciates, gold will be favored as a store of value. On the back of these factors, we expect gold to hit $2,000/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn futures were trading close to 20% below recent highs earlier in the week at ~ $6.27/bu, on the back of much faster-than-expected plantings. Chart 9 Brent Prices Going Up Brent Prices Going Up Chart 10 US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid US Dollar To Keep Gold Prices Well Bid     Footnotes 1     Please refer to Goehring & Rozencwajg’s Q1 2021 market commentary. 2     Please see Copper cupboard remains bare as discoveries dwindle — S&P study published by mining.com 20 May 2021. 3    Please see Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published by the IEA. 4    Please see China’s climate goal: Overhauling its electricity grid, published by Aljazeera.  5    We discuss this in detail in Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture published 13 May 2021, and Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which was published 29 April 2021.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see A game of chicken is clouding tax debate in top copper nation, Fujimori looks to speed up projects to tap copper riches in Peru and Codelco says 40% of its copper output at risk if glacier bill passes published by mining.com 24, 23 and 20 May 2021, respectively.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights We update our assumptions for the likely 10-15 year return for a wide range of different asset classes. Our methodology is basically unchanged from our last Return Assumptions report published in 2019, though we have refined our analysis and use of data in some areas. Returns over the next decade will be very low compared to history. We project that a standard global portfolio (50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will return only 3.0% a year in nominal terms. That compares to a historic return of 6.3%. There are still some assets that will produce better returns, most notably small caps (4.9% a year in the US) and alternatives (6.2% for private equity, for example). But they also carry higher risk. Spreadsheets are available with detailed data. Introduction This is the third edition of our work on return assumptions. Since publishing the previous reports in November 2017 and June 2019, we have had many opportunities to discuss our methodologies with clients and in the Global Asset Allocation course at the BCA Academy. This has allowed us to test and, in many cases, refine our approach. We believe the methodologies we use have stood the test of time. We have always emphasized that this sort of capital markets assumptions (CMA) analysis is an art, not a precise science. We continue to prefer to project returns over a somewhat undefined 10-15 year period, since this allows us to think about the underlying trend of likely returns. Many other CMA papers use five (or even three) year time horizons which, in our view, are problematical since they rely heavily on a forecast of the timing, length, and severity of the next recession. Our approach is based on the concept that the return on the risk-free long-term government bond is the cornerstone to projecting asset returns, and that this return is rather predictable: It is approximately the current yield. Most other asset returns can be built up from that – the return on high-yield bonds, for example, by assuming that their historic spread over government bonds, and default and recovery rates will continue in the future. For equities, we continue to use six different methodologies, which are based on a mixture of valuation and projected earnings growth. This approach – that assumed returns can be built up from a combination of current yield plus forecast future growth in capital values – also works for most alternative asset classes, for example real estate. We have made a few minor changes to our methodology in this edition. We have, for example, made our use of historical data (for spreads, profit margins, growth relative to GDP, etc.) more consistent, using the 20-year average where possible. The biggest change this time is that clients can download here a spreadsheet with all the data in this report in order, for example, to use the data as inputs into their own optimizers. In addition, we have set up our detailed spreadsheet to allow clients to see the underlying inputs, the formulae behind our methodologies, and to input their own assumptions. This will also allow us to update the results of our analysis as often as needed. Please let us know here if you would like more details about this additional service. This Special Report is structured as follows. First, we analyze the overall results: What is the probable return from each asset class over the next 10-15 years, and how do these differ from historical returns. Next, we describe in detail the methodologies we use, for (1) economic growth, (2) fixed-income instruments, (3) equities, and (4) 12 different alternative asset classes. Then, we describe our way of forecasting currency returns, and show the return assumptions in different base currencies. Finally, we update the numbers for volatility and correlations, which many investors need as inputs into optimization programs. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in US dollars). The data is updated to end-April 2021 (except for some alternative asset classes where only quarterly data is available). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Overall Results Returns over the coming decade are likely to be very disappointing compared to history. Our assumptions suggest a typical global portfolio, consisting of 50% large-cap equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives, will produce an annual nominal return of only 3.0%, compared to an average of 6.3% over the past 20 years. A US-only portfolio with a similar composition is likely to produce only a 3.1% return, compared to 7% in history. The reason is simple: Valuations currently are very stretched in almost every asset class. The risk-free rate (the 10-year government bond yield) in the US is 1.6% (compared to a 20-year average of 3.1%). It is negative in the euro area (in nominal terms) and zero in Japan. These rates are the anchor for the returns of all other asset classes, which are theoretically priced off the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. We have long argued that valuations are not a good timing tool for investors. An asset can remain very expensive or very cheap for a considerable period. But all the evidence shows that the valuation at the starting point is a very powerful indicator of long-run returns. The yield on government bonds, for example, has a strong correlation with their 10-year return (Chart 1). In the equity market, the Shiller PE has historically had little correlation with the return over one or two years, but has a 90% correlation with the return over the subsequent 10 years (Chart 2). Chart 1Starting Yield Determines Bond Returns Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Chart 2Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns     With valuations in equity markets now expensive relative to history (for example, forward PE for US stocks of 22x compared to a 20-year average of 16x, and 18x in the euro zone compared to 13x), investors should expect that equity market returns will be low relative to history. Our assumptions point to a 2.6% annual return from US stocks, 2.3% from the euro zone, and 1.6% from Japan (compared to 8.5%, 3.9%, and 3.5% over the past 20 years). Our assumptions are significantly lower than when we last published our analysis in 2019; then we projected 5.6% for US stocks, 4.7% for the euro zone, and 6.2% for Japan. The difference is that equity multiples have risen and risk-free rates have fallen significantly since then. So what should investors do? They have only two choices: Lower their return assumptions, or increase their weightings in riskier asset classes. Chart 3Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets The average US public pension fund (Chart 3) still assumes a return of 7% a year, and private pension funds’ assumption is not much lower. And yet corporate pension funds have been pushed by their consultants in recent years to increase their weighting in bonds, to more closely match their liabilities (Chart 4). It is almost mathematically impossible to achieve their targets with that sort of portfolio. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, pension funds’ return targets are typically inflation or cash plus 3-4 percentage points. But even those targets are challenging.   Chart 4...Especially With Over 50% In Bonds Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 There are asset classes which will produce higher returns. For example, we project a return of 4.9% from US small-cap stocks – and 9.7% from UK small caps. US high-yield bonds should produce a return of 3.2% a year (even after defaults) and Emerging Markets local currency sovereign debt 2.7% (in USD terms) – not exactly exciting, but at least a pick-up over other fixed-income securities. The projected returns from illiquid alternative assets continue to look relatively attractive. An equal-weighted portfolio of the 12 alternatives we cover is projected to return 5.7% a year, not much lower than the forecast of 6.1% from our 2019 report (and compared to an average of 7.1% of the past 20 years). There are some alt assets where returns have started to trend down: Private equity, for instance, is projected to return 6.2% a year, compared to 11.1% in history, and hedge funds 4.5%, compared to 5.9%. But the illiquidity premium should not disappear completely, even if the move of alternative investments to become more mainstream has reduced it to a degree. So adding more risky assets to a portfolio is an answer, at least for those investors with a long enough time-horizon that allows them to bear the inevitable big drawdowns that come with having a more volatile portfolio. And, unfortunately, lower returns mean that the incremental return gained for each unit of risk taken has declined compared to the past 10 or 20 years (Chart 5) – the efficient frontier has flattened significantly. Chart 5You Need To Take More Risk To Produce Return Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 How We Came Up With The Assumptions GDP Growth Several of our methodologies use assumptions (for example, in equity methods (2) and (3), based on projections of earnings growth, real-estate capital-value growth, and commodities prices) which require estimates of nominal GDP growth in each country and region. To make these forecasts, we assume that nominal GDP growth can be decomposed into: (1) growth of the working-age population, (2) productivity growth, and (3) inflation. This ignores capital intensity, but it has been relatively stable over history and is difficult to forecast. Table 2 shows the assumptions we use, and our forecasts for real and nominal GDP in each country and region. Table 2Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 For population growth we use the United Nations’ median forecast of annual growth in the population aged 25-54 between 2020 and 2040. This ranges from -1% in Japan to +1% in Emerging Markets – although note that the range of forecast population growth in EM varies widely from 1.2% in India to -1.1% in Korea (and in China, too, is negative at -0.7%). This estimate is reasonably reliable, although it does miss some possible factors, such as changes in the female participation rate, hours worked, and changing openness to immigration. Productivity is much harder to forecast. Over the past 10 to 20 years, productivity growth has trended down in most countries (Charts 6A & B). We take a slightly more optimistic view, assuming that productivity growth over the next 10-15 years will equal the 20-year average. We base this on the belief that part of the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis is due to cyclical reasons which are now dissipating, and also to expectations that new technologies coming through (artificial intelligence, big data, automation, robotics etc) will boost productivity in the coming years. Others take a more pessimistic view. The Congressional Budget Office’s forecast of trend real US GDP growth in 2022-2031 of 1.8%, for example, is lower than our estimate of 2.2% mainly because of its more cautious estimate of productivity growth. Chart 6AProductivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Chart 6BProductivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II)   To derive nominal GDP growth, we assume that inflation over the next 10 years will be on average the same as over the past 20 years, for example 2% in the US, 1.6% in the euro area, 0.1% in Japan, and 3.9% in Emerging Markets (using a weighted average of EM by equity market cap). This estimate, too, has a high degree of uncertainty. One could imagine a scenario whereby inflation picks up significantly over the next decade due to excessively easy monetary policy, overly generous fiscal spending, growth in protectionism, rising labor pressure for wage increases, and the effects of a rising dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working people, especially retirees, to total population).1 But another scenario of continued “secular stagnation” and disinflation, caused by automation-driven job losses and a chronic lack of aggregate demand, is also conceivable. We think our middle-path forecast is the most sensible one to use in projecting likely asset returns, but investors might also want to plan based on these alternative scenarios too. Note that for Emerging Markets, we continue to show two different scenarios, which vary according to different projections of productivity growth. EM productivity growth has been declining steadily since around 2010, and in all major emerging economies, not just China. Our first scenario assumes that this decline ends and that, as in our assumption for developed economies, productivity growth reverts to the 20-year average. The more pessimistic (and, in our view, more likely) scenario assumes that the deterioration in productivity continues and that in 10 years’ time, EM productivity is the same as the average of developed economies. Which scenario will be correct depends on whether emerging economies, not least China, are able to implement structural reforms over the next decade, for example liberalizing the labor market, allowing a greater role for the private sector, improving corporate governance, and institutionalizing more orthodox fiscal and particularly monetary policy. Fixed Income Our anchor for calculating assumed returns is the return on long-term risk-free assets, specifically the 10-year government bond in the strongest countries. It is a reasonable assumption that an investor who buys, for example, a 10-year Treasury bond today and holds it for 10 years will make 1.6% a year in nominal US dollar terms. While this is not perfectly mathematically correct (since it ignores reinvested interest payments, for instance), empirically the return on government bonds has been very closely linked to the yield at the start-point in history (see Chart 1). From this starting-point in each country, we can easily build up the return for other fixed-income assets. These assumptions and the results are shown in Table 3. Table 3Fixed-Income Return Calculations Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Government bonds in most countries have an average duration of less than 10 years. Over the past five years, in the US it has averaged 6.4 years, and in the euro area 8.0 years. Only in the UK is the average over 10 years: 12.4 years to be precise. To calculate the return from the government bond index for each country we therefore assume that the shape of the yield curve (using the spread between 7-year and 10-year bonds) in future will be the same as the historic 20-year average. Cash. We assume that over the next 10 years the yield on cash will gradually revert to an equilibrium level. We calculate a market-implied real long-term neutral rate from the 10-year historical average of 5-year/5-year OIS implied forwards deflated by the 5-year/5-year implied CPI swap rate. This is a change from the methodology we used in 2019, when we based this off the neutral rate, r*, as calculated by the Holston Laubach-Williams model. But the New York Fed has temporarily stopped updating its calculation of this due to pandemic-induced volatility in the data, and anyway it was not available for every country. We turn the real cash rate into a total nominal return using our assumption for inflation described in detail in the GDP section above, the 20-year historical average of CPI. For inflation-linked securities, such as TIPS, we take the average yield over the past 10 years (a 20-year average was not available in many markets) and add the assumption for inflation described above. Corporate credit. We assume that spreads, and default and recovery rates, while highly volatile over the cycle, remain stable in the long run (Chart 7). We use 20-year averages for these, except that data for investment-grade default rates in Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are not available and so we use the average of the US and the euro zone. High-yield default rates are not available for the UK either, and so we do the same. Other bonds. For government-related debt (which is a big part of some bond indexes, 28% in the US for example) we assume that the 20-year historical average of the option-adjusted spread over government bonds will apply in the future too. We use the same methodology for securitized debt (for example, mortgage- and asset-based bonds): The 20-year average spread over the return on government bonds. Emerging Market debt. The assumptions and results for the three categories of EM debt (US dollar sovereign debt, US dollar corporate debt, and local currency sovereign debt) are shown in Table 4. We here assume that the 20-year average historical spread will continue in future. Default and recovery rates are a little harder to calculate, due to a lack of data. For USD sovereign debt (where defaults are rare and so hard to project), we use the rating-based default rate, calculated by Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business.2 For USD-denominated EM corporate debt, we use the historical average, calculated by Moody's 2.5%.3 For local-currency debt, we use the same rating-based default rate as for USD sovereign debt. To translate the return into hard currency, we assume that currencies will move in line with the inflation differential between Emerging Markets and the US. For EM inflation we use an average of the IMF’s inflation forecasts for the nine largest emerging markets weighted by their weights in the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local government bond index, and compare this to our US inflation forecast. This produces an EM inflation forecast of 2.9% a year, compared to 2.2% for the US, thus lowering the USD-based return from local EM debt by 0.7 percentage point. (See a more detailed discussion of forecasting long-term EM currency changes in the Currency section below). Index returns. Table 3 also shows the assumed return for the Bloomberg Barclays bond index for each country and for the global bond index, based on a weighted average of our assumption for each fixed-income asset class and country. Chart 7ACredit Spreads & Default Rates (I) Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Default Rates Chart 7BCredit Spreads & Default Rates (II) Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Default Rates   Table 4Emerging Market Debt Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021   Equities The assumptions and detailed results for seven different equity markets are shown in Table 5. We have not made any substantial changes to our methodology for equities. We continue to use the average of six different methods to calculate the probable equity returns over the next 10-15 years. These are: Equity Risk Premium (ERP). The return from equities equals the yield on government bonds (we use 10-year bonds) plus an equity risk premium. For the US, we use an equity risk premium of 3.5%. This is based on work by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton4 showing that this is approximately the average excess return of equities over bonds in developed economies since 1900. We scale the equity risk premium for other countries using their average beta to the US market over the past 10 years. This varies from 0.66 for Japan (giving an ERP of 2.3%) and 1.2 in the euro area (ERP is 4.2%). Growth model. Here we assume that the return from equities equals the current dividend yield plus dividend growth. We need to adjust the dividend yield, however, to take into account that in some countries, particularly the US, it is more tax efficient for companies to do buybacks than to pay out dividends. We do this by adding equity withdrawals to the dividend yield. But this needs to be done on a net basis (taking into account equity issuance). We calculate this using the average annual change in the index divisor over the past 10 years. For the US, this is -0.8%, meaning there are more buybacks than new share issues. But in all other regions, the number is positive, and as high as 5.9% a year for Emerging Markets. This dilution is something that many calculations of assumed equity returns miss. For dividend growth, we assume that the dividend payout ratio remains stable, and that earnings growth is correlated with nominal GDP growth. However, history shows that earnings grow more slowly than GDP (logically so, when you consider that companies usually grow fastest before they list on a stock exchange). So we deduct 1% from nominal GDP growth to derive our earnings growth assumption. Note that for Emerging Markets, we use two different measures of dividend growth, depending on future productivity growth, as detailed above in our explanation of the GDP projections. Growth model (with reversion to mean). To take into account that valuations and profit margins typically revert to mean over the long run, we adjust the standard growth model (No. 2 above) by assuming that the current 12-month forward PE ratio and forward net profit margin for each country gradually revert over the next 10 years to their 20-year average. In the US, for example, that would mean that the current 12-month forward PE of 22.5x falls back to 16.0x, and profit margin of 12.5% falls to 10.7%. In every country and region, the profit margin is currently above the long-run average, and in all except the UK the PE is too. Note that we have changed from using the trailing PE and margin, because to use these now would be misleading given the big pandemic-driven decline in profits in 2020. Earnings yield. An intrinsically intuitive (and empirically demonstrable) way of estimating future returns is to use the earnings yield. This is based on the idea that an investor’s return from owning a stock comes either from the company paying a dividend, or from it investing retained earnings and paying a dividend in future. In the US, for example, a forward PE of 22.5x translates into an earnings yield of 4.4%. Again, here we switched this time to using 12-month forward forecast earnings yield, rather the trailing. Shiller PE. There is a strong correlation between valuation at the starting-point and the subsequent return from equities, at least over the long-run, although not over a period of less than 3-5 years (Chart 2). We regressed the Shiller PE (current price divided by average real earnings over the past 10 years) against the return from equities over the subsequent 10 years for each country and region. Composite valuation metric. The Shiller PE has its detractors. Using a fixed 10-year period does not reflect the different lengths of recessions and bull markets. It may say more about the mean-reverting nature of earnings than about whether the current price level is too high. So we also use the BCA Compositive Valuation Metric, which comprises eight indicators including, besides standard valuation measures such as price/sales and price/book, more esoteric ones such as market cap/GDP and Tobin’s Q. Again, we regress the metric against the subsequent 10-year return. Table 5Equity Return Calculations Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Alternative Assets Real Estate & REITs. We use the same basic methodology for both: The current yield (cap rate or dividend yield) plus projected capital value appreciation (linked to GDP growth). For US direct real estate, for example, we use the simple average cap rate of the five categories of commercial real estate (CRE), apartments, office, retail, industrial, and hotels in major cities: 6.1%. We also use the simple average of available city and category data for other countries. Cap rates are notoriously hard to estimate precisely; our data include a range of real estate, not just prime locations. We assume that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth (using the same assumptions for this as we used for equities, 4.2%). We then deduct 0.5% for maintenance. This produces an expected return of 9.8% for the US. The only difference for REITs is that we do not deduct maintenance since this should already be reflected in the dividend yield. US REITs have a dividend yield currently of 3.5%, which produces an assumed return of 7.7% (Table 6). One risk with this methodology is that in the post-pandemic world, work and life practices might change. This will hurt office and residential real estate in major cities (which are overrepresented in investible CRE), though smaller cities and rural areas might benefit. As a result, capital values might fall. Table 6Alternatives Return Calculations Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Farmland & Timberland. Our methodology is similar to that for real estate: Current yield plus projected growth in capital values. For farmland, we use the farmland renter yield, sourced from the US Department of Agriculture. To estimate future land values, we take the gap between land value growth over the past 40 years (3.7%) and nominal growth of world GDP over that time (5.2%), assume that gap will continue and so deduct it from our estimate of global nominal GDP growth going forward (3.6%). This gives a result of 6.5%. For timberland, we assume that annualized returns in the future are the same as over the past 20 years. This produces a return assumption of 5.7%, which is (logically) moderately lower than our assumed return for farmland. Private Equity & Venture Capital. We project the return for private equity (PE) using the 30-year time-weighted average of the three-year rolling annualized return of PE over US large-cap equities, 3.6% (Chart 8). This produces an assumed return of 6.2%. For venture capital (VC), we use the same historical average for VC over PE (0.4%) to arrive at an assumed return of 6.6%. Hedge Funds. We use the 20-year time-weighted return of the Hedge Fund Composite Index over cash, 3.5% (Chart 9). This projects a future annual nominal return of 4.5%. Commodities. We previously used a methodology based on the idea that commodities’ bear markets in history have been rather fairly consistent, lasting on average 17 years, with an average decline of 50%, and that the current bear market began in 2012 (Chart 10). However, there are arguments that a new “commodities super-cycle” may be starting, driven by government infrastructure spending, and investment in alternative energy.5 We are agnostic for now on whether that will be the case, but it makes sense to switch to a neutral methodology, more in line with what we use for other assets classes: The return from commodities relative to GDP over the long run. Specifically, the CRB Raw Industrials Index has risen by an annualized 1.6% since 1951, during which time US nominal GDP growth averaged 6% (Chart 11). We assume that the differential will continue in future (although we calculate growth using global, not US, GDP), giving an annual return from commodities over the next 10-15 years of -0.9%. Gold. We calculate this using a regression of the gold price against nominal GDP growth and the annual change in the real 10-year yield over the past 40 years. For the forward-looking return assumption, we use a forecast of real rates (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average historical spread between the 10-year yield and cash) and a forecast of global nominal GDP growth. This produces an assumed return of 3.8%. Structured products. This asset class consists mainly of mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitized instruments. In the US, these have historically returned 0.6% over US Treasurys. We assume that this premium continues, producing a total future return of 1.1% a year. Chart 8Private Equity Premium Private Equity Premium Private Equity Premium Chart 9Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash     Chart 10Commodity Prices In History Commodity Prices In History Commodity Prices In History Chart 11Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth     Currencies Chart 12Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP To translate our local currency returns into an investor’s base currency, we need to arrive at some projections for FX movements over the next decade. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, it is relatively straightforward to use purchasing power parities (PPP) to do this since, over the long run, all the major currencies have tended to revert to PPP (Chart 12). We assume that in 10 years’ time all currencies will trade at PPP. We use the IMF’s estimate of today’s PPP for each currency to calculate the current under- or over-valuation. We assume that PPP will change in future years according to the relative inflation between each country and the US. The IMF provides five-year inflation forecasts and we assume that inflation will continue at this rate until 2031. For the euro zone, we calculate the PPP of the euro using the GDP-weighted PPPs of the five largest economies. The results (Table 7) suggest that the US dollar is currently overvalued and, given the forecast of higher inflation in the US than elsewhere in the future, will depreciate significantly against all major currencies except the Australian dollar. The USD is projected to depreciate by 1.7% a year against the euro and 1.1% against the yen over the next 10 years. It is likely to appreciate by 1.3% a year against the AUD, however. Table 7Currency Return Calculations Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Emerging Markets (Table 8) are more complicated. There is no evidence that EM currencies move towards PPP over time. All the major EM currencies are currently very cheap versus PPP (varying from 34% undervalued for the Chinese yuan to 67% for the Indonesian rupiah) but they were 10 years ago, too, and have not significantly moved towards PPP over that time. Table 8EM Currencies Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 To calculate likely EM currency moves against the USD, therefore, we carry out a regression of the nine largest EM currencies against their relative CPI inflation rate to US inflation in history. We assume an intercept of zero. The regression coefficients vary from +0.5 for China to -1.7 for Malaysia. Apart from China, Malaysia, Poland and South Africa, the coefficients were negative, meaning that historically the USD has strengthened against the EM currency at least partly in line with relative inflation. To calculate likely future currency movements, we use the IMF’s five-year inflation forecasts and assume that the same rate of inflation will continue for our whole projection period. This methodology points to moderate annual depreciation of most EM currencies against the USD, varying from 0.8% a year for the Russian ruble to 0.1% for the Indonesia rupiah. The Chinese yuan and Taiwanese dollar are projected to appreciate moderately. We calculate the average EM currency movement using the weights of these nine large economies in the EM J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local-currency sovereign bond index. This produces a small (0.1%) a year appreciation. However, the IMF’s EM inflation forecasts may be too optimistic. It forecasts, for example, that Brazilian inflation will be only 3.3% a year in future, compared to an average of 6.1% over the past 20 years, and Russian inflation 4.0% versus a historical average of 9.3%. This suggests that EM currency performance could be worse than our projections. Table 9 shows the returns for the major asset classes expressed in local currency terms for six base currencies, based on the calculations explained above. Table 9Returns In Different Base Currencies Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Correlation And Volatility Below, in Table 10, we provide correlations for clients who need these inputs for their optimization calculations. Table 10Long-Run Correlation Matrix Return Assumptions 2021 Return Assumptions 2021 Returns can be calculated using the sort of forward-looking methodologies we have described above. For volatility, we think it is reasonable to use historical average data (Table 1, far right column), since volatility does not tend to trend over the long run (Chart 13). But correlation is a different matter. Correlations have varied significantly in history due to structural changes or regime shifts. The correlation of equities to bonds, it is well known, has moved from positive in the 1980s and 1990s, to negative since 2000 – probably because inflation disappeared as a factor moving bond prices (Chart 14). The correlation between equity market has risen as a result of the globalization of investment flows, though note that it fell back in 2010-2019. Chart 13Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Chart 14Correlations Are Not Stable Correlations Are Not Stable Correlations Are Not Stable   So what correlations should investors use in an optimizer? Our recommendation would be to use the longest period of history available. A US investor, for example, might take the average correlation between Treasury bonds and large-cap US equities since 1945, 0.1%. Table 10 shows the correlation since 1973 of all the major asset classes for which data is available. Unfortunately, this misses some important asset classes such as high-yield bonds and Emerging Market equities, whose history does not go back that far. The results are intuitive – and prudent. From these numbers, it would seem sensible to use an assumption of a small positive correlation between US Treasurys and US equities, for example. US investment-grade debt has a correlation of 0.4 against equities. Global equity markets are all fairly highly correlated to each other, ranging mostly from 0.4 to 0.7. The most non-correlated asset class is commodities, especially gold.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 These are themes that BCA Research has been writing about for several years. See, for example, please see Global Investment Strategy, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; and " 1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. 2 Please see http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html 3 Annual Emerging Markets Default Study: Coronavirus Will Push Up Default Rates https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1214906 4 Please see, for example, https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/credit-suisse-global-investment-returns-yearbook-2021-summary-edition.pdf. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?", dated March 4, 2021.

Dear client, In addition to this weekly report, we also sent you a Special Report on cryptocurrencies, authored by my colleagues Guy Russell and Matt Gertken. The conclusion is that government authorities are likely to lean against the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, something we suspected in our most recent report on the topic. Regards, Chester Highlights Net foreign inflows into US assets probably peaked in March. Meanwhile, there are strong reasons to believe outflows from US securities will accelerate in the coming months. As such, the 12-18-month outlook for the US dollar remains negative. Cryptocurrencies are correcting sharply amidst a crackdown in China, a risk we warned investors about in our Special Report last month. We are increasingly favoring the yen. Lower the limit-sell on USD/JPY to 109. Hold long CHF/NZD positions recommended last week. Feature Chart I-1Current Account Deficit = Capital Account Surplus Current Account Deficit = Capital Account Surplus Current Account Deficit = Capital Account Surplus The US runs a sizeable trade deficit. As such, it must import capital to finance this deficit (Chart I-1). Over the last year, this has been driven by equity and agency bond purchases by foreigners. However, we might be at the apex of a shift, where foreign appetite for US securities starts a meaningful decline. Financing The US Deficit TIC data is usually a lagging indicator for FX markets, but still holds valuable insights into foreign appetite for US assets. On this front, the March data was particularly instructive: There were strong inflows into US Treasury notes and bonds, to the tune of almost $120 bn. This was the greatest driver of monthly inflows. This was also the largest monthly increase since the global financial crisis. Net inflows into US equities stood at $32.2 bn in March. This is on par with the three-month average, but a sharp deceleration from December inflows of $78.3 bn. Corporate bonds commanded particularly strong inflows in March to the tune of $43.1 bn. It appears that foreign private concerns swapped their agency bond purchases with corporate bonds. US residents repatriated $54.1 bn back home in March. Official concerns were big buyers of long-term US Treasury bonds, but this was offset by a large sale of US T-bills. Net foreign official purchases of overall US securities were just $6.5 bn. With the dollar down since March, it is a fair assumption that the strong inflows we saw since then have somewhat reversed. The question going forward is whether there has been a regime shift in US purchases, specifically the purchase of equities (and agency bonds). And if so, can the purchase of US Treasurys pick up the slack (Chart I-2). Foreign inflows into the US equity market tend to be driven by expected rates of return, either from an expected rerating of the multiple or from profit growth. A rerating of the US equity multiple, relative to the rest of the world, has inversely tracked interest rates (Chart I-3). This is due to the higher weighting of defensive sectors in the US equity market. Concurrently, we showed in a recent report that profit growth on an aggregate level also tends to move in sync with relative economic momentum.1  Chart I-2Equity Inflows Have Financed ##br##The US Deficit Equity Inflows Have Financed The US Deficit Equity Inflows Have Financed The US Deficit Chart I-3Rising Bond Yields Would Curtail Equity Inflows Rising Bond Yields Would Curtail Equity Inflows Rising Bond Yields Would Curtail Equity Inflows If growth is rotating away from the US, and global bond yields still have upside, this will curtail foreign appetite for US equities. This appears to be the story since March, as non-US bourses have outperformed (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ANon-US Markets Are Bottoming Non-US Markets Are Bottoming Non-US Markets Are Bottoming Chart I-4BNon-US Markets Are Bottoming Non-US Markets Are Bottoming Non-US Markets Are Bottoming In terms of fixed income flows, the rise in US bond yields towards a peak of circa 180bps in March undoubtedly triggered strong inflows into the US Treasury market. Since then, yields outside the US have been moving somewhat higher, especially in Germany. This should curtail bond inflows, and also fits with a growth rotation away from the US. While foreign central banks were net buyers of US Treasurys in March, the “other reportables” category from the CFTC data show a huge short position in US 10-year futures. Foreign central banks are usually grouped in this category. This will suggest the accumulation of Treasurys should reverse in the coming months (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Did Central Banks Hedge Their March Purchases? Did Central Banks Hedge Their March Purchases? Did Central Banks Hedge Their March Purchases? A rotation of growth from the US towards other parts of the world would also make it more difficult to finance the US current account deficit. This is because it will compress real interest rate spreads between the US and the rest of the world. From a historical perspective, inflows into US Treasury assets only tend to accelerate when real rates in the US are at least 50-100 bps above that in other G10 economies (Chart I-6). That could explain why despite a positive Treasury-JGB spread of 165 basis points, Japanese investors were very much absent buyers in March (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Real Rate Differentials And Bond Capital Flows Real Rate Differentials And Bond Capital Flows Real Rate Differentials And Bond Capital Flows Chart I-7The Big Boys Did Not Buy Much Treasurys In March The Big Boys Did Not Buy Much Treasurys In March The Big Boys Did Not Buy Much Treasurys In March Critical to this view is the outlook for US inflation. On this front, we note the following: First, the output gap in the US should close faster than most other economies, at least according to the OECD (Chart I-8). Ceteris paribus, US inflation should outpace that in other countries in the near term and put downward pressure on real rates. Chart I-8The US Should Generate Higher Inflation The US Should Generate Higher Inflation The US Should Generate Higher Inflation Fiscal spending has been more pronounced in the US compared to other countries, which will further fan the inflationary flames. The Fed is the only central bank in the G10 committed to an inflation overshoot. In a nutshell, there is compelling evidence to suggest US inflows peaked in March from both foreign equity and bond investors. Upside surprises in inflation are more likely in the US in the very near term compared to other economies, which will depress real rates. Meanwhile, higher global yields are also a negative for the US equity market. There Is No Alternative Chart I-9A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys My colleague, Mathieu Savary, has made the case that there is no alternative to US Treasurys. The treasury market is the most liquid and the deepest safe haven pool in the capital market universe (Chart I-9). Ergo, a flight to safety will always bid up Treasurys, as we saw in March 2020. We do agree that Treasurys will continue to act as the world’s safe haven benchmark for now. However, that privilege is fraying at the edges, and it is the marginal changes that matter for dollar investors. Competition for safe haven assets continues to intensify as the narrative switches from 40 years of disinflationary forces to the rising prospect of an inflation overshoot. Inflation is anathema to fiat currencies, including the dollar. For investors, precious metals have been a preferred habitat for anti-fiat holdings. That said, cryptocurrencies are also rising in the ranks as an alternative. In our Special Report2 released a month ago, we suggested government regulation was a huge risk for cryptocurrencies. But more specifically, the degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, the biggest sellers of US Treasurys have been private investors. Cryptocurrencies benefited from this diversification. That has changed since March, which partly explains the big drawdown in crypto prices. In general, you always want to align yourself with strong buyers who are price indiscriminate. Foreign central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasurys) prefer gold as their anti-dollar asset. This puts an solid footing under gold prices, compared to cryptocurrencies or other anti-fiat assets. It is worth noting that competition between the dollar and gold often run in long cycles. In the 1970s, as inflation took hold in the US, the dollar depreciated and gold soared. In the 1980s, the dollar took off and gold fell sharply, as the Federal Reserve was able to bring down inflation. The 1990s were relatively disinflationary, which supported the dollar (Chart I-10). A whiff of rising inflation in the early 2000s hurt the dollar, while the 2010s were characterized by very low inflation, supporting the dollar. More recently, the dollar is weakening as inflationary trends accelerate faster in the US (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (1) The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (1) The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (1) Chart I-11The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (2) The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (2) The Dollar And Inflation Move Opposite Ways (2) One of our favorite indicators for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar is the bond-to-gold ratio. The rationale is that the bond-to-gold ratio should capture investor preference at the margin for either US Treasurys or gold. This in turn has been a good measure of investor confidence in the greenback. On this basis, the bond-to-gold ratio (TLT-to-GLD ETF) is breaking down to fresh cycle lows (Chart I-12). This has historically pointed towards a lower US dollar. Chart I-12The Dollar And The Bond-To-Gold Ratio The Dollar And The Bond-To-Gold Ratio The Dollar And The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Within precious metals, we like gold but love silver. As such, we are short the gold-to-silver ratio since an entry point of 68. Our bias is that initial support for this ratio is 60. Meanwhile, we also like platinum, and will go long versus palladium at current levels. A Few Other Indicators A few other market developments are pointing to a lower dollar in the coming months. The dollar tends to decline in the second half of the year. This has been true since the 1970s (Chart I-13). Importantly, even during the Paul Volcker years in the 80s when the dollar staged a meaningful rally, it often fell in the second half of the year. The winner in the second half of the year has usually been the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen (Chart I-14).  Chart I-13The Dollar Usually Strengthens In H1 A Peak In US Inflows? A Peak In US Inflows? Chart I-14The Dollar Usually Weakens In H2 A Peak In US Inflows? A Peak In US Inflows? The OECD leading economic indicators still suggest US growth remains robust relative to the rest of the G10. However, our expectation is that this gap will decrease sharply in the second half of this year. That said, the current reading is a risk to our dollar bearish view (Chart I-15). Chart I-15US Exceptionalism Is A Risk For Dollar Bears US Exceptionalism Is A Risk For Dollar Bears US Exceptionalism Is A Risk For Dollar Bears Lumber has started to underperform Dr. Copper. Lumber benefits from solid US housing activity, while copper is more tied to global growth and the emerging investment in green technology. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar also tends to underperform higher beta currencies when lumber is underperforming copper (Chart I-16). The copper-to-gold ratio has also bottomed, suggesting ample liquidity is now fueling growth (Chart I-17). We suggested last week that the velocity of money across countries was a key variable to watch in getting the dollar call right. So far, the collapse in money velocity is least acute in China, explaining the rise in the copper-to-gold ratio and the improvement in non-US yields compared to the US. Chart I-16Lumber/Copper Prices And The Dollar Lumber/Copper Prices And The Dollar Lumber/Copper Prices And The Dollar Chart I-17Copper/Gold Prices And Bond Yields Copper/Gold Prices And Bond Yields Copper/Gold Prices And Bond Yields In summary, many cyclical indicators still point to a lower dollar. The key risk to this view is an equity market correction, and/or persistent relative strength in US growth.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Trading Currencies Using Equity Signals," dated May 7, 2021. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Special Report, "Will Cryptocurrencies Displace Fiat," dated April 23, 2021. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights ECB Tapering?: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. Euro Area Bond Strategy: We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued. We also suggest a new tactical trade to fade the current market pricing of ECB rate hikes by going long the December 2023 euribor interest rate futures contract. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing a Special Report, discussing the investment implications of the current global housing boom, with our colleagues at the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. You will be receiving that report on Friday, May 28. We will return to regular weekly publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 1. - Rob Robis Chart of the WeekAn Underwhelming Rise In European Bond Yields An Underwhelming Rise In European Bond Yields An Underwhelming Rise In European Bond Yields For next month’s monetary policy meeting, European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde reportedly plans to invite the Governing Council members to meet in person for the first time since the start of the pandemic. That provides an interesting subtext to a meeting that will surely involve a debate over how much monetary support is still necessary for an increasingly vaccinated Europe that is emerging from the depths of COVID-19. Some ECB officials have already noted that the risks to economic growth and inflation expectations were now “tilted to the upside”, according to the minutes of the last ECB meeting in April. With European economic confidence improving, European bond yields have moved higher in response (Chart of the Week). The benchmark 10-year German bund yield now sits at -0.11%, up 46bps year-to-date but with half of that move occurring over the past month. The pickup up in yields has not been contained to the core countries of Germany and France – the 10-year Italian government bond yield is now up to 1.11%, over twice the level that began 2021 (0.52%). Inflation expectations have picked up sharply, with the 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swap now up to 1.63%, a level last seen in December 2018. These yield increases have lagged the big moves seen in other countries; 10-year government bond yields in the US and Canada have seen year-to-date increases of 72bps and 90bps, respectively. In those countries, yields have surged because of rising inflation expectations and worries about a tapering of central bank bond buying – concerns that turned out to be accurate in the case of Canada, where the Bank of Canada did indeed announce a slower pace of bond buying last month. In our view, it is still too soon for the ECB to contemplate such a shift to a less dovish policy stance. This message is corroborated by our ECB Monitor that has risen but is still not signaling a need for tighter monetary policy. The bond selloff in Europe looks like a case of "too much, too fast". The ECB Now Has A Lot To Think About Recent euro area economic data has not only caught up to the earlier strength visible in the US, but in some cases is back to levels not seen for many years. The expectations component of the German ZEW survey surged nearly 14 points in May and is now up to levels last seen in 2000. The Markit PMI for manufacturing reached an all-time high of 62.9 in April. The European Commission’s consumer confidence index for the euro area is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2), which bodes well for a continued recovery of the Markit PMI for services. More positive news on the pandemic is driving the surge in growth expectations. The pace of new COVID-19 cases has fallen steadily, with Italy – one of the hardest-stricken regions during the initial months of the pandemic – now seeing the lowest rate of new cases since October (on a rolling 7-day basis). Meanwhile, the pace of vaccinations has accelerated after a slow initial rollout; the number of daily jabs administered (per 100 people) is now greater in Germany, France and Italy than in the US (Chart 3). Chart 2European Growth Is Recovering European Growth Is Recovering European Growth Is Recovering Chart 3Inoculation Acceleration In Europe Inoculation Acceleration In Europe Inoculation Acceleration In Europe Chart 4How Much Spare Capacity Is There In Europe? How Much Spare Capacity Is There In Europe? How Much Spare Capacity Is There In Europe? The rapid increase in inoculations is setting Europe up for a solid recovery from the lockdown-driven double-dip recession of Q4/2020 and Q1/2021. The European Commission upgraded its growth forecasts for the euro area last week, with real GDP now expected to expand by 4.3% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022, compared with previous forecasts of 3.8% in both years. All euro area countries are now expected to see a return to the pre-pandemic level of economic output by the end of 2022 – a number boosted by a pickup in public investment through the Next Generation EU (NGEU) package, which is expected to begin paying out funds later this summer. The ECB will surely raise its own forecasts at the June meeting, both for economic growth and inflation. The outlook for the latter will likely turn into the biggest source of debate within the ECB Governing Council. Despite the fairly coordinated recovery of survey-based data like the manufacturing PMIs, there remains a wide divergence of unemployment rates - and measures of spare capacity, more generally - within the euro area (Chart 4). This will make it difficult for the ECB to determine if the current surge in realized inflation, which has pushed the annual growth of headline HICP inflation towards the 2% level in many euro zone nations, can persist with countries like Italy and Spain still suffering from very high unemployment. The wide dispersion of unemployment rates within the euro zone also suggests that the current level of policy rates (at or below 0%) is appropriate. One simple metric to measure the “breadth” of European labor market strength is to look at the percentage of euro area countries that have an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU.1 That metric correlates well with an estimate of the appropriate level of euro area short-term interest rates generated by a basic Taylor Rule. Currently, only 43% of euro zone countries are beyond full employment, which is consistent with an ECB policy rate round 0% (Chart 5). Chart 5Policy Rates Near 0% Are Still Appropriate Policy Rates Near 0% Are Still Appropriate Policy Rates Near 0% Are Still Appropriate A slightly larger share of countries (47%) is witnessing an acceleration in wage growth (bottom panel). This could mean that some of the NAIRU estimates for the individual countries are too low, which would fit with the acceleration in overall euro area wage growth seen since 2015. With so many euro area countries still working off the rise in unemployment generated by the pandemic, however, it will take some time for the ECB to get a clear enough read on labor market dynamics to determine if any necessary monetary policy adjustments should be made. The “breadth” of data trends do not only correlate to theoretical interest rate measures like the Taylor Rule. Actual ECB policy decisions are motivated by the degree to which higher growth and inflation is evident across the euro area. In Chart 6, we show a similar metric to the labor market breadth measures from Chart 5, but using other economic and inflation data. Specifically, we show the percentage of euro area countries that are seeing: Chart 6ECB Typically Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based ECB Typically Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based ECB Typically Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based a) Accelerating growth momentum, indicated by an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than the level of one year earlier; b) Accelerating inflation momentum, comparing the latest reading on headline HICP inflation to that of one year earlier; c) Relatively high inflation, measured by headline HICP inflation being above the ECB’s “just below 2%” target. Looking at all previous periods of ECB monetary tightening since the inception of the euro in 1998 – taking the form of actual policy rate hikes or a flat-to-declining trend in the ECB’s balance sheet – it is clear that the ECB does not tighten without at least 75% of euro area countries seeing both economic growth and inflation accelerate. Actual rate hikes occur when at least 75% of countries had inflation above 2%, as occurred during the hiking cycles of 2000, 2005-2007 and 2011. More recently, the ECB paused the expansion of its balance sheet in 2017 when growth and inflation accelerated, but did not make any policy rate adjustments as only 50% of countries had inflation above 2%. Today, essentially all euro area countries are seeing accelerating growth momentum compared to the pandemic-depressed levels of a year ago. 59% of the euro area is seeing faster inflation, a number that is likely to move higher as more of Europe reopens from lockdown amid a surge in global commodity prices. Yet only 12% of euro area countries have headline inflation above 2%, suggesting that realized inflation is not yet strong enough to trigger even an ECB balance sheet adjustment, based on the 2017 experience. Don’t Bet On A June ECB Taper So judging by past ECB behavior, an announcement to taper bond buying at the June policy meeting would be highly premature. A more likely scenario is that an upgrade of the ECB’s growth and inflation forecast prompts a discussion of what to do with all the varying parts of the ECB’s monetary stimulus – quantitative easing, bank funding programs like TLTROs, as well as policy interest rates. Yet it will be impossible for the ECB Governing Council to reach any conclusions on their next step(s) at the June meeting because the very nature of the ECB's inflation target might soon change. The ECB is currently conducting a review of its monetary policy strategy – the first since 2003 – that is scheduled for completion later this year. Some adjustment to the ECB inflation target is expected to allow more flexibility, but it is not yet clear what that change will look like. Could the ECB follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and move to an “average inflation target” regime, tolerating overshoots of the inflation target after periods of below-target inflation? ECB Chief Economist Philip Lane noted back in March that “there was a very strong logic” to the Fed’s new approach. He also said that the “very different histories of inflation” in some European countries may make it difficult to reach an agreement on any system that allows even temporary periods of higher inflation.2 More recently, Bank of Finland Governor Olli Rehn – a moderate member of the Governing Council who was considered a candidate for the current ECB presidency – came out in favor of the ECB shifting to a Fed-like average inflation target for Europe in a recent Financial Times interview.3 Rehn noted that a Fed-like focus on aiming for maximum unemployment “makes sense in the current context of a lower natural rate of interest.” Rehn went on to describe the ECB’s current wording of its inflation target as having “generated a perception of asymmetry” such that “2 per cent is perceived as a ceiling and that is dampening inflation expectations.” We imagine that Jens Weidmann from the Bundesbank would vehemently oppose any move to change the ECB inflation target to tolerate even a temporary period of inflation above 2%. German headline HICP inflation already reached 2.1% in April, with more increases likely as the German economy reopens from extended pandemic lockdowns. Yet even if Weidmann were to not dig in his heels against any “loosening” of the ECB inflation target, the looming conclusion of the ECB strategy review makes it highly unlikely that any change in policy – like tapering – could credibly be announced before then. If higher inflation will be tolerated, then why bother to taper at all? Looking beyond the inflation strategy review, there are other factors that could weigh on the ECB in its deliberations on the next monetary policy move: China policy tightening: China – Europe’s largest trading partner – has seen its policymakers begin to rein in credit growth, and fiscal spending, after allowing a surge in borrowing in 2020 to help boost growth during the pandemic. Our measure of the China credit impulse leads the annual growth rate of European exports to China by around nine months (Chart 7), and is flagging a dramatic slowing of exports in the latter half of this year. This represents a downside risk to euro area growth, particularly in countries that export more heavily to China like Germany. Slowing loan growth: The annual growth rate of overall euro area bank lending peaked at 12.2% back in February and is now down to 10.9% (Chart 8). Much of the softening has occurred in Germany and France – countries that had seen a big take-up of subsidized bank funding through the ECB’s TLTROs. The pricing incentives set up by the ECB for the latest TLTRO program were highly attractive, and it appears that German and French banks took advantage of the cheap funding to ramp up lending activity. This makes the economic interpretation of the bank lending data more challenging for the ECB, especially with Italian loan growth – and TLTRO usage – now accelerating. Chart 7Warning Signs For European Export Demand Warning Signs For European Export Demand Warning Signs For European Export Demand Chart 8ECB LTROs Are Becoming Italy-Focused ECB LTROs Are Becoming Italy-Focused ECB LTROs Are Becoming Italy-Focused NGEU spending: As mentioned earlier, disbursements from the €750bn NGEU (a.k.a. “recovery fund”) are expected to begin later this year, pending EU approval of government investment proposals. NGEU funds are intended to finance initiatives that can boost future economic growth, like investments in digital and green programs. Most euro area countries have already submitted their proposals, led by Italy’s request for €192bn. Chart 9NGEU Will Give A Big Boost To European Growth Over The Next Five Years ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells Chart 10NGEU Impact Will Be Front Loaded NGEU Impact Will Be Front Loaded NGEU Impact Will Be Front Loaded A recent study by S&P Global concluded that NGEU investments could boost overall euro area growth by between 1.3 and 3.9 percentage points, cumulatively, between 2021 and 2026 (Chart 9).4 That same study also noted that the impacts of the spending will be front-loaded over the next two years (Chart 10). The Italian government believes that NGEU investment could double Italy’s anemic trend growth rate to 1.5%. Many ECB officials have noted that NGEU is the kind of structural fiscal stimulus that makes it less necessary to maintain highly accommodative monetary policy. Until the NGEU proposals are finalized and the final approved amounts are dispersed, however, the ECB will be unable to adjust its economic forecasts to account for more government investment. Given all of these immediate uncertainties, including how successfully Europe can reopen from pandemic lockdowns, we do not see a plausible scenario where the ECB Governing Council could conclude at the June policy meeting that an immediate change in the current monetary policy tools and guidance was needed. Bottom Line: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. Likely ECB Next Moves & Investment Implications While a June taper announcement from the ECB is unlikely, a hint towards a future move is quite possible. The ECB is notorious for preparing markets well in advance of any policy shifts, thus the official statement following the June meeting – as well as ECB President Lagarde’s press conference – could contain clues as to what the ECB will do next. Chart 11ECB Easing Takes Many Forms ECB Easing Takes Many Forms ECB Easing Takes Many Forms A discussion of what will happen with the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – which is scheduled to end next March – could come up in June. We deem it more likely that the topic will be raised at the September policy meeting when there will be more clarity on the success of the reopening of Europe’s economy, and to the final approved size of the NGEU funds, which will determine the need to maintain an asset purchase program introduced because of the COVID-19 shock. There are certainly many policy options available for the ECB to choose from when they do decide to dial back accommodation. There are several policy interest rates that could be adjusted. Although it is likely that when the ECB next tries to hike interest rates, the first rate to move will be the overnight deposit rate which is currently at -0.5% and represents the “floor” for short-term interest rates in Europe (Chart 11). Rate hikes will not occur before the balance sheet tools are reduced or unwound, however, which means asset purchases will be dialed back first. Market participants are well aware of that order of policy choices, as a very flat path for short-term interest rates is currently discounted in the European overnight index swap (OIS) curve. The spread between forward rates in the OIS and CPI swap curves can be used as a proxy for the market forward pricing of real interest rates. Currently, the market-implied real ECB policy rate is expected to stay between -2% and -1% over the next decade (Chart 12). Put another way, the markets are pricing in a very flat path for ECB policy rates that will stay below expected inflation over the next ten years. While the natural real rate of interest in Europe is likely very low given low trend growth, a real rate as low as -2% discounts a lot of bad structural news for the European economy. By comparison, the NY Fed’s last estimate of the natural real rate (r-star) for Europe – calculated in Q2/2020 before the economic volatility surrounding the pandemic made r-star estimation more unreliable – was positive at +0.6%. The prolonged path of negative expected real interest rates in Europe goes a long way in explaining the persistence of negative real bond yields in the benchmark German government yield curve. Simply put, there is little belief that the ECB will ever be able to engineer a full-blown rate hike cycle – an outcome that Japanese fixed income investors are quite familiar with. Given the ECB’s constant worry about the level of the euro, and its role in impacting European growth and inflation expectations, markets are correct in thinking that it will be difficult for the ECB to lift rates much without triggering unwanted currency appreciation. It is no coincidence that the euro has been consistently undervalued on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis ever since the ECB moved to a negative interest rate policy back in 2014 (Chart 13). Chart 12Markets Expect Negative European Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Expect Negative European Real Rates For The Next Decade Markets Expect Negative European Real Rates For The Next Decade Looking ahead, the ECB will need to be careful about signaling any changes in monetary policy, including tapering, that would force markets to revise up the future path of European interest rates and give the euro a large boost. Chart 13Low ECB Rates Keeping The Euro Undervalued Low ECB Rates Keeping The Euro Undervalued Low ECB Rates Keeping The Euro Undervalued That means that European real bond yields are likely to stay deeply negative over at least the latter half of 2021, with any additional nominal yield increases coming from higher inflation expectations (Chart 14). This will limit how much more European bond yields can rise from current levels. Chart 14European Bond Strategy Summary European Bond Strategy Summary European Bond Strategy Summary We continue to believe that core European bond yields will trade with a “low yield beta” to US Treasury yields over at least the second half of 2021 and likely into 2022 when we expect the Fed to begin tapering its bond buying. Thus, we are sticking with our strategic recommendation to overweight core European government bonds versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. We simply see greater odds of a taper occurring in the US than in Europe, with the Fed more likely to deliver subsequent post-taper rate hikes than the ECB. We still recommend a moderately below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated European bond portfolios, although if the 10-year German bund yield rises significantly into positive territory, we would likely look to raise our suggested European duration exposure. We are also maintaining our recommended overweight on European inflation-linked bonds, as breakeven spreads in Germany, France and Italy are the only ones that remain below fair value in our suite of global valuation models. On European credit, we continue to recommend overweighting spread product versus sovereign bonds. That includes Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well as both investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. The time to turn more bearish on those markets will be when the ECB does begin to taper its asset purchases, as credit spreads have tended to widen during periods when the growth of the ECB’s balance sheet has been decelerating (Chart 15). We expect that when the ECB does finally decide to taper, the net amount of TLTROs will likely be maintained near current levels (by introducing new TLTROs to replace expiring ones). This will ensure that borrowing costs in the more fragile countries like Italy do not spike higher from the double-whammy of reduced ECB buying of Italian bonds and diminished access to cheap ECB bank funding. One final note – we are introducing a new trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19 this week, as a way to fade the markets pricing in a more hawkish ECB outlook. A 10bp rate hike – the most likely size of any first attempt for the ECB to lift rates – is now priced in the OIS curve around mid-2023. By the end of 2023, nearly 25bps of hikes are discounted in forward rate curves. We do not expect the ECB to lift rates at all in 2023, but even if rates were increased, a cumulative 25bps of hikes within six months is unlikely to be delivered. Thus, we recommend going long the December 2023 3-month Euribor interest rate futures contract at an entry price of 100.27 (Chart 16). Chart 15ECB Tapering Would Be Bad News For European Credit ECB Tapering Would Be Bad News For European Credit ECB Tapering Would Be Bad News For European Credit Chart 16Go Long Dec/2023 Euribor Futures Go Long Dec/2023 Euribor Futures Go Long Dec/2023 Euribor Futures Bottom Line: The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 NAIRU is an acronym for the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. 2 Lane’s comments came from a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times published on March 16, 2021, which can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 Rehn’s comments were published earlier this month on May 9 and can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 The S&P Global report, titled “Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear”, can be found here: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns