Policy

Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.1 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence July 2021 July 2021 However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.2 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer July 2021 July 2021 Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts July 2021 July 2021 Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach July 2021 July 2021   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment July 2021 July 2021 Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units July 2021 July 2021 Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).3 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 3 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming   Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants July 2021 July 2021 But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… July 2021 July 2021 Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). Goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe ... And In Europe ... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment July 2021 July 2021 Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall   On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike July 2021 July 2021 The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP   Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters   The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets   Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021   II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence July 2021 July 2021 However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer July 2021 July 2021 Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts July 2021 July 2021 Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach July 2021 July 2021   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment July 2021 July 2021 Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units July 2021 July 2021 Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Fed: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. Duration: The drop in long-dated yields following last week’s FOMC meeting is overdone. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target band. We expect they will quickly move back into that range but doubt they will move above 2.5%. Maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Yield Curve: We are now close enough to Fed liftoff that investors should shift out of curve steepeners and into curve flatteners. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Chart 1Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise The Fed caused quite a stir in bond markets last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield did a roundtrip from 1.50% before Wednesday’s FOMC meeting up to a peak of 1.58% and then back down to 1.44% by Friday’s close. This, however, wasn’t the most significant bond market move. Shorter-dated Treasury yields increased sharply after the FOMC statement was released and have remained high, resulting in a huge flattening of the curve (Chart 1). Real yields, at both the long and short ends of the curve, also jumped on Wednesday and have not fallen back down. This led to a significant drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. In fact, both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range (Chart 1, bottom panel). What’s really interesting is that this massive re-shaping of both the real and nominal yield curves was prompted by an FOMC meeting where the Fed didn’t make any significant policy announcements and, at least from our perspective, didn’t alter its forward guidance on interest rates or asset purchases in any meaningful way. In this report we will try to disentangle the seeming contradiction between the Fed’s actions and the market’s reaction. The first section looks at what the Fed actually announced at last week’s meeting and considers what that means for the future course of monetary policy. The second section looks at the market’s reaction in more detail to see if it presents any investment opportunities. What The Fed Said Considering the sum total of last week’s Fed communications – the FOMC Statement, the Summary of Economic Projections and Jay Powell’s press conference – we arrive at four takeaways: 1. The Dots Moved In The Fed’s interest rate forecasts shifted noticeably higher compared to where they were in March, a change that likely catalyzed the dramatic move in bond markets. Thirteen out of 18 FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). At the March FOMC meeting only seven participants forecasted rate hikes in 2023 (Chart 2B). On top of that, seven FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2022, this is up from four in March. Finally, the median participant’s interest rate forecast went from calling for no rate hikes through the end of 2023 to two. Cahrt 2AMarket And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Chart 2BMarket And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Rate expectations embedded in the overnight index swap (OIS) market also moved up last week. The OIS curve is now priced for Fed liftoff in December 2022 and for a total of 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). Prior to the FOMC meeting, the OIS curve was priced for Fed liftoff in April 2023 and for a total of 78 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2B). It’s important to note that this change in the Fed’s interest rate forecasts occurred without the Fed changing its forward guidance about when it will be appropriate to lift rates. The Fed continues to communicate that it has a three-pronged test for liftoff: 12-month PCE inflation must be above 2% The labor market must be at “maximum employment” The committee must expect that inflation will remain above 2% for some time We asserted back in March that investors should focus on this verbal forward guidance from the Fed and not the dot plot, noting that the Fed’s interest rate forecasts were inconsistent with its own verbal forward guidance.1 The reason for the inconsistency is that Fed participants were trying to err on the side of signaling dovishness to the market. In his March press conference Chair Powell said that the Fed wants to see “actual progress” towards its economic objectives not “forecast[ed] progress”. This bias likely led FOMC participants to place their dots too low, ignoring the strong likelihood that the economy would make rapid progress toward its employment and inflation goals in the coming months. After last week, the Fed’s dots are now more consistent with a reasonable timeline for achieving its policy goals, but our advice remains the same. Investors should ignore the dot plot and focus instead on what the Fed is telling us about when it will lift rates. On that note, we have repeatedly made the case that the three items on the Fed’s liftoff checklist will be met in time for rate hikes to begin next year.2 2. Upside Risks To Inflation Chart 3Upside Risks To Inflation Upside Risks To Inflation Upside Risks To Inflation The second change the Fed made last week was in how it characterized the risks surrounding inflation. The official FOMC Statement continues to describe the recent increase in inflation as “transitory”, but the Summary of Economic Projections revealed a huge increase in the number of participants who view the risks surrounding their inflation forecasts as tilted to the upside (Chart 3). This shouldn’t be too surprising. Inflation has been incredibly strong in recent months with 12-month core CPI and 12-month core PCE rising to 3.80% and 3.06%, respectively. Importantly, however, a change in risk assessment doesn’t portend a change in policy. The Fed’s median forecast sees core PCE inflation falling from 3.4% this year to 2.1% in 2022, and we also agree that inflation has peaked.3 That said, it is interesting to consider how the Fed might respond if consumer prices continue to accelerate. On that question, Chair Powell said last week that the Fed would “be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy” if it “saw signs that the path of inflation or longer-term inflation expectations were moving materially and persistently beyond levels consistent with [its] goal.” Our sense is that the Fed would be prepared to bring forward the tapering of its asset purchases in response to stronger-than-expected inflation, but it is extremely unlikely that it would lift rates before its three liftoff criteria are met. In fact, given the Phillips Curve lens through which the Fed views inflation, it is much more likely that any increase in inflation that isn’t matched by a tight labor market will continue to be written off as “transitory”. 3. Tapering Discussions Have Begun Third, Jay Powell revealed in his post-meeting press conference that the Fed has begun discussions about when to start tapering its asset purchases. The Fed’s test for when to start tapering is “substantial further progress” toward its policy goals. This test is much vaguer than the criteria for liftoff, and this gives the Fed more flexibility on when it could announce tapering. For what it’s worth, Powell also said that “the standard of ‘substantial further progress’ is still a ways off.” We don’t view this revelation about tapering discussions as that significant for markets. For one thing, there is already a strong consensus among market participants that tapering will begin in Q1 2022 (Tables 1A & 1B). Given that the Fed has promised to “provide advance notice before announcing any decision to make changes to our purchases”, starting discussions this summer seems consistent with market expectations, as well as our own.4 Table 1ASurvey Of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 1BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying It’s also important to note that any announcement of asset purchase tapering wouldn’t tell us much about when the Fed’s three liftoff criteria are likely to be met. In other words, a tapering announcement doesn’t tell us anything about when rate hikes are likely to occur. This means that any tapering announcement will have much less of an impact on financial markets than the 2013 taper tantrum, for example. In 2013, markets interpreted the tapering announcement as a signal that rate hikes were coming sooner than expected. The Fed’s explicit interest rate guidance will prevent that outcome this time around. 4. Operational Tweaks Finally, the Fed raised the interest rate it pays on excess reserves (IOER) from 0.10% to 0.15% and the interest rate on its overnight reverse repo facility (ON RRP) from 0% to 0.05% (Chart 4). We discussed the possibility that the Fed might make these changes in last week’s report.5 In recent months, a surplus of cash in overnight markets caused benchmark interest rates to fall toward the lower-end of the Fed’s 0% - 0.25% target range. Critically for the Fed, the ON RRP facility functioned properly as a firm floor on interest rates. It saw its usage surge (Chart 4, bottom panel) but it prevented interest rates from falling below 0%. The IOER and ON RRP rate increases are probably not necessary if the Fed’s goal is to simply keep overnight interest rates within its target band, but the increases will help push rates up toward the middle of the target range. They may also lead to some decline in ON RRP usage, though that has not occurred just yet. In any event, the surplus of cash in money markets that is applying downward pressure to overnight interest rates will evaporate within the next few months. The Treasury Department expects to hit a cash balance of $450 billion by the end of July and, as long as Congress passes legislation to increase the debt limit this summer, the Treasury’s cash balance will probably not get much below $450 billion (Chart 5). A tapering of the Fed’s asset purchases starting late this year or early next year would also remove surplus cash from money markets.     Chart 4IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes Chart 5The Cash Surplus In Money Markets The Cash Surplus In Money Markets The Cash Surplus In Money Markets Bottom Line: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. How The Market Reacted As noted at the outset of this report, the bond market didn’t have the same sanguine reaction to the Fed’s communications as we did. It reacted as though the Fed had delivered a massive hawkish surprise. The major bond market moves were as follows: Short-maturity nominal Treasury yields jumped following the FOMC meeting on Wednesday, and those short-dated yields remained at their new higher levels through Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). Table 2AChange In Nominal Yields Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 2BChange In Real Yields Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 2CChange In TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rates Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying The 10-year nominal Treasury yield also increased following the Fed meeting, but then gave back all of that increase and then some on Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). The result is a significant flattening of the nominal Treasury curve, consistent with the market discounting a more hawkish path for monetary policy. Looking at real yields, we see significant increases following Wednesday’s Fed meeting for all maturities (Table 2B). Then, with the exception of the 30-year yield, real yields did not fall back down later in the week. Finally, we see large declines in the cost of inflation compensation at both the short and long ends of the curve (Table 2C). Once again, this is consistent with the market pricing-in a more hawkish Fed that will be less tolerant of an inflation overshoot. In light of these significant yield moves, we consider the investment implications for the level of bond yields, the performance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and the slope of the nominal Treasury curve. The Level Of Yields Chart 65y5y Yield Has Upside 5y5y Yield Has Upside 5y5y Yield Has Upside There were two major developments last week that influence our view on the level of Treasury yields. First, the market is now priced for a more reasonable December 2022 liftoff date and 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. Second, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield fell sharply. It currently sits at 2.06%, just 6 bps above the median estimate of the long-run neutral fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and 25 bps below the same measure from the Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 6). On the one hand, the market-implied path for overnight interest rates looks more in line with reality, though we still see scope for it to move higher. On the other hand, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now looks too low compared to consensus estimates of the long-run neutral interest rate. We are inclined to think that the market-implied path for rates will either stay where it is or move higher and that the drop in the 5-year/5-year forward yield is overdone. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries As shown in Chart 1, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen back to levels below the Fed’s desired target range. We don’t think TIPS breakeven inflation rates will stay below target for long. The principal goal of the Fed’s new Average Inflation Targeting strategy is to ensure that long-term inflation expectations are well-anchored near target levels. Recent market action seems to imply that the Fed will overtighten and miss its inflation objective from below, but that is highly unlikely. We recently downgraded our recommended TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral because breakevens were threatening to break above the top-end of the Fed’s target band.6 We maintain our neutral 6-12 month allocation, but we do see long-maturity TIPS breakevens moving back into the 2.3% to 2.5% target band relatively quickly. Nimble investors may wish to buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a short-term trade. Nominal Treasury Curve Slope Chart 7A Transition To Curve Flattening A Transition To Curve Flattening A Transition To Curve Flattening We see the potential for some of last week’s dramatic curve flattening to reverse in the near-term. It was, after all, a drop in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that was responsible for the curve flattening on Thursday and Friday and, as was already discussed, this drop in the cost of inflation compensation will likely prove fleeting. However, if we look out on a longer 6-12 month time horizon, it is much more likely that the curve will continue to flatten rather than steepen. If we assume that the first rate hike occurs in December 2022, it means that we are roughly 18 months away from the start of a rate hike cycle. In past cycles, 18 months prior to liftoff was pretty close to the inflection point between curve steepening and flattening, whether we look at the 2/10, 5/30 or even 2/5 slope (Chart 7). For this reason, we think it makes more sense to enter curve flatteners at this stage of the cycle than steepeners, even though flatteners tend to have negative carry. We therefore exit our prior curve position – long 5-year bullet / short duration-matched 2/30 barbell – a trade that was designed to be a positive carry hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration allocation.7 In its place, we recommend that investors enter a 2/10 curve flattener. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year note and going long a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade offers a negative yield pick-up of 16 bps, but the 2/10 barbell does look somewhat cheap relative to the 5-year on our model (Chart 8). Chart 8Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet We expect to hold this trade for some time, profiting from a bear-flattening of the 2/10 yield curve as we move closer and closer to eventual Fed liftoff.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Fed Won’t Catch Inflation Fever”, dated May 4, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Tactically downgrade cyclical equities from overweight in Europe. The shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries create headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. Weaker global inflation expectations, commodity prices, and a dollar rebound will accompany this period of turbulence. The relative technical and valuation backdrop will also contribute to this period. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunication is a high-octane version of the trade. Short technology / long healthcare is its lower-risk / lower-reward cousin. This temporary portfolio shift is a risk management move to capitalize on our positive 18- to 24- month view on cyclicals. Feature Last week, we recommended investors adopt a more defensive tactical posture.  They should raise cash and shift into defensive quality names in order to weather a summer replete with potential downside risk. This will place investors in a good position to shift back into a more aggressive stance this fall, when cyclical sectors should resume their outperformance. This week, we explore this idea in more detail. The combination of a Chinese credit slowdown, a potential transition in the driver of growth away from goods into services, and a shift in tone from global central banks will feed the expected market volatility this summer. European defensive stocks are set to outperform during this period. Buying telecommunication equities / selling consumer discretionary stocks is a high octane bet on this trend, while going long healthcare / short technology shares is its low-risk incarnation. Summer Storms This summer, three forces will feed some downside risk in the market and, more specifically, an underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones: a transition in global growth, preliminary signs that global central banks will begin to take away the punch bowl, and disappointments caused by COVID variants. Growth Transition The global economy is set to cool down as we transition away from the first stage of the post-pandemic recovery. As we showed last week, China’s deteriorating credit impulse is consistent with global industrial activity receding from its extremely robust pace of expansion (Chart 1). The continued decline in China’s banking system excess reserve ratio suggests that total social financing flows will slow further. Consequently, China’s intake of raw materials and industrial goods will decelerate, which will impact global industrial activity negatively. Already, the New Orders component of China’s Manufacturing PMI has rolled over. The disappointment of Chinese retail sales last week further indicates that China will act as a drag on global growth in the coming quarters. We have also highlighted that the combined effect of higher yields and oil prices has become strong enough to alter negatively the path of global industrial activity going forward. Our Global Growth Tax indicator, which includes both variables, shows that the US ISM Manufacturing survey and the global manufacturing PMI have reached their apex and will moderate this summer (Chart 2). Chart 1The China Drag The China Drag The China Drag Chart 2Rising Costs Bite Rising Costs Bite Rising Costs Bite The problem for global growth is one of changing leadership. Global economic activity is not about to collapse, but the extraordinary surge in goods consumption that started in 2020 will make room for a catch-up in the service sector. As an example, US retail sales stand 15% above their pre-pandemic trends; however, services spending still lies 7% below its pre-pandemic tendency (Chart 3). Thus, as summer progresses, the recent deceleration in consumer spending on goods will continue and services will progressively pick up the slack. The change in growth leadership will cause some temporary trepidation in global economic activity, because it is happening when the effect of both the Chinese credit slowdown and the previous increase in yields and oil will be most potent. As a result, we expect the G-10 Economic Surprises Index to follow that of China and experience an air pocket this summer (Chart 4). Chart 3From Goods To Services From Goods To Services From Goods To Services Chart 4Where China Goes, So Will The G-10 Where China Goes, So Will The G-10 Where China Goes, So Will The G-10   The Chaperone Is On The Way More than 65 years ago, former Fed Chair William McChesney Martin noted that the job of central bankers was to be “the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just as the party was really warming up.” Chart 5The Chaperone Is Waking Up The Chaperone Is Waking Up The Chaperone Is Waking Up Today, the party is a rager, and central bankers are indicating that they will remove the punch bowl soon. Real estate speculation is worrying the Bank of Canada, and its balance sheet has already shrunk by C$99 billion, to C$476 billion. The Norges Bank has indicted that it will lift interest rates twice this year. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is set to lift the Official Cash Rate soon. The Bank of England has begun to adjust its asset purchases and could begin a full-fledge tapering this year. The 800-pound gorilla is the Fed, which telegraphed more clearly last week its intention to raise rates twice in 2023, and therefore moved closer to the pricing of the OIS curve (Chart 5). Implied in this forecast, the Fed will start tapering its asset purchase in early 2022 at the latest. This change in tone by global central banks is not a major problem for the business cycle – global rates are still far below any reasonable estimates of the neutral rate of interest, but periods of transition in monetary policy are often associated with transitory market turbulences. This time will not be an exception, especially because it is happening when global growth is downshifting. Delta, Gamma, Epsilon, etc? Chart 6Depressed Macro Volatility Depressed Macro Volatility Depressed Macro Volatility With the rapid progress of vaccination, the worst of the COVID tragedy is behind us. Nonetheless, the pandemic is not yet fully in the rear-view mirror, not even in the Western nations that lead the global inoculation campaign. SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve and will therefore produce new variants over time, some of which will be problematic. The UK illustrates this phenomenon. The government has postponed the so-called Freedom Day, when life returns to normal, by five weeks despite the country’s high vaccination rate. The Delta variant is significantly increasing among the unvaccinated and not fully inoculated Britons. Many countries will also face this problem. These delays will be minor and will not threaten national recoveries. However, they will feed market tensions in a context where global macro volatility is low (Chart 6), global growth is already peaking, and monetary accommodation is receding. Global Market Implications… The confluence of the change in global economic growth leadership, the upcoming liquidity removal, and the potential for short-lived delays to the global economic re-opening point toward a decline in global inflation expectations, a rebound in the US dollar, weaker commodity prices, and an underperformance of global cyclical relative to defensive equities. Over the coming months, inflation breakeven rates are likely to soften, while real yields will rise modestly. In May, US inflation breakeven rates peaked near 2.6%, their highest level in ten years. A weaker global growth impulse in combination with a Fed that is more willing to remove some monetary accommodation will cool inflationary fears among investors and cause inflation expectations to decline further. However, the specter of tighter policy will also support TIPS yields. Bond yields are likely to correct somewhat more over the summer. Bond prices have not yet fully purged their oversold conditions (Chart 7); thus, a decrease in inflation expectations will temporarily support Treasury prices, even if real yields do not fall. Recent market action is moving in this direction. Last week, by Thursday evening, 10-year Treasury yields had already lost their 9 bps rise that followed Wednesday’s FOMC meeting. 30-year Treasury yields have plunged to a four-month low. Bund yields are unable to hang on to their gains either. The dollar has more upside this summer. Higher real US yields offer a potent backing for a DXY that still refuses to drop below 89. Moreover, the greenback is a highly counter-cyclical currency and is particularly sensitive to the gyrations in the global industrial cycle. Thus, the deceleration in the global manufacturing cycle will create a temporary tailwind for the greenback. Over the past three years, the gap between US TIPS yields and the Chinese Economic Surprise index explained the fluctuation of the DXY; it currently points toward a continued rebound in the USD (Chart 8). Even if this move is ephemeral, it will have implications for investors this summer. Chart 7Technical Backdrop For Bonds Technical Backdrop For Bonds Technical Backdrop For Bonds Chart 8Near-Term Upside For The DXY Near-Term Upside For The DXY Near-Term Upside For The DXY Commodities will also suffer. Natural resource prices have rallied in a parabolic fashion and our Composite Technical Indicator is massively overbought (Chart 9). Meanwhile, Chinese authorities are verbally jawboning industrial metal prices and have begun to release copper, zinc, aluminum, and nickel from their stockpiles. In this context, the Chinese credit slowdown and the imminent removal of monetary accommodation in various corners of the globe will catalyze a correction in commodities, even if a new supercycle has begun. The recent travails of lumber prices, which have collapsed 47% since May 7 (while they still remain in technical bull market!), may constitute a canary in the coalmine for the wider commodity complex. Global cyclical equities have greater downside against their defensive counterparts. US markets are global trendsetters; while the S&P cyclicals have lost some altitude compared to defensives, they have yet to purge their oversold state and remain very expensive (Chart 10). This backdrop makes them vulnerable to slowing Chinese import growth, a stronger dollar, and weaker commodity prices. Chart 9Will The GSCI Follow Lumber? Will The GSCI Follow Lumber? Will The GSCI Follow Lumber? Chart 10Vulnerable Global Cyclicals Vulnerable Global Cyclicals Vulnerable Global Cyclicals   … And European Investment Implications Chart 11European Cyclicals Are Also At Risk European Cyclicals Are Also At Risk European Cyclicals Are Also At Risk The European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is vulnerable, like it is in the US. Hence, a more defensive portfolio bias makes sense for the summer, which should allow investors to regain maximum cyclical exposure later this year. Short consumer discretionary / long telecommunications and short technology / long healthcare are pair trades with particularly attractive risk profiles. The cyclicals-to-defensives ratio is technically unattractive. The relative share prices stand toward the top of their 16-year trading range (Chart 11). Moreover, their 52-week momentum measure is rolling over at a highly elevated level, while the 13-week rate of change is deteriorating. Meanwhile, the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator1 (CMVI) of the cyclicals towers far above that of the defensives and is consistent with a corrective episode (Chart 11, bottom panel). The drivers of the performance of Eurozone cyclical relative to defensive sectors confirm that cyclicals could suffer a turbulent summer. For instance: The potential for further declines in global yields does not bode well for the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio (Chart 12). Weaknesses in market-based inflation expectations would prove particularly threatening (Chart 12, bottom panel). The deceleration in China’s total social financing flows anticipates an underperformance of European cyclicals (Chart 13). As China’s credit decelerates, so will the earnings revisions of cyclical equities. Moreover, a weaker Chinese TSF is consistent with falling Treasury yields. Chart 12Lower Inflation Expectations Equals Underperforming Cyclicals Lower Inflation Expectations Equals Underperforming Cyclicals Lower Inflation Expectations Equals Underperforming Cyclicals Chart 13Cyclicals Listen To China Cyclicals Listen To China Cyclicals Listen To China The potential for weaker commodity prices is another problem for European cyclical equities (Chart 14). Commodities capture the ebb and flow of global growth sentiment, which is also a driver of the earnings revisions of cyclicals relative to defensives. Moreover, commodity prices greatly affect the earnings of cyclical equities. Unsurprisingly, the momentum of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio correlates closely with the BCA Commodity Composite Technical Indicator (Chart 14, bottom panel). Cyclicals perform poorly when the dollar appreciates. The Eurozone’s cyclicals-to-defensives ratio moves in lock-step with the euro and high-beta cyclical currencies (Chart 15). These relationships reflect the counter-cyclicality of the dollar, as well as the negative effect on global financial conditions of its rallies, and thus, on the earnings outlook for cyclicals. Chart 14Beware The Impact Of Weaker Commodities Beware The Impact Of Weaker Commodities Beware The Impact Of Weaker Commodities Chart 15A Strong Dollar Hurts European Cyclicals A Strong Dollar Hurts European Cyclicals A Strong Dollar Hurts European Cyclicals Chart 16Short Consumer Discretionary And Long Telecommunication Short Consumer Discretionary And Long Telecommunication Short Consumer Discretionary And Long Telecommunication Based on these observations, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals from our overweight stance for the summer, despite our conviction that cyclicals have upside on an 18- to 24-month basis. We look at this move as risk management. For investors looking to bet on a potential underperformance of cyclical equities in Europe, we recommend two positions: a high-octane pair trade and a lower-risk one. The high-octane version is to sell consumer discretionary stocks and buy telecommunications ones (Chart 16). This pair trade is exposed to lower yields, lower inflation expectations, and the shift in growth drivers from China and goods consumption to services expenditures. Additionally, the relative 52-week momentum measure is overextended, while the 13-week rate of change is already sagging. The CMVI of the consumer discretionary sector is extremely elevated, while that of telecommunication stocks is the most depressed of any Eurozone sector. Consequently, the gap between the two sectors’ CMVI stands at nearly three-sigma, which is concerning because the RoE of consumer discretionary shares lies 7% below that of the telecoms industry (Chart 16, third and fourth panel). Because higher RoEs should justify higher valuations, consumer discretionary and telecommunication stand out as the greatest outliers among European sectors (Chart 17). As an added benefit, this trade enjoys a positive dividend carry of more than 2.5%. Chart 17Spot The Outliers Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Chart 18Short Technology And Long Healthcare Short Technology And Long Healthcare Short Technology And Long Healthcare The low octane pair trade is to sell technology stocks and buy healthcare names instead. This position offers lower expected returns but also a lower risk, because both sectors are growth stocks and they will benefit from falling yields and inflation expectations. However, based on their respective CMVI, tech equities are much more expensive than healthcare ones (Chart 18), while they are also extremely overbought. Thus, healthcare should benefit more from falling yields and inflation expectations than tech. Moreover, technology is a more cyclical sector than healthcare; it will therefore be more sensitive to the evolution of global growth. Bottom Line: We remain positive on the outlook for cyclical equities on an 18- to 24-month horizon, but the changing global growth leadership, the imminent removal of global monetary accommodation, and the demanding valuation and technical backdrop of the European cyclicals-to-defensives ratio suggest that a period of turbulence will materialize this summer. Thus, we are tactically downgrading cyclicals. Investors should consider going long telecommunications / short consumer discretionary as a high-octane tactical bet on this portfolio stance. Buying healthcare / selling technology would constitute a lower risk / lower return play. Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a detailed explanation of the Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator, see Special Report, “Valuation – A Mechanical Approach,” dated May 31, 2021. Currency Performance Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Corporate Bonds Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Geographic Performance Summertime Blues Summertime Blues Sector Performance Summertime Blues Summertime Blues

Dear Client, Next week, instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report from BCA Research’s MacroQuant tactical global asset allocation team. Titled “MacroQuant: A Quantitative Solution For Forecasting Macro-Driven Financial Trends,” this white paper will discuss the purpose, coverage, and methodology of the MacroQuant model. I hope you will find the report insightful. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets for the rest of 2021 and beyond. We will also be holding a webcast on Thursday, July 8 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) to discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Although the Fed delivered a hawkish surprise on Wednesday, monetary policy is likely to remain highly accommodative for the foreseeable future. We continue to see high US inflation as a long-term risk rather than a short-term problem. Outside of a few industries, wage inflation remains well contained. In those industries suffering from labor shortages, the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits, increased immigration, and the opening up of schools should replenish labor supply. Bottlenecks in the global supply chain are starting to ease. Many key input prices have already rolled over, suggesting that producer price inflation has peaked and is heading down. A slowdown in Chinese credit growth could weigh on metals prices during the summer months, which would further temper inflationary pressures. We are downgrading our view on US TIPS from overweight to neutral. Owning bank shares is a cheaper inflation hedge. Look Who’s Talking The Fed jolted markets on Wednesday after the FOMC signaled it may raise rates twice in 2023. Back in March, the Fed projected no hikes until 2024 (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Forecasts Converge Toward Market Expectations Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Seven of 18 committee members expected lift-off as early as 2022, up from four in March. Only five participants expected the Fed to start raising rates in 2024 or later, down from 11 previously. The Fed acknowledged recent upward inflation surprises by lifting its forecast of core PCE inflation to 3.4% for 2021 compared with the March projection of 2.4%. These forecast revisions bring the Fed closer to market expectations, although the latter are proving to be a moving target. Going into the FOMC meeting, the OIS curve was pricing in 85 bps of rate tightening by the end of 2023. At present, the market is pricing in about 105 bps of tightening. At his press conference, Chair Powell acknowledged that FOMC members had discussed scaling back asset purchases. “You can think of this meeting as the ‘talking about talking about’ meeting,” he said. A rate hike in 2023 would imply the start of tapering early next year. The key question for investors is whether this week’s FOMC meeting marks the first of many hawkish surprises from the Fed. We do not think it does. As Chair Powell himself noted, the dot-plot is “not a great forecaster of future rate moves,” before adding that “Lift-off is well into the future.” Ultimately, a major monetary tightening cycle would require that inflation remain stubbornly high. As we discuss below, while there are good reasons to think that the US economy will eventually overheat, the current bout of inflation is indeed likely to be “transitory.” This implies that bond yields are unlikely to rise into restrictive territory anytime soon, which should provide continued support to stocks. Inflation: A Long-Term Risk Rather Than A Short-Term Problem Chart 2Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago There are plenty of reasons to worry that US inflation will eventually move persistently higher. As we discussed in a recent report, many of the structural factors that have suppressed inflation over the past 40 years are reversing direction: Globalization is in retreat: The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 2). Looking out, the ratio could even decline as more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over unruly global supply chains. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. As a group, baby boomers control more than half of US wealth (Chart 3). They will continue to run down their wealth once they retire. However, since they will no longer be working, they will no longer contribute to national output. Continued spending against a backdrop of diminished production could be inflationary. Chart 3Baby Boomers Have Accumulated A Lot Of Wealth Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Despite a pandemic-induced bounce, underlying productivity growth remains disappointing (Chart 4). Slow productivity growth could cause aggregate supply to fall short of aggregate demand. Social stability is in peril, as exemplified by the recent dramatic increase in the US homicide rate. In the past, social instability and higher inflation have gone hand in hand (Chart 5). Chart 4Trend Productivity Growth Has Been Disappointing Trend Productivity Growth Has Been Disappointing Trend Productivity Growth Has Been Disappointing Chart 5Historically, Social Unrest And Higher Inflation Move In Lock-Step Historically, Social Unrest And Higher Inflation Move In Lock-Step Historically, Social Unrest And Higher Inflation Move In Lock-Step Perhaps most importantly, policymakers are aiming to run the economy hot. A tight labor market will lift wage growth (Chart 6). Not only could higher wage growth push up inflation through the usual “cost-push” channel, but by boosting labor’s share of income, a tight labor market could spur aggregate demand. Despite these structural inflationary forces, history suggests that it will take a while – perhaps another two-to-four years – for the US economy to overheat to the point that persistently higher inflation becomes a serious risk. Consider the case of the 1960s. While the labor market reached its full employment level in 1962, it was not until 1966 – when the unemployment rate was a full two percentage points below NAIRU – that inflation finally took off (Chart 7). Chart 6A Tight Labor Market Eventually Bolsters Wages A Tight Labor Market Eventually Bolsters Wages A Tight Labor Market Eventually Bolsters Wages Chart 7Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s In May, 4.4% fewer Americans were employed than in January 2020 (Chart 8). The employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers stood at 77.1%, 3.4 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level (Chart 9). Chart 8US Employment Still More Than 4% Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Chart 9Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Prime-Age Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels A Labor Market Puzzle Admittedly, if one were to ask most companies if they were finding it easy to hire suitable workers, one would hear a resounding “no.” According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), 48% of firms reported difficulty in filling vacant positions in May, the highest share in the 46-year history of the survey (Chart 10). Chart 10US Labor Market Shortages (I) US Labor Market Shortages (I) US Labor Market Shortages (I) Chart 11US Labor Market Shortages (II) US Labor Market Shortages (II) US Labor Market Shortages (II)   Nationwide, the job openings rate reached a record high of 6% in April, up from 4.5% in January 2020. The share of workers quitting their jobs voluntarily – a measure of worker confidence – also hit a record of 2.7% (Chart 11). How can we reconcile the apparent tightness in the labor market with the fact that employment is still well below where it was at the outset of the pandemic? Four explanations stand out. First, unemployment benefits remain extremely generous. For most low-wage workers, benefits exceed the pay they received while employed. It is not surprising that labor shortages have been most pronounced in sectors such as leisure and hospitality where average wages are relatively low (Chart 12). The good news for struggling firms is that the disincentive to working will largely evaporate by September when enhanced unemployment benefits expire. Chart 12Labor Scarcity Prevalent In Low-Wage Sectors Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Chart 13School Closures Have Curbed Labor Supply Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Second, lingering fears of the virus and ongoing school closures continue to depress labor force participation. Chart 13 shows that participation rates have recovered less for mothers with young children than for other demographic groups. This problem will also fade away by the fall when schools reopen. Third, the number of foreign workers coming to the US fell dramatically during the pandemic. State Department data show that visas dropped by 88% in the nine months between April and December of last year compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 14). President Biden revoked President Trump’s visa ban in February, which should pave the way for renewed migration to the US. Chart 14US Migrant Worker Supply Is Depressed Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Chart 15The Pandemic Accelerated Early Retirement The Pandemic Accelerated Early Retirement The Pandemic Accelerated Early Retirement   Fourth, about 1.5 million more workers retired during the pandemic than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 15). Most of these workers were near retirement age anyway. Thus, there will likely be a decline in new retirements over the next couple of years before the baby boomer exodus described earlier in this report resumes in earnest. Other Input Prices Set To Ease Just as labor shortages in a number of industries will ease later this year, some of the bottlenecks gripping the global supply chain should also diminish. The prices of various key inputs – ranging from lumber, steel, soybeans, corn, to DRAM prices – have rolled over (Chart 16). This suggests that producer price inflation for manufactured goods, which hit a multi-decade high of 13.5% in May – has peaked and is heading lower. Chart 16Input Prices Have Rolled Over Input Prices Have Rolled Over Input Prices Have Rolled Over The jump in prices largely reflected one-off pandemic effects. For example, rental car companies, desperate to raise cash at the start of the pandemic, liquidated part of their fleets. Now that the US economy is reopening, they have found themselves short of vehicles. With fewer rental vehicles hitting the used car market, households flush with cash, and new vehicle production constrained by the global semiconductor shortage, both new and used car prices have soared. Vehicle prices have essentially moved sideways since the mid-1990s (Chart 17). Thus, it is doubtful that the recent surge in prices represents a structural break. More likely, prices will come down as supply increases. According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, auto production schedules already imply an almost complete return to January output levels in June. Chart 17Vehicle Prices Have Essentially Moved Sideways Since The Mid-1990s Vehicle Prices Have Essentially Moved Sideways Since The Mid-1990s Vehicle Prices Have Essentially Moved Sideways Since The Mid-1990s Chart 18Rebounding Pandemic-Affected Services Prices Are Pushing Up Overall CPI Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet As Chart 18 shows, more than half of the increase in consumer prices in April and May can be explained by higher vehicle prices, along with a rebound in pandemic-affected service prices (airfares, hotels, and event admissions). Outside those sectors, the level of the CPI remains below its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 19). Chart 19Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Unwinding Of "Base Effects"   Chart 20"Supercore" Inflation Measures Remain Well Contained "Supercore" Inflation Measures Remain Well Contained "Supercore" Inflation Measures Remain Well Contained More refined measures of underlying inflation such as the trimmed-mean CPI, median CPI, and sticky price CPI are all running well below their official core CPI counterpart (Chart 20). While certain components of the CPI basket, such as residential rental payments, are likely to exhibit higher inflation in the months ahead, others such as vehicle and food prices will see lower inflation, and perhaps even outright deflation. Slower Chinese Credit Growth Should Temper Commodity Inflation Chart 21Chinese Credit Growth And Metal Prices Move Together Chinese Credit Growth And Metal Prices Move Together Chinese Credit Growth And Metal Prices Move Together Chinese credit growth and base metals prices are strongly correlated (Chart 21). We do not expect the Chinese authorities to embark on a new deleveraging campaign. Credit growth has already fallen back to 11%, which is close to the prior bottom reached in late-2018. Nevertheless, to the extent that changes in Chinese credit growth affect commodity prices with a lag of about six months, metals prices could struggle to maintain altitude over the summer months. China’s plan to release metal reserves into the market could further dampen prices. We remain short the global copper ETF (COPX) relative to the global energy ETF (IXC) in our trade recommendations. The trade is up 18.4% since we initiated on May 27, 2021. We will close this trade if it reaches our profit target of 30%. Bank Shares Are A Better Hedge Against Inflation Than TIPS We have been overweight TIPS in our view matrix. However, with 5-year/5-year forward breakevens trading near pre-pandemic levels, any near-term upside for inflation expectations is limited (Chart 22). As such, we are downgrading TIPS from overweight to neutral in our fixed-income recommendations. Investors looking to hedge inflation risk should consider bank shares. Our baseline view is that the 10-year Treasury yield will rise to about 1.9% by the end of the year. If inflation fails to come down as fast as we anticipate, bond yields would increase even more than that. Chart 23 shows that banks almost always outperform the S&P 500 when bond yields are rising. Chart 22Limited Near-Term Upside For Inflation Expectations Limited Near-Term Upside For Inflation Expectations Limited Near-Term Upside For Inflation Expectations Chart 23Bank Shares Thrive in A Rising Yield Environment Bank Shares Thrive in A Rising Yield Environment Bank Shares Thrive in A Rising Yield Environment   Banks are also cheap. US banks trade at 12.2-times forward earnings compared with 21.9-times for the S&P 500. Non-US banks trade at 10-times forward earnings compared to 16.4-times for the MSCI ACW ex-US index. Finally, we like gold as a long-term inflation hedge. We would go long gold in our structural trade recommendations if the price were to fall to $1700/ounce. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Special Trade Recommendations Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Current MacroQuant Model Scores Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet Don’t Sweat US Inflation…Just Yet

Feature This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions in developed market countries. The surging Monitors are all sending a similar message: tighter global monetary policy is necessary because of above-trend economic growth, intensifying inflation pressur­­es and booming financial markets (Charts 1A & 1B). Chart 1ATightening Pressures … Tightening Pressures... Tightening Pressures... Chart 1B… Everywhere ...Everywhere ...Everywhere The Monitors are pointing to a continuation of the cyclical rise in global bond yields seen since mid-2020, justifying our recommended below-benchmark stance on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The driver of the next leg upward in yields, however, is shifting from growth and inflation expectations to monetary policy expectations. The Fed is starting to slowly prepare markets for the next US tightening cycle, which is already putting flattening pressure on the US Treasury curve and creating more two-way risk for the US dollar over the next 6-12 months. The timing and pace of rate hikes discounted by markets varies across countries, however, creating interesting opportunities for currency pairs, via changing interest rate differentials, away from the US dollar crosses. An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data which have historically been correlated to changes in monetary policy. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure similar things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. We have constructed Monitors for ten developed market countries: the US, the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. A rising trend for each Monitor indicates growing pressures for central banks to tighten policy, and vice versa. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators (equity prices, corporate credit spreads, etc). The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates. Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar. We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Chart 2AThe Surging CB Monitors …. The Surging CB Monitors... The Surging CB Monitors... Chart 2B… Suggest More Upside For Bond Yields ...Suggesting Bond Yields Should Creep Higher ...Suggesting Bond Yields Should Creep Higher In each edition of the Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a “non-standard” chart that shows an interesting correlation between the Monitors and a financial market variable. In this latest report, we show how the relationship between the Monitors and our 24-Month Discounters, which measure that amount of rate hikes/cuts discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves over the next two years. We have also added a new Appendix Table that shows the so-called “liftoff dates” (the date when a first full rate hike is discounted in OIS curves), the cumulative amount of rate hikes expected to the end of 2024, and the valuation of each country’s currency on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. We’ve ranked the countries in the table by liftoff dates, thus providing a handy reference to see how markets are judging the order with which central banks will begin the next monetary policy tightening cycle. Fed Monitor: A Clear Signal Our Fed Monitor has been climbing steadily, uninterrupted, for 13 consecutive months, driven by the combination of strong US growth, sharply higher inflation and booming financial markets (Chart 3A). The message from the highly elevated level of the indicator is clear – the Fed should begin the process of unwinding the massive monetary policy accomodation put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this week’s FOMC meeting, the Fed delivered a mildly hawkish surprise by pulling forward the projected timing of “liftoff” (the first fed funds rate hike) from 2024 to 2023. The timing and pace of future Fed tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment”. We see that happening by the end of 2022, which is a bit ahead of the Fed’s own projections for the unemployment rate. The US OIS curve now discounts liftoff near the end of 2022 (see Appendix Table 1), which is now more in line with our own view that the Fed will begin tapering next January and begin rate hikes in December 20221. US economic growth momentum has likely peaked in Q2, but will remain solid in the latter half of 2021. Most of the nation has lifted the remaining pandemic restrictions on activity after a succesful vaccination program, and fiscal policy is still providing a boost to growth. The Fed’s updated economic projections call for real GDP growth to reach 7% this year, 3.4% in 2022 and 2.4% in 2023. The Fed’s assumption is trend GDP growth is still only 1.8%, thus the central bank now expects three consecutive years of above-trend growth. Unsurprisingly, the Fed is forecasting headline PCE inflation to stay above the Fed’s 2% target for all three years (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor Chart 3BIs This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the growth component, although the inflation and financial components have also risen significantly (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor has typically been negatively correlated to the momentum of the US dollar, which has always been more of a counter-cyclical currency that weakens in good economic times. A more hawkish path for US interest rates could eventually give a sustainable lift to the greenback, but for now, the currency will be caught in a tug of war between shifting Fed expectations and robust global growth over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3CBooming Growth Supporting USD Weakness Booming Growth Supporting USD Weakness Booming Growth Supporting USD Weakness We continue to recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios, with markets still pricing in a pace of Fed tightening that appears too conservative (Chart 3D). Chart 3DNot Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced Not Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced Not Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced The Fed’s mildly hawkish surprise this week generated a signficant flattening of the US Treasury curve, with the spread between 5-year and 30-year US yields narrowing by a whopping 20bps. We are closing our two recommeded yield curve trades in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy tactical trade portfolio, which were positioned more to earn near-term carry in a stable curve environment that has now changed with the Fed injecting volatility back into the bond market. BoE Monitor: More Hawkish Surprises Coming Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has spiked higher, fueled by a rapid recovery of UK growth alongside a pickup in inflation pressures (Chart 4A). The BoE has already responded by slowing the pace of its asset purchases in May, and we expect more tapering announcements over the next 6-12 months. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 4B). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUpside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? Upside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? Upside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? The recent decision by the UK government to delay “Freedom Day”, when all remaining COVID-19 restrictions would be lifted, into July because of the spread of the Delta virus variant represents a potential near-term setback to UK growth momentum. The bigger picture, however, still points to an economy benefitting far more from the earlier success of the vaccination program. Consumer confidence remains resilient, while business confidence – and investment intentions – has taken a notable turn higher as well. The housing market has also started to heat up, with house price inflation accelerating. The backdrop still remains one of above-potential UK growth over the next 12-24 months. Within the BoE Monitor sub-components, the economic and financial elements stand out as having the biggest moves over the past year (Chart 4C). Momentum in the British pound is positively correlated to our BoE Monitor. As the central bank moves incrementally moves towards more tapering and eventual rate hikes, the currency, which remains moderately undervalued on a PPP basis (see Appendix Table 1), should be well supported. Chart 4CAll BoE Monitor Components Are Rising All BoE Monitor Components Are Rising All BoE Monitor Components Are Rising The UK OIS curve currently discounts BoE liftoff in May 2023, with 57bps of cumulative rate hikes expected by the end of 2024. We see risks of the central bank moving sooner than the market on liftoff, with a rate hike in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2022 more likely. The Gilt market is vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE with so few rate hikes discounted (Chart 4D). For now, we are maintaining a neutral stance on UK Gilts, given the BoE’s history of talking hawkishly but failing to deliver, but we do have them on “downgrade watch.” Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Growth? Yes. Inflation? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has moved sharply higher as more of the euro area has emerged from pandemic restrictions (Chart 5A). Yet the central bank is not sending any of the kinds of moderately hawkish signals coming from the Fed and other central banks. The ECB is still a long way from such a move. While growth has clearly recovered strongly, the overall euro area unemployment rate remains high at 8% and wage growth remains anemic in most countries. There is the potential for upside growth surprises coming from fiscal policy, with the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funds set to be disributed by the EU later this year. Yet even with this fiscal boost, most of the euro area is likely to remain far enough away from full employment allowing the ECB to stay dovish for longer. While headine euro area inflation reached the ECB’s 2% target in May, core inflaton remained subdued at a mere 0.9% (Chart 5B). Market based measures of inflation expectations are also well below the ECB target, with the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate only at 1.6%. Such “boring” inflation readings – even after a surge in commodity price fueled inflation in many other countries – proves that there remains ample spare capacity in the euro area economy and labor markets. The ECB is under no pressure to turn less dovish anytime soon. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BStill Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe Still Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe Still Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe The lack of an immediate inflation threat can also be seen in the sub-components of our ECB Monitor, where the inflation elements have clearly lagged the growth upturn (Chart 5C). From a currency perspective, a growth fueled surge in the ECB Monitor is usually enough to provide a boost to the euro. Yet, without an inflation trigger, the likelihood of the ECB dialing back bond purchases, let alone raising interest rates, is low. This suggests any rally in the euro from current levels will be a slow adjustment towards fair value. Chart 5CInflation Components Lagging Inflation Components Lagging Inflation Components Lagging Currently, the European OIS curve is discounting an initial ECB rate hike in October 2023, with only 27bps of rate hikes expected by the end of 2024 - one of the most dovish pricings in the G10 (see Appendix Table 1). Even though our ECB Monitor suggests that European bond markets should be pricing in more rate hikes (Chart 5D), that is unlikely to happen with the ECB messaging a dovish stance and with the central bank set to release a review of its inflation strategy later this year. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on European government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Chart 5DMarkets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message Markets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message Markets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message BoJ Monitor: Deflation Is Still A Threat Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has recovered from deeply depressed pandemic lows to just above the zero line (Chart 6A). This is welcome news for the BoJ, that kept interest rates and asset purchases unchanged at yesterday's meeting, but recognized the need for additional stimulus via "green" loans.The reading from the central bank monitor is also consistent with a Japanese economy that requires more accommodative monetary policy vis-à-vis the rest of the G10. The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new COVID-19 cases remains at the highest level per capita in developed Asia. Meanwhile, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the developed world and a third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector. This pins the Japanese recovery well behind that of other G10 countries. The IMF expects the output gap in Japan to close sometime in 2023, but it is worth noting that there are few signs of inflationary pressures that would signal such an outcome. Both core and headline Japanese prices are deflating in a world where the risks are tilted towards an inflation overshoot (Chart 6B). The unemployment rate has rolled over, but still remains a ways from pre-pandemic lows. Savings in Japan are also surging, short-circuiting the sort of positive feedback loop that will generate genuine inflation. Chart 6AThe BoJ Monitor The BoJ Monitor The BoJ Monitor Chart 6BDeflation Is Still A Threat In Japan Deflation Is Still A Threat In Japan Deflation Is Still A Threat In Japan The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor suggest that the growth component has seen steady improvement over the last few months, while the financial component has rolled over (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the underperformance of Japanese equities in recent months, after a spectacular rally late last year. However, weakness in the yen has also allowed financial conditions to remain relatively easy. The yen is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. When the central bank monitor is improving (both in Japan and globally), traders tend to use the yen to fund carry trades elsewhere, which weakens the currency. When risk aversion sets in, these trades are unwound, and the yen rallies. This year, the yen has weakened in sympathy with improving global growth, suggesting this playbook remains very much relevant. Chart 6CModest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components Modest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components Modest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components The strength of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should rise towards the upper bound of the -25bps to +25bps band. However, the BoJ will stand firm in maintaining easy monetary policy, as expected by market participants (Chart 6D). This policy-induced stability makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising, a key reason for our overweight stance on JGBs. Chart 6DNo Change In Policy Expected No Change In Policy Expected No Change In Policy Expected BoC Monitor: Strong Growth = Early Tightening Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has shown an impressive rebound and currently displays the highest figure among our Central Bank Monitors (Chart 7A). With a growing number of central banks contemplating a less dovish turn, Canada will be in the group of developed countries that hikes policy rates first. The Canadian economy started the year gaining significant positive momentum, with Q1 GDP growing by +5.6% (annualized quarter-on-quarter rate of change). The Q2 picture is a bit more mixed because of another wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. However, thanks to the rapid improvement in the pace of vaccinations after a botched initial rollout, Canadian household consumption and confidence have notably accelerated. Business confidence and investment intentions have also picked up solidly according the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey. The job market also gained significant momentum, and as the lockdown measures gradually ease, workers who have been laid off during the pandemic will return to work. Therefore, the improvement in labor market will continue. A rapidly closing output gap means that the current surge in inflation may endure after the base effect comparisons to 2020 fade (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Canadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Canadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Looking at the components of our BoC Monitor, all three factors have clearly rebounded but the growth factor has shown the most impressive move (Chart 7C). Amid the broad economic factors that have improved, booming house prices – a primary cause for the BoC’s decision to taper its asset purchases back in April - have caused the growth factor to rebound quickly. Chart 7CA Positive Story For The CAD A Positive Story For The CAD A Positive Story For The CAD The Canadian OIS curve is pricing in BoC liftoff in August 2022 (Appendix Table 1), with a sooner liftoff only expected in Norway and New Zealand. We see risks that the BoC moves much sooner than that next year. A quicker liftoff which will put additional upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, both against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis, particularly if Canadian export demand remains solid and oil prices continue to climb, as our commodity strategists expect. Our PPP model suggests that the Loonie is close to fair value, so valuation is not yet an impediment to additional strength in the Canadian dollar. Looking at the longer-term horizon, the OIS curve is discounting four BoC rate hikes within the next 24 months, and it is not clear that will be enough to cool off the red-hot Canadian housing market – currently the biggest threat to inflation stability in Canada (Chart 7D). Given that relatively hawkish view, the more optimistic growth outlook, and the high-beta status of Canadian government bonds, we continue to recommend an underweight position on Canadian government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio. Chart 7DCanadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced Canadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced Canadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced RBA Monitor: Waiting For Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has continued its strong rebound since the trough in 2020 and is now at all-time highs, suggesting heightened pressure on the RBA to tighten policy (Chart 8A). This rebound comes amid dovish messaging from an RBA that is waiting on signs of an inflation turnaround. The RBA’s patience makes sense when you consider measures of slack in the economy, such as output and unemployment gaps (Chart 8B). While the IMF does expect the output gap to tighten up significantly in 2021, it does not expect it to be closed even by 2022. Looking to capacity in the labor market, the unemployment rate has just returned to pre-COVID levels. However, the labor market will need to run “hot” for a sustained period of time to push up wage inflation, which remains deep in the doldrums according to the RBA’s wage price index. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMuted Inflationary Pressures Down Under BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight A look at the components of our RBA Monitor explains the RBA’s dovishness in the face of the tightening pressure indicated by the “headline” figure (Chart 8C). The rebound in the Monitor can be attributed almost entirely to the growth and financial components, which are driven in turn by improving confidence and an expanding RBA balance sheet. However, the inflation component, which has barely budged off its 2020 low, best captures the metrics that the RBA is watching. Importantly, the RBA will need to see sustainable domestically-generated inflation before it can begin to tolerate a stronger AUD which would otherwise imperil tradable goods inflation. With the AUD only slightly expensive on our PPP models, the RBA does not have much of a “valuation cushion” to play with in terms of delivering a hawkish surprise (Appendix Table 1). ​​​​​​ Chart 8CGrowth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Growth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Growth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Chart 8D shows that market pricing for hikes over the next two years has remained mostly flat in 2021 in the face of persistently dovish messaging from the RBA. Our view, as expressed in a recent update of our “RBA checklist”2, is that fundamental factors will force the RBA to remain dovish, making Australian government debt an attractive overweight within global government bond portfolios. Chart 8DMarkets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia Markets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia Markets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia RBNZ Monitor: Heating Up Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has rebounded to levels last seen in 2017, largely on the back of improving growth (Chart 9A). Success at containing the virus has allowed the New Zealand economy to beat growth expectations for Q1/2021, effectively pulling forward future policy tightening. Measures of capacity utilization in New Zealand will likely respond accordingly to improved growth prospects, with the output gap likely to close even faster than projected by the IMF (Chart 9B). Measures of core and headline inflation remain within the RBNZ’s 1-3% target range, with the Bank expecting headline inflation to shoot up to 2.6% in Q2/2021 before settling around the midpoint of the range. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BThe New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack The New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack The New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack Looking at the individual components of our RBNZ Monitor, the rebound in the overall indicator is clearly a growth story (Chart 9C). This component of our Monitor also captures the effect of accelerating house prices, which have become a direct concern for RBNZ policy. According to the bank’s own projections, house prices will post a whopping 29% growth rate in the second quarter. With issues of housing affordability at the forefront, and political pressure mounting, the RBNZ will likely be forced to turn less dovish soon, even if it comes with unwanted strength in the NZD. However, the currency is among the most expensive on our PPP models (Appendix Table 1), which means that a reversion to fair value could counteract upward pressure from a hawkish RBNZ. Chart 9CThe RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices The RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices The RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices Historically, our RBNZ Monitor has correlated well with market pricing embedded in the OIS curve (Chart 9D). In 2021, however, market expectations have far outstripped the signal from our central bank monitor, meaning that markets believe the RBNZ is more focused on growth factors rather than the overall picture, a view that we largely agree with. Chart 9DMarkets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Markets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Markets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Even after the Fed’s hawkish surprise at this week’s meeting, we still believe that the RBNZ will be among the first to taper its balance sheet and move towards normalizing policy. Stay underweight New Zealand sovereign debt. Riksbank Monitor: Watch For An Upside Surprise Our Riksbank Monitor has posted a strong rebound, reaching all-time highs (Chart 10A). This rebound has come on the back of a robust economic recovery. Meanwhile, monetary policy has been accommodative with the Riksbank holding the repo rate at 0% while expanding the size of its balance sheet. Capacity utilization, which in Sweden did not fall nearly as much as in other developed economies, is looking set to recover in the coming years (Chart 10B). Although headline CPI shot past the 2% target, driven by fuel and food prices, underlying core inflation remains stable. The Riksbank expects inflation to fall due to less favorable year-over-year base effects, and only sustainably climb to the 2% level by mid-2024. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BThe Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... The Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... The Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... Breaking down the rise in the Riksbank Monitor, we can see that it is driven overwhelmingly by the growth component (Chart 10C). This, in turn, has been driven by surging PMIs and soaring business and consumer confidence. Our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy have pointed out that the small export-sensitive economy will be poised to benefit from an upturn in the global industrial cycle3. While Sweden did arguably botch its COVID-19 response last year, it is catching up, with 42% of Swedes having already received their first dose of the vaccine. The case for the SEK is strong, given that the currency is a high-beta play on global growth and is also quite undervalued according to our PPP models (Appendix Table 1). Market expectations are that the Riksbank will lag others in normalizing policy, putting off a hike until September 2023. The Riksbank baseline is a flat repo rate out to Q2/2024 but an earlier rate hike is well within the “uncertainty bands” of the Riksbank’s forecast. Such a scenario may manifest if growth and inflation surprise to the upside. Chart 10C...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth ...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth ...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth Given the positive economic backdrop and the financial stability risks posed by rising house prices and household indebtedness, we believe market pricing is too dovish relative to the actual pressure on the Riksbank to tighten policy (Chart 10D). This makes Swedish sovereign debt an attractive underweight candidate in global government bond portfolios. Chart 10DThe OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank The OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank The OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank Norges Bank Monitor: The First To Hike Our Norges Bank Monitor has risen sharply from the pandemic lows and now signals that emergency monetary settings are no longer appropriate for the Norwegian economy (Chart 11A). Consistent with this message, Norges Bank governor, Øystein Olsen, suggested this week that a rate hike will occur in September, with possibly another hike by December of this year. Norway has handled the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, it has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was also prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, monetary policy was highly accommodative, with the Norges Bank cutting interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. Fiscal stimulus will remain relatively accommodative, as Norway will register one of the smallest fiscal drags in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022. Rapid improvement in the labor market also continues. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate has fallen to 3.3%. On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024. These developments have set the Norwegian economy on a sustainable recovery path. This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3% (Chart 11B). Meanwhile, while core inflation at 2% is decelerating, the slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mindset has not taken root in Norway. Chart 11AThe Norges Bank Monitor The Norges Bank Monitor The Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BInflation Is Well Anchored In Norway Inflation Is Well Anchored In Norway Inflation Is Well Anchored In Norway The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth and inflation components, the former surging to its highest level in two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 11C). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. The Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the exchange rate is an important valve for adjusting financial conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the NOK cushioned the crash in oil prices last year. This year, a recovery has benefitted the krone. The Norwegian krone also remains undervalued according to our PPP models. Chart 11CThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates A positive correlation also exists between the Monitor and expected rate hikes by the Norges bank (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should either coincide or lead the improvement in global bond yields. From a portfolio perspective, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates SNB Monitor: Green Shoots Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has recovered smartly, and is at the highest level in over a decade (Chart 12A). This is a marked turnaround for a country that has had negative interest rates since 2015. It also raises the prospect that Switzerland may be finally able to escape its liquidity trap, allowing the SNB to modestly adjust monetary policy upward. The Swiss economy has recovered swiftly. As of May, the manufacturing PMI was at 69.9, the highest reading since the start of the series. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades. This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvements in private sector demand. The unemployment rate in Switzerland has rolled over, which should begin to provide an anchor to wage growth. Both core and headline inflation are also recovering, albeit at a slow pace (Chart 12B). Import prices in Switzerland will also rise, driven by the relative weakness of the currency. This is important because for a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation. Chart 12AThe SNB Monitor The SNB Monitor The SNB Monitor Chart 12BSwiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Swiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Swiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, the growth component has been in the driver’s seat (Chart 12C). But encouragingly, both the inflation and financial component have also been grinding higher. This improvement suggests that the weakness in the franc, especially amidst global dollar weakness, has been a welcome jolt to the economy. Like the yen, the CHF is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. Most of the time, the relationship with the monitor is inverse, corresponding to investors using the Swiss franc for carry trades when global conditions improve. Similar to the yen this year, the CHF has also weakened in sympathy with improving global growth. Should global growth see a setback in the near term, the franc will benefit. Chart 12CGrowth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland Growth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland Growth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland The SNB Monitor is more accurate at capturing expected policy changes by the SNB. This means that yields in Switzerland could see more meaningful upside (Chart 12D). That said, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low liquidity. Chart 12DCould The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Could The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Could The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Appendix Table 1 Table 1Appendix Table 1 BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight Footnotes 1 See BCA Research US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden", dated May 3, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Feature This week, we present the BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, detailing our set of proprietary indicators measuring the cyclical forces influencing future monetary policy decisions in developed market countries. The surging Monitors are all sending a similar message: tighter global monetary policy is necessary because of above-trend economic growth, intensifying inflation pressur­­es and booming financial markets (Charts 1A & 1B). Chart 1ATightening Pressures … Tightening Pressures... Tightening Pressures... Chart 1B… Everywhere ...Everywhere ...Everywhere The Monitors are pointing to a continuation of the cyclical rise in global bond yields seen since mid-2020, justifying our recommended below-benchmark stance on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The driver of the next leg upward in yields, however, is shifting from growth and inflation expectations to monetary policy expectations. The Fed is starting to slowly prepare markets for the next US tightening cycle, which is already putting flattening pressure on the US Treasury curve and creating more two-way risk for the US dollar over the next 6-12 months. The timing and pace of rate hikes discounted by markets varies across countries, however, creating interesting opportunities for currency pairs, via changing interest rate differentials, away from the US dollar crosses. An Overview Of The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors The BCA Research Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that include data which have historically been correlated to changes in monetary policy. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure similar things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, financial conditions). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. We have constructed Monitors for ten developed market countries: the US, the euro area, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. A rising trend for each Monitor indicates growing pressures for central banks to tighten policy, and vice versa. Within each country, we have aggregated the various data series within the Monitors into sub-groupings covering economic, inflation and financial conditions indicators (equity prices, corporate credit spreads, etc). The latter is critical as policymakers have increasingly realized the importance of financial conditions as a key transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the real economy. The weightings of each bucket vary by country, based on the strength of historical correlations of the Monitors to actual changes in policy interest rates. Disaggregating the Monitors this way offers an additional layer of analysis by helping describe central bank reaction functions (i.e. some central banks respond more strongly to economic growth, others to inflation or financial conditions). Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the major developed markets (Charts 2A & 2B). The Monitors do also exhibit steady correlations to currencies, although not in the same consistent fashion as with bond yields. For example, the Fed Monitor is typically negatively correlated to the US dollar, while the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor is positively correlated to the Australian dollar. We present charts showing the links between the Monitors and bond yields (and foreign exchange rates) in the individual country sections of this Chartbook. Chart 2AThe Surging CB Monitors …. The Surging CB Monitors... The Surging CB Monitors... Chart 2B… Suggest More Upside For Bond Yields ...Suggesting Bond Yields Should Creep Higher ...Suggesting Bond Yields Should Creep Higher In each edition of the Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a “non-standard” chart that shows an interesting correlation between the Monitors and a financial market variable. In this latest report, we show how the relationship between the Monitors and our 24-Month Discounters, which measure that amount of rate hikes/cuts discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves over the next two years. We have also added a new Appendix Table that shows the so-called “liftoff dates” (the date when a first full rate hike is discounted in OIS curves), the cumulative amount of rate hikes expected to the end of 2024, and the valuation of each country’s currency on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. We’ve ranked the countries in the table by liftoff dates, thus providing a handy reference to see how markets are judging the order with which central banks will begin the next monetary policy tightening cycle. Fed Monitor: A Clear Signal Our Fed Monitor has been climbing steadily, uninterrupted, for 13 consecutive months, driven by the combination of strong US growth, sharply higher inflation and booming financial markets (Chart 3A). The message from the highly elevated level of the indicator is clear – the Fed should begin the process of unwinding the massive monetary policy accomodation put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this week’s FOMC meeting, the Fed delivered a mildly hawkish surprise by pulling forward the projected timing of “liftoff” (the first fed funds rate hike) from 2024 to 2023. The timing and pace of future Fed tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment”. We see that happening by the end of 2022, which is a bit ahead of the Fed’s own projections for the unemployment rate. The US OIS curve now discounts liftoff near the end of 2022 (see Appendix Table 1), which is now more in line with our own view that the Fed will begin tapering next January and begin rate hikes in December 20221. US economic growth momentum has likely peaked in Q2, but will remain solid in the latter half of 2021. Most of the nation has lifted the remaining pandemic restrictions on activity after a succesful vaccination program, and fiscal policy is still providing a boost to growth. The Fed’s updated economic projections call for real GDP growth to reach 7% this year, 3.4% in 2022 and 2.4% in 2023. The Fed’s assumption is trend GDP growth is still only 1.8%, thus the central bank now expects three consecutive years of above-trend growth. Unsurprisingly, the Fed is forecasting headline PCE inflation to stay above the Fed’s 2% target for all three years (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor Chart 3BIs This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? Is This Really 'Transitory' Inflation? The recovery in the Fed Monitor has been led primarily by the growth component, although the inflation and financial components have also risen significantly (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor has typically been negatively correlated to the momentum of the US dollar, which has always been more of a counter-cyclical currency that weakens in good economic times. A more hawkish path for US interest rates could eventually give a sustainable lift to the greenback, but for now, the currency will be caught in a tug of war between shifting Fed expectations and robust global growth over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3CBooming Growth Supporting USD Weakness Booming Growth Supporting USD Weakness Booming Growth Supporting USD Weakness We continue to recommend an underweight strategic allocation to US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios, with markets still pricing in a pace of Fed tightening that appears too conservative (Chart 3D). Chart 3DNot Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced Not Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced Not Enough Fed Rate Hikes Priced The Fed’s mildly hawkish surprise this week generated a signficant flattening of the US Treasury curve, with the spread between 5-year and 30-year US yields narrowing by a whopping 20bps. We are closing our two recommeded yield curve trades in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy tactical trade portfolio, which were positioned more to earn near-term carry in a stable curve environment that has now changed with the Fed injecting volatility back into the bond market. BoE Monitor: More Hawkish Surprises Coming Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has spiked higher, fueled by a rapid recovery of UK growth alongside a pickup in inflation pressures (Chart 4A). The BoE has already responded by slowing the pace of its asset purchases in May, and we expect more tapering announcements over the next 6-12 months. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 4B). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUpside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? Upside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? Upside UK Inflation Surprises Ahead? The recent decision by the UK government to delay “Freedom Day”, when all remaining COVID-19 restrictions would be lifted, into July because of the spread of the Delta virus variant represents a potential near-term setback to UK growth momentum. The bigger picture, however, still points to an economy benefitting far more from the earlier success of the vaccination program. Consumer confidence remains resilient, while business confidence – and investment intentions – has taken a notable turn higher as well. The housing market has also started to heat up, with house price inflation accelerating. The backdrop still remains one of above-potential UK growth over the next 12-24 months. Within the BoE Monitor sub-components, the economic and financial elements stand out as having the biggest moves over the past year (Chart 4C). Momentum in the British pound is positively correlated to our BoE Monitor. As the central bank moves incrementally moves towards more tapering and eventual rate hikes, the currency, which remains moderately undervalued on a PPP basis (see Appendix Table 1), should be well supported. Chart 4CAll BoE Monitor Components Are Rising All BoE Monitor Components Are Rising All BoE Monitor Components Are Rising The UK OIS curve currently discounts BoE liftoff in May 2023, with 57bps of cumulative rate hikes expected by the end of 2024. We see risks of the central bank moving sooner than the market on liftoff, with a rate hike in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2022 more likely. The Gilt market is vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE with so few rate hikes discounted (Chart 4D). For now, we are maintaining a neutral stance on UK Gilts, given the BoE’s history of talking hawkishly but failing to deliver, but we do have them on “downgrade watch.” Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Growth? Yes. Inflation? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has moved sharply higher as more of the euro area has emerged from pandemic restrictions (Chart 5A). Yet the central bank is not sending any of the kinds of moderately hawkish signals coming from the Fed and other central banks. The ECB is still a long way from such a move. While growth has clearly recovered strongly, the overall euro area unemployment rate remains high at 8% and wage growth remains anemic in most countries. There is the potential for upside growth surprises coming from fiscal policy, with the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funds set to be disributed by the EU later this year. Yet even with this fiscal boost, most of the euro area is likely to remain far enough away from full employment allowing the ECB to stay dovish for longer. While headine euro area inflation reached the ECB’s 2% target in May, core inflaton remained subdued at a mere 0.9% (Chart 5B). Market based measures of inflation expectations are also well below the ECB target, with the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate only at 1.6%. Such “boring” inflation readings – even after a surge in commodity price fueled inflation in many other countries – proves that there remains ample spare capacity in the euro area economy and labor markets. The ECB is under no pressure to turn less dovish anytime soon. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BStill Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe Still Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe Still Lots Of Spare Capacity In Europe The lack of an immediate inflation threat can also be seen in the sub-components of our ECB Monitor, where the inflation elements have clearly lagged the growth upturn (Chart 5C). From a currency perspective, a growth fueled surge in the ECB Monitor is usually enough to provide a boost to the euro. Yet, without an inflation trigger, the likelihood of the ECB dialing back bond purchases, let alone raising interest rates, is low. This suggests any rally in the euro from current levels will be a slow adjustment towards fair value. Chart 5CInflation Components Lagging Inflation Components Lagging Inflation Components Lagging Currently, the European OIS curve is discounting an initial ECB rate hike in October 2023, with only 27bps of rate hikes expected by the end of 2024 - one of the most dovish pricings in the G10 (see Appendix Table 1). Even though our ECB Monitor suggests that European bond markets should be pricing in more rate hikes (Chart 5D), that is unlikely to happen with the ECB messaging a dovish stance and with the central bank set to release a review of its inflation strategy later this year. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on European government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Chart 5DMarkets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message Markets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message Markets Hear The ECB's Dovish Message   BoJ Monitor: Deflation Is Still A Threat Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has recovered from deeply depressed pandemic lows to just above the zero line (Chart 6A). This is welcome news for the BoJ, that kept interest rates and asset purchases unchanged at yesterday's meeting, but recognized the need for additional stimulus via "green" loans.The reading from the central bank monitor is also consistent with a Japanese economy that requires more accommodative monetary policy vis-à-vis the rest of the G10. The Japanese economy remains under siege from the pandemic. The number of new COVID-19 cases remains at the highest level per capita in developed Asia. Meanwhile, the manufacturing PMI is the lowest in the developed world and a third wave of infections has also crippled the services sector. This pins the Japanese recovery well behind that of other G10 countries. The IMF expects the output gap in Japan to close sometime in 2023, but it is worth noting that there are few signs of inflationary pressures that would signal such an outcome. Both core and headline Japanese prices are deflating in a world where the risks are tilted towards an inflation overshoot (Chart 6B). The unemployment rate has rolled over, but still remains a ways from pre-pandemic lows. Savings in Japan are also surging, short-circuiting the sort of positive feedback loop that will generate genuine inflation. Chart 6AThe BoJ Monitor The BoJ Monitor The BoJ Monitor Chart 6BDeflation Is Still A Threat In Japan Deflation Is Still A Threat In Japan Deflation Is Still A Threat In Japan The individual elements of the BoJ Monitor suggest that the growth component has seen steady improvement over the last few months, while the financial component has rolled over (Chart 6C). The latter reflects the underperformance of Japanese equities in recent months, after a spectacular rally late last year. However, weakness in the yen has also allowed financial conditions to remain relatively easy. The yen is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. When the central bank monitor is improving (both in Japan and globally), traders tend to use the yen to fund carry trades elsewhere, which weakens the currency. When risk aversion sets in, these trades are unwound, and the yen rallies. This year, the yen has weakened in sympathy with improving global growth, suggesting this playbook remains very much relevant. Chart 6CModest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components Modest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components Modest Improvement In The Growth And Inflation Components The strength of our BoJ Monitor indicates that Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields should rise towards the upper bound of the -25bps to +25bps band. However, the BoJ will stand firm in maintaining easy monetary policy, as expected by market participants (Chart 6D). This policy-induced stability makes JGBs a defensive bond market when US Treasury yields are rising, a key reason for our overweight stance on JGBs. Chart 6DNo Change In Policy Expected No Change In Policy Expected No Change In Policy Expected BoC Monitor: Strong Growth = Early Tightening Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has shown an impressive rebound and currently displays the highest figure among our Central Bank Monitors (Chart 7A). With a growing number of central banks contemplating a less dovish turn, Canada will be in the group of developed countries that hikes policy rates first. The Canadian economy started the year gaining significant positive momentum, with Q1 GDP growing by +5.6% (annualized quarter-on-quarter rate of change). The Q2 picture is a bit more mixed because of another wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. However, thanks to the rapid improvement in the pace of vaccinations after a botched initial rollout, Canadian household consumption and confidence have notably accelerated. Business confidence and investment intentions have also picked up solidly according the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey. The job market also gained significant momentum, and as the lockdown measures gradually ease, workers who have been laid off during the pandemic will return to work. Therefore, the improvement in labor market will continue. A rapidly closing output gap means that the current surge in inflation may endure after the base effect comparisons to 2020 fade (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BCanadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Canadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Canadian Inflation Pressures Intensifying Looking at the components of our BoC Monitor, all three factors have clearly rebounded but the growth factor has shown the most impressive move (Chart 7C). Amid the broad economic factors that have improved, booming house prices – a primary cause for the BoC’s decision to taper its asset purchases back in April - have caused the growth factor to rebound quickly. Chart 7CA Positive Story For The CAD A Positive Story For The CAD A Positive Story For The CAD The Canadian OIS curve is pricing in BoC liftoff in August 2022 (Appendix Table 1), with a sooner liftoff only expected in Norway and New Zealand. We see risks that the BoC moves much sooner than that next year. A quicker liftoff which will put additional upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, both against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis, particularly if Canadian export demand remains solid and oil prices continue to climb, as our commodity strategists expect. Our PPP model suggests that the Loonie is close to fair value, so valuation is not yet an impediment to additional strength in the Canadian dollar. Looking at the longer-term horizon, the OIS curve is discounting four BoC rate hikes within the next 24 months, and it is not clear that will be enough to cool off the red-hot Canadian housing market – currently the biggest threat to inflation stability in Canada (Chart 7D). Given that relatively hawkish view, the more optimistic growth outlook, and the high-beta status of Canadian government bonds, we continue to recommend an underweight position on Canadian government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio. Chart 7DCanadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced Canadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced Canadian Rate Expectations Look Fairly Priced RBA Monitor: Waiting For Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has continued its strong rebound since the trough in 2020 and is now at all-time highs, suggesting heightened pressure on the RBA to tighten policy (Chart 8A). This rebound comes amid dovish messaging from an RBA that is waiting on signs of an inflation turnaround. The RBA’s patience makes sense when you consider measures of slack in the economy, such as output and unemployment gaps (Chart 8B). While the IMF does expect the output gap to tighten up significantly in 2021, it does not expect it to be closed even by 2022. Looking to capacity in the labor market, the unemployment rate has just returned to pre-COVID levels. However, the labor market will need to run “hot” for a sustained period of time to push up wage inflation, which remains deep in the doldrums according to the RBA’s wage price index. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMuted Inflationary Pressures Down Under BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight A look at the components of our RBA Monitor explains the RBA’s dovishness in the face of the tightening pressure indicated by the “headline” figure (Chart 8C). The rebound in the Monitor can be attributed almost entirely to the growth and financial components, which are driven in turn by improving confidence and an expanding RBA balance sheet. However, the inflation component, which has barely budged off its 2020 low, best captures the metrics that the RBA is watching. Importantly, the RBA will need to see sustainable domestically-generated inflation before it can begin to tolerate a stronger AUD which would otherwise imperil tradable goods inflation. With the AUD only slightly expensive on our PPP models, the RBA does not have much of a “valuation cushion” to play with in terms of delivering a hawkish surprise (Appendix Table 1). ​​​​​​ Chart 8CGrowth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Growth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Growth Factors Are Driving the RBA Monitor Chart 8D shows that market pricing for hikes over the next two years has remained mostly flat in 2021 in the face of persistently dovish messaging from the RBA. Our view, as expressed in a recent update of our “RBA checklist”2, is that fundamental factors will force the RBA to remain dovish, making Australian government debt an attractive overweight within global government bond portfolios. Chart 8DMarkets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia Markets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia Markets Are (Rightly) Looking Through Tightening Pressures In Australia RBNZ Monitor: Heating Up Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has rebounded to levels last seen in 2017, largely on the back of improving growth (Chart 9A). Success at containing the virus has allowed the New Zealand economy to beat growth expectations for Q1/2021, effectively pulling forward future policy tightening. Measures of capacity utilization in New Zealand will likely respond accordingly to improved growth prospects, with the output gap likely to close even faster than projected by the IMF (Chart 9B). Measures of core and headline inflation remain within the RBNZ’s 1-3% target range, with the Bank expecting headline inflation to shoot up to 2.6% in Q2/2021 before settling around the midpoint of the range. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BThe New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack The New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack The New Zealand Economy Is Quickly Working Off Slack Looking at the individual components of our RBNZ Monitor, the rebound in the overall indicator is clearly a growth story (Chart 9C). This component of our Monitor also captures the effect of accelerating house prices, which have become a direct concern for RBNZ policy. According to the bank’s own projections, house prices will post a whopping 29% growth rate in the second quarter. With issues of housing affordability at the forefront, and political pressure mounting, the RBNZ will likely be forced to turn less dovish soon, even if it comes with unwanted strength in the NZD. However, the currency is among the most expensive on our PPP models (Appendix Table 1), which means that a reversion to fair value could counteract upward pressure from a hawkish RBNZ. Chart 9CThe RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices The RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices The RBNZ Will Do Whatever It Takes To Stabilize House Prices Historically, our RBNZ Monitor has correlated well with market pricing embedded in the OIS curve (Chart 9D). In 2021, however, market expectations have far outstripped the signal from our central bank monitor, meaning that markets believe the RBNZ is more focused on growth factors rather than the overall picture, a view that we largely agree with. Chart 9DMarkets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Markets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Markets Expect A Hawkish RBNZ Even after the Fed’s hawkish surprise at this week’s meeting, we still believe that the RBNZ will be among the first to taper its balance sheet and move towards normalizing policy. Stay underweight New Zealand sovereign debt. Riksbank Monitor: Watch For An Upside Surprise Our Riksbank Monitor has posted a strong rebound, reaching all-time highs (Chart 10A). This rebound has come on the back of a robust economic recovery. Meanwhile, monetary policy has been accommodative with the Riksbank holding the repo rate at 0% while expanding the size of its balance sheet. Capacity utilization, which in Sweden did not fall nearly as much as in other developed economies, is looking set to recover in the coming years (Chart 10B). Although headline CPI shot past the 2% target, driven by fuel and food prices, underlying core inflation remains stable. The Riksbank expects inflation to fall due to less favorable year-over-year base effects, and only sustainably climb to the 2% level by mid-2024. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BThe Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... The Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... The Rise In Swedish Inflation Is 'Transitory'... Breaking down the rise in the Riksbank Monitor, we can see that it is driven overwhelmingly by the growth component (Chart 10C). This, in turn, has been driven by surging PMIs and soaring business and consumer confidence. Our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy have pointed out that the small export-sensitive economy will be poised to benefit from an upturn in the global industrial cycle3. While Sweden did arguably botch its COVID-19 response last year, it is catching up, with 42% of Swedes having already received their first dose of the vaccine. The case for the SEK is strong, given that the currency is a high-beta play on global growth and is also quite undervalued according to our PPP models (Appendix Table 1). Market expectations are that the Riksbank will lag others in normalizing policy, putting off a hike until September 2023. The Riksbank baseline is a flat repo rate out to Q2/2024 but an earlier rate hike is well within the “uncertainty bands” of the Riksbank’s forecast. Such a scenario may manifest if growth and inflation surprise to the upside. Chart 10C...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth ...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth ...But The Riksbank Cannot Ignore Explosive Growth Given the positive economic backdrop and the financial stability risks posed by rising house prices and household indebtedness, we believe market pricing is too dovish relative to the actual pressure on the Riksbank to tighten policy (Chart 10D). This makes Swedish sovereign debt an attractive underweight candidate in global government bond portfolios. Chart 10DThe OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank The OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank The OIS Curve Is Pricing In Too Much Dovishness From The Riksbank Norges Bank Monitor: The First To Hike Our Norges Bank Monitor has risen sharply from the pandemic lows and now signals that emergency monetary settings are no longer appropriate for the Norwegian economy (Chart 11A). Consistent with this message, Norges Bank governor, Øystein Olsen, suggested this week that a rate hike will occur in September, with possibly another hike by December of this year. Norway has handled the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, it has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was also prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, monetary policy was highly accommodative, with the Norges Bank cutting interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. Fiscal stimulus will remain relatively accommodative, as Norway will register one of the smallest fiscal drags in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022. Rapid improvement in the labor market also continues. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate has fallen to 3.3%. On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024. These developments have set the Norwegian economy on a sustainable recovery path. This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3% (Chart 11B). Meanwhile, while core inflation at 2% is decelerating, the slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mindset has not taken root in Norway. Chart 11AThe Norges Bank Monitor The Norges Bank Monitor The Norges Bank Monitor Chart 11BInflation Is Well Anchored In Norway Inflation Is Well Anchored In Norway Inflation Is Well Anchored In Norway The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth and inflation components, the former surging to its highest level in two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (Chart 11C). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. The Monitor shows a very tight correlation with the trade-weighted currency, suggesting the exchange rate is an important valve for adjusting financial conditions. As an oil-producing economy, the drop in the NOK cushioned the crash in oil prices last year. This year, a recovery has benefitted the krone. The Norwegian krone also remains undervalued according to our PPP models. Chart 11CThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates A positive correlation also exists between the Monitor and expected rate hikes by the Norges bank (Chart 11D). This suggest yields in Norway should either coincide or lead the improvement in global bond yields. From a portfolio perspective, our default stance is neutral, as the market is thinly traded. Chart 11DThe Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates The Norges Bank Should Hike Rates SNB Monitor: Green Shoots Our Swiss National Bank (SNB) Monitor has recovered smartly, and is at the highest level in over a decade (Chart 12A). This is a marked turnaround for a country that has had negative interest rates since 2015. It also raises the prospect that Switzerland may be finally able to escape its liquidity trap, allowing the SNB to modestly adjust monetary policy upward. The Swiss economy has recovered swiftly. As of May, the manufacturing PMI was at 69.9, the highest reading since the start of the series. If past manufacturing sentiment is prologue, the Swiss economy is about to experience its biggest rebound in decades. This will quell any deflationary fears about domestic conditions in Switzerland and begin to re-anchor inflation expectations upwards. This will also be a very welcome development for the SNB. Inflation dynamics in Switzerland will be particularly beholden to improvements in private sector demand. The unemployment rate in Switzerland has rolled over, which should begin to provide an anchor to wage growth. Both core and headline inflation are also recovering, albeit at a slow pace (Chart 12B). Import prices in Switzerland will also rise, driven by the relative weakness of the currency. This is important because for a small, open economy like Switzerland, the exchange rate often dictates the trend in domestic inflation. Chart 12AThe SNB Monitor The SNB Monitor The SNB Monitor Chart 12BSwiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Swiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Swiss Inflation Not Out Of The Woods Looking at the components of our SNB Monitor, the growth component has been in the driver’s seat (Chart 12C). But encouragingly, both the inflation and financial component have also been grinding higher. This improvement suggests that the weakness in the franc, especially amidst global dollar weakness, has been a welcome jolt to the economy. Like the yen, the CHF is a safe-haven currency, making the relationship with the central bank monitor less intuitive. Most of the time, the relationship with the monitor is inverse, corresponding to investors using the Swiss franc for carry trades when global conditions improve. Similar to the yen this year, the CHF has also weakened in sympathy with improving global growth. Should global growth see a setback in the near term, the franc will benefit. Chart 12CGrowth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland Growth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland Growth Indicators Are Surging In Switzerland The SNB Monitor is more accurate at capturing expected policy changes by the SNB. This means that yields in Switzerland could see more meaningful upside (Chart 12D). That said, our default stance on Swiss bonds is neutral in a global portfolio, given low liquidity. Chart 12DCould The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Could The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Could The SNB Finally Lift Rates? Appendix Table 1 Table 1Appendix Table 1 BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Long Kiss Goodnight Footnotes 1 See BCA Research US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields", dated June 9, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden", dated May 3, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China’s Communist Party has overcome a range of challenges over the past 100 years, performed especially well over the past 42 years, but the macro and geopolitical outlook is darkening. The “East Asian miracle” phase of Chinese growth has ended. Potential GDP growth is slowing and it will be harder for Beijing to maintain financial and sociopolitical stability. The Communist Party has shifted the basis of its legitimacy from rapid growth to quality of life and nationalist foreign policy. The latter, however, will undermine the former by stirring up foreign protectionism. In the near term, global investors should favor developed market equities over China/EM equities. But they should favor China and Hong Kong stocks over Taiwanese stocks given significant geopolitical risk over the Taiwan Strait. Structurally, favor the US dollar and euro over the renminbi. Feature Ten years ago, in the lead up to the Communist Party’s 90th anniversary, I wrote a report called “China and the End of the Deng Dynasty,” referring to Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese Communist Party’s great pro-market reformer.1 The argument rested on three points: the end of the export-manufacturing economic model, an increasingly assertive foreign policy, and the revival of Maoist nationalism. After ten years the report holds up reasonably well but it did not venture to forecast what precisely would come next. In reality it is the rule of the Communist Party, and not the leader of any one man, that fits into China’s history of dynastic cycles. As the party celebrates a hundred years since its founding on July 23, 1921, it is necessary to pause and reflect on what the party has achieved over the past century and what the current Xi Jinping era implies for the country’s next 100 years. Single-Party Rule Can Bring Economic Success. Communism Cannot. Regime type does not preclude wealth. Countries can prosper regardless of whether they are ruled by one person, one party, or many parties. The richest countries in the world grew rich over centuries in which their governments evolved from monarchy to democracy and sometimes back again. Even today several of the world’s wealthy democracies are better described as republics or oligarchies. Chart 1China Outperformed Communism But Not Liberal Democracy China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? The rule of one person, or autocracy, is not necessarily bad for economic growth. For every Kim Il Sung of North Korea there is a Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. But authority based on a single person often expires with that person and rarely survives his grandchild. In China, Chairman Mao Zedong’s death occasioned a power struggle. Deng Xiaoping’s attempts to step down led to popular unrest that threatened the Communist Party’s rule on two separate occasions in the 1980s. The rule of a single party is thought to be more sustainable. Japan and Singapore are effectively single-party states and the wealthiest countries in Asia. They are democracies with leadership rotation and a popular voice in national affairs. And yet South Korea’s boom times occurred under single-party military rule. The same goes for the renegade province of Taiwan. Only around the time these two reached about $11,000-$14,000 GDP per capita did they evolve into multi-party democracies – though their wealth grew rapidly in the wake of that transition. China and soon Vietnam will test whether non-democratic, single-party rule can persist beyond the middle-income economic status that brought about democratic transition in Taiwan (Chart 1). Vietnam and Taiwan are the closest communist and non-communist governing systems, respectively, to mainland China. Insofar as China and Vietnam succeed at catching up with Taiwan it will be for reasons other than Marxist-Leninist ideology. Most communist systems have failed. At the height of international communism in the twentieth century there were 44 states ruled by communist parties; today there are five. China and Vietnam are the rare examples of communist states that not only survived the Soviet Union’s fall but also unleashed market forces and prospered (Chart 2). North Korea survived in squalor; Cuba’s experience is mixed. States that close off their economies do not have a good record of generating wealth. Closed economies lack competition and investment, struggle with stagflation, and often succumb to corruption and political strife. Openness seems to be a more diagnostic variable than government type or ideology, given the prosperity of democratic Japan and non-democratic China. Has the CPC performed better than other communist regimes? Arguably. It performs better than Vietnam but worse than Cuba on critical measures like infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Has it performed better than comparable non-communist regimes? Not really, though it is fast approaching Taiwan in all of these measures (Chart 3). Chart 2Communist States Get Rich By Compromising Their Communism China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? Chart 3China Catching Up To Cuba On Basic Wellbeing China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? What can be said for certain is that, since China’s 1979 reform and opening up, the CPC has avoided many errors and catastrophes. It survived the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s without succumbing to international isolation, internal divisions, or economic crisis. It has drastically increased its share of global power (Table 1). Contrast this global ascent with the litany of mistakes and crises in the US since the year 2000. The CPC also managed the past decade relatively well despite the Chinese financial turmoil of 2015-16, the US trade war of 2018-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these events hint at greater challenges to come. China’s transition to a consumer-oriented economy has hardly begun. The struggle to manage systemic financial risk is intensifying today at risk to growth and stability (Chart 4). The trade war is simmering despite the Phase One trade deal and the change of party in the White House. And it is too soon to draw conclusions about the impact of the global pandemic, though China suppressed the virus more rapidly than other countries and led the world into recovery. Table 1China’s Global Rise After ‘Reform And Opening Up’ China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? Chart 4China To Keep Struggling With Financial Instability China To Keep Struggling With Financial Instability China To Keep Struggling With Financial Instability Judging by the points above, there are two significant risks on the horizon. First, the CPC’s revival of neo-Maoist ideology, particularly the new economic mantra of self-reliance and “dual circulation” (import substitution), poses the risk of closing the economy and undermining productivity.2 Second, China’s sliding back into the rule of a single person – after the “consensus rule” that prevailed after Deng Xiaoping – increases the risk of unpredictable decision-making and a succession crisis whenever General Secretary Xi Jinping steps down. The party’s internal logic holds that China’s economic and geopolitical challenges are so enormous as to require a strongman leader at the helm of a single-party and centralized state. But because of the traditional problems with one-man rule, there is no guarantee that the country will remain as stable as it has been over the past 42 years. Slowing Growth Drives Clash With Foreign Powers Every major East Asian economy has enjoyed a “miracle” phase of growth – and every one of them has seen this phase come to an end. Now it is China’s turn. The country’s potential GDP growth is slowing as the population peaks, the labor force shrinks, wages rise, and companies outsource production to cheaper neighbors (Charts 5A & 5B). The Communist Party is attempting to reverse the collapse in the fertility rate by shifting from its historic “one Child policy,” which sharply reduced births. It shifted to a two-child policy in 2016 and a three-child policy in 2021 but the results have not been encouraging over the past five years. Chart 5AChina’s Demographic Decline Accelerating China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? Chart 5BChina’s Demographic Decline Accelerating China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? In the best case China’s growth will follow the trajectory of Taiwan and South Korea, which implies at most a 6% yearly growth rate over the next decade (Chart 6). This is not too slow but it will induce financial instability as well as hardship for overly indebted households, firms, and local governments. Chart 6China's Growth Rates Will Converge With Taiwan, South Korea China's Growth Rates Will Converge With Taiwan, South Korea China's Growth Rates Will Converge With Taiwan, South Korea The Communist Party’s legitimacy was not originally based on rapid economic growth but it came to be seen that way over the roaring decades of the 1980s through the 2000s. Thus when the Great Recession struck the party had to shift the party’s base of legitimacy. The new focus became quality of life, as marked by the Xi administration’s ongoing initiatives to cut back on corruption, pollution, poverty, credit excesses, and industrial overcapacity while increasing spending on health, education, and society (Chart 7). Chart 7China’s Fiscal Burdens Will Rise On Social Welfare Needs China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? The party’s efforts to improve standards of living and consumer safety also coincided with an increase in propaganda, censorship, and repression to foreclose political dissent. The country falls far short in global governance indicators (Chart 8). Chart 8China Lags In Governance, Rule Of Law China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? A second major new source of party legitimacy is nationalist foreign policy. China adopted a “more assertive” foreign and trade policy in the mid-2000s as its import dependencies ballooned. It helped that the US was distracted with wars of choice and financial crises. After the Great Recession the CPC’s foreign policy nationalism became a tool of generating domestic popular support amid slower economic growth. This was apparent in the clashes with Japan and other countries in the East and South China Seas in the early 2010s, in territorial disputes with India throughout the past decade, in political spats with Norway and most recently Australia, and in military showdowns over the Korean peninsula (2015-16) and today the Taiwan Strait (Chart 9). Chart 9Proxy Wars A Real Risk In China’s Periphery China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? If China were primarily focused on foreign policy and global strategy then it would not provoke multiple neighbors on opposite sides of its territory at the same time. This is a good way to motivate the formation of a global balance-of-power coalition that can constrain China in the coming years. But China’s outward assertiveness is not driven primarily by foreign policy considerations. It is driven by the secular economic slowdown at home and the need to use nationalism to drum up domestic support. This is why China seems indifferent to offending multiple countries at once (like India and Australia) as well as more distant trade partners whom it “should be” courting rather than offending (like Europe). Such assertive foreign policy threatens to undermine quality of life, namely by provoking international protectionism and sanctions on trade and investment. The US is galvanizing a coalition of democracies to put pressure on China over its trade practices and human rights. The Asian allies are mostly in step with the US because they fear China’s growing clout. The European states do not have as much to fear from China’s military but they do fear China’s state-backed industry and technological rise. Europe’s elites also worry about anti-establishment political movements just like American elites and therefore are trying to win back the hearts and minds of the working class through a more proactive use of fiscal and industrial policy. This entails a more assertive trade policy. China has so far not adapted to the potential for a unified front among the democracies, other than through rhetoric. Thus the international horizon is darkening even as China’s growth rates shift downward. China’s Geopolitical Outlook Is Dimming China’s government has overcome a range of challenges and crises. The country takes an ever larger role in global trade despite its falling share of global population because of its productivity and competitiveness. The drop in China’s outward direct investment is tied to the global pandemic and may not mark a top, given that the country will still run substantial current account surpluses for the foreseeable future and will need to recycle these into natural resources and foreign production (Chart 10). However, the limited adoption of the renminbi as a reserve currency in the face of this formidable commercial power reveals the world’s reservations about Beijing’s ability to maintain macroeconomic stability, good governance, and peaceful foreign relations. Chart 10China's Rise Continues China's Rise Continues China's Rise Continues Chart 11China's Policy Uncertainty: A Structural Uptrend China's Policy Uncertainty: A Structural Uptrend China's Policy Uncertainty: A Structural Uptrend China is not in a position to alter the course of national policy dramatically prior to the Communist Party’s twentieth national congress in 2022. The Xi administration is focused on normalizing monetary and fiscal policy and heading off any sociopolitical disturbances prior to that critical event, in which General Secretary Xi Jinping, who was originally slated to step down at this time according to the old rules, may be anointed the overarching “chairman” position that Mao Zedong once held. The seventh generation of Chinese leaders will be promoted at this five-year rotation of the Central Committee and will further consolidate the Xi administration’s grip. It will also cement the party’s rotation back to leaders who have ideological educations, as opposed to the norm in the 1990s and early 2000s of promoting leaders with technocratic skills and scientific educations.3 This does not mean that President Xi will refuse to hold a summit with US President Biden in the coming months nor does it mean that US-China strategic and economic dialogue will remain defunct. But it does mean that Beijing is unlikely to make any major course correction until after the 2022 reshuffle – and even then a course correction is unlikely. China has taken its current path because the Communist Party fears the sociopolitical consequences of relinquishing economic control just as potential growth slows. The new ruling philosophy holds that the Soviet Union fell because of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika, not because openness and restructuring came too late. Moreover it is far from clear that the US, Europe, and other democratic allies will apply such significant and sustained pressure as to force China to change its overall strategy. America is still internally divided and its foreign policy incoherent; the EU remains reactive and risk-averse. China has a well-established set of strategic goals for 2035 and 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic, and the broad outlines will not be abandoned. The implication is that tensions with the US and China’s Asian neighbors will persist. Rising policy uncertainty is a secular trend that will pick back up sooner rather than later (Chart 11), to the detriment of a stable and predictable investment environment. Chart 12Chinese Government’s Net Worth High But Hidden Liabilities Pose Risks China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? China’s Communist Party Turns 100: So What? Monetary and fiscal dovishness and a continued debt buildup are the obvious and necessary solutions to China’s combination of falling growth potential, rising social liabilities, the need to maintain the rapid military buildup in the face of geopolitical challenges. Sovereign countries can amass vast debts if they own their own debt and keep nominal growth above average bond yields. China’s government has a very favorable balance sheet when national assets are taken into consideration as well as liabilities, according to the IMF (Chart 12). On the other hand, China’s government is having to assume a lot of hidden liabilities from inefficient state-owned companies and local governments. In the short run there are major systemic financial risks even though in the long run Beijing will be able to increase its borrowing and bail out failing entities in order to maintain stability, just like Japan, the US, and Europe have had to do. The question for China is whether the social and political system will be able to handle major crises as well as the US and Europe have done, which is not that well. Investment Takeaways The rule of a single party is not a bar to economic success – but the rule of a single person is a liability due to the problem of succession. Marxism-Leninism is terrible for productivity unless it is compromised to allow for markets to operate, as in China and Vietnam. States that close their economies to the outside world usually atrophy. There is no compelling evidence that China’s Communist Party has performed better than a non-communist alternative would have done, given the province of Taiwan’s superior performance on most economic indicators. Since 1979, the Communist Party has avoided catastrophic errors. It has capitalized on domestic economic potential and a favorable international environment. Now, in the 2020s, both of these factors are changing for the worse. China’s “miracle” phase of growth has expired, as it did for other East Asian states before it. The maturation of the economy and slowdown of potential GDP have forced the Communist Party to shift the base of its political legitimacy to something other than rapid income growth: namely, quality of life and nationalist foreign policy. An aggressive foreign policy works against quality of life by provoking protectionism from foreign powers, particularly the United States, which is capable of leading a coalition of states to pressure China. The Communist Party’s policy trajectory is unlikely to change much through the twentieth national party congress in 2022. After that, a major course correction to improve relations with the West is conceivable, though we would not bet on it. Between 2021 and China’s 2035 and 2049 milestones, the Communist Party must navigate between rising socioeconomic pressures at home and rising geopolitical pressures abroad. An economic or political breakdown at home, or a total breakdown in relations with the US, could lead to proxy wars in China’s periphery, including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait. For now, global investors should favor the euro and US dollar over the renminbi (Chart 13). Chart 13Prefer The Dollar And Euro To The Renminbi Prefer The Dollar And Euro To The Renminbi Prefer The Dollar And Euro To The Renminbi Mainland investors should favor government bonds relative to stocks. Chinese stocks hit a major peak earlier this year and the government’s seizure of control over the tech sector is taking a toll. Investors should prefer developed market equities relative to Chinese equities until China’s current phase of policy tightening ends and there is at least a temporary improvement in relations with the United States. But investors should also prefer Chinese and Hong Kong stocks relative to Taiwanese due to the high risk of a diplomatic crisis and the tail risk of a war. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The report concluded, “the emerging trends suggest a likely break from Deng's position toward heavier state intervention in the economy, more contentious relationships with neighbors, and a Party that rules primarily through ideology and social control.” Co-written with Jennifer Richmond, "China and the End of the Deng Dynasty," Stratfor, April 19, 2011, worldview.stratfor.com. 2 The Xi administration’s new concept of “dual circulation” entails that state policy will encourage the domestic economy whereas the international economy will play a secondary role. This is a reversal of the outward and trade-oriented economic model under Deng Xiaoping. See “Xi: China’s economy has potential to maintain long-term stable development,” November 4, 2020, news.cgtn.com. 3 See Willy Wo-Lap Lam, "China’s Seventh-Generation Leadership Emerges onto the Stage," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief 19:7, April 9, 2019, Jamestown.org.

Highlights The US Innovation and Competition Act shows that the US is rediscovering industrial policy amid domestic populism and foreign geopolitical risk.  Fiscal accommodation is a basis for the economy to improve, political polarization to moderate, and Congress’s approval rating to continue to normalize.  Biden’s infrastructure bill still has a subjective 80% chance of passage, despite bipartisan talks faltering and his own caucus growing restive. The price tag is still around $1-$1.5 trillion. Senate passage will mark peak US stimulus for this cycle. Close long consumer staples for a gain of 6%. Cut losses on long materials/tech. Close our fiscal advantage trade relative to the NASDAQ. Feature Bipartisanship is not dead in the 117th Congress, though a bipartisan deal on infrastructure may not come together. Investors should still expect Congress to pass the president’s signature legislative proposal, the American Jobs Plan. Our subjective odds remain 80% with high conviction. The bill’s price tag is still ranging from $1-to-$1.5 trillion in deficit spending this year, or 4.4%-6.7% of GDP – i.e. not a number that financial markets can ignore. A budget resolution is being drafted with a rough headline value of $1.5 trillion. Financial markets are experiencing an inevitable period of doubts over whether the bill will actually pass. In the short run investors should stay invested in infrastructure plays, cyclical equity sectors, and value stocks. However, market dynamics are shifting and there is a basis for upgrading the tech and health sectors. The Senate’s passage of Biden’s infrastructure bill, in whatever form, will mark the peak of US fiscal stimulus for this cycle. Meanwhile our theme of bipartisan structural reform is apparent in the Senate’s passage of the Innovation and Competition Act on June 8 (Chart 1). This bill marks a rare bipartisan achievement in Congress and a sea change in American policymaking. The sea change is the US’s need to revive industrial policy in order to compete with adversaries abroad – a mission that the political establishment supports after being snapped out of its slumber by President Trump’s populist rebellion. In this report we take a look at the domestic consequences of this bill. We leave the international consequences to our sister Geopolitical Strategy service. Chart 1Newsflash: Bipartisan Bill Passes Senate Via Regular Order! A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? We also look at the surprising recovery in Congress’s popular approval rating. While the US remains at “peak polarization” from a historic point of view, there is a cyclical drop in polarization after the quadruple crisis of 2020 (pandemic, recession, social unrest, contested election) (Chart 2). This cyclical drop may well become a secular decline over the coming decade, as fiscal accommodation at home and geopolitical risk abroad will generate domestic policy consensus on the topics of trade, manufacturing, industry, and technology. This trend will support Congress’s approval rating. Chart 2Polarization Subsides From Crisis Peaks Polarization Subsides From Crisis Peaks Polarization Subsides From Crisis Peaks While Congress will never be loved, it will not be as hated in the coming decade as the past decade. The reason is that Congress is taking a more active role in the economy. This is positive for markets in the short run but adds policy uncertainty over the long run. The Return Of Industrial Policy The US Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) is the outcome of a crisis in the American political system two decades in the making. The hyper-globalization of the Bill Clinton presidency, combined with the profligate economic and foreign policies of the George W. Bush presidency, led to the Great Recession. While the US was distracted with foreign wars and financial crisis, China emerged as a challenger to the US’s strategic dominance (Russia also revived and undermined US stability). The Obama administration began taking tougher action on China in 2015 but by then it was too late to accomplish much. The sluggish recovery and loss of national status triggered a populist rebellion in the form of the Trump administration, which provoked an even greater backlash from the political establishment in 2020. The Republicans imposed fiscal austerity, took power, then abandoned austerity and declared a trade war on China. The Democrats took back power, abandoned austerity, and are continuing the trade war. Now the two parties agree on the need to increase government support for the economy (infrastructure, industrial policy, protectionism) and to redirect foreign policy to confront major powers like China and Russia (as opposed to wasteful forever wars in the Middle East and South Asia). Public opinion has been coalescing around these twin goals since 2008 and the Biden administration so far can be said to represent a kind of synthesis of the Obama and Trump administrations. Even more powerful is the formation of a new consensus in Congress, which is the “first branch” of the US government and represents popular attitudes. Congress has always been more nationalist and more protectionist in its leanings than the executive and judicial branches, which represent policy elites and technocrats.1 While Congress is fickle when it comes to passing fancies of the day, it can be incredibly stubborn when it comes to a nationwide, once-in-a-generation popular consensus. Moreover China does not present a fleeting challenge like Iraq or Al Qaeda. It is more like the Soviet Union and will motivate a congressional consensus and policy consensus for decades. Great power competition will work against US political polarization. A Productivity Mini-Boom The USICA consists of about $115 billion in federal research and development funding, $52 billion in funding for the US semiconductor industry, and $10 billion for regional tech hubs. Funding will flow to the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), among others. There are also specific measures to counter China (including intellectual property protections) as well as a regulatory overhaul to codify “Buy America” provisions and require that materials used in federally funded projects are produced in the United States (Table 1). Table 1US Senate Passes Bipartisan ‘Innovation And Competition Act’ To Counter China A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? In research and development, the USICA formalizes the key technologies that the federal government should focus on and fund. These include: AI, machine learning, and autonomy High performance computing Quantum science and technology Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention and mitigation Advanced communication technology Biotech, medical tech, genomics, and synthetic biology Data storage and cybersecurity Advanced energy, industrial efficiency, batteries, nuclear energy Advanced material science The $81 billion allocated to the National Science Foundation, covering fiscal 2022-26, will be allocated as shown in Table 2. The Department of Energy will focus on energy-related supply chain issues within the key technological areas of focus. Table 2NSF Gets Additional Dole A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Private research and development amount to more than twice the R&D spending of the federal government (Chart 3). Higher spending will augment private R&D, rather than substitute for it. It will likely boost US productivity, which has been in the doldrums over the past few years. Chart 3A Boost To R&D Spending A Boost To R&D Spending A Boost To R&D Spending While it is speculative to say whether the revival of industrial policy will cause productivity to break out of its long-term structural decline, a mini-boom seems warranted, especially when considering that foreign competition will remain a constant impetus (Chart 4). There is ample pork-barrel spending and plenty of potential for boondoggles, as will always be the case with fiscal spending splurges. But a rise in productivity will have a greater macro impact. Chart 4US Productivity Boom, Or At Least Mini-Boom US Productivity Boom, Or At Least Mini-Boom US Productivity Boom, Or At Least Mini-Boom Another aspect of the bill consists of funding for regional technology hubs. The office of Economic Development Administration will oversee three tech hubs in each region covered by the EDA’s regional office. These must be areas that are not already tech centers. No less than one third of the funding will go to small and rural communities and at least one consortium must be headquartered in a low-population state. The info-tech revolution and de-industrialization have created a problem of regional inequality, which these measures attempt to address. The USICA also funds the incentives for the domestic semiconductor industry first outlined in the national defense appropriations last year. The CHIPS Act, for example, helps incentivize investment in facilities and equipment for computer chip fabrication, assembly, testing, advanced packaging, and R&D. This funding was subject to the availability of appropriations but is now authorized under the USICA to the tune of $52 billion. Substantial breakthroughs in the 1980s-90s, in software and other areas, followed on much smaller public investments in education and research.2 The semiconductor industry is capital-intensive. For every one dollar in sales, 15 cents of capital expenditures are needed, compared to just seven cents in the tech sector as a whole and six cents across companies in the S&P 500 index. The capex requirement for the energy sector grew from six cents in 2004 to 17 cents in 2015, almost tripling in a decade due to the capital intensity of the shale boom (Chart 5). Thus lowering the cost of investment for the semiconductor companies will have a major positive impact. Quarterly capex for the chip makers stands at around $25 billion. An infusion of $52 billion in government incentives over five years amounts to $2.6 billion per quarter or roughly 10% of current capex. Chart 5A Boon For US Semi Capex A Boon For US Semi Capex A Boon For US Semi Capex Finally, the USICA consists of notable “Buy America” or protectionist measures. The bill holds that public works must be produced by American workers and funding should not be used to reward companies that “offshore” their operations, especially to countries that do not share US regulatory standards on workers, workplace safety, and the environment. The USICA gives a big sop to US manufacturing: all manufactured goods purchased with the bill’s funding must be made in the USA or have at least 55% of their total components sourced in the country. All iron and steel manufacturing processes, from melting through coatings, must occur in the United States. Buy America provisions will stir up some quarrels with US allies and trading partners but ultimately the US will need to increase imports as a result of the USICA. Private non-residential investment in the US moves closely with import growth, whereas US government investment has less of a relationship with imports (Chart 6). Chart 6Supply Constraints Amid US Fiscal Stimulus Supply Constraints Amid US Fiscal Stimulus Supply Constraints Amid US Fiscal Stimulus The Buy American provision will put new pressures on a supply chain that is already strained by the pandemic and the Trump administration’s tariffs. Industrial production is at an all-time high and so are producer prices, which means that producers have high pricing power. This is beneficial for the industrial and materials sectors over the medium term, even if the short-term inflation scare proves overdone (Chart 7). Buy American provisions will even improve the pricing power of the machinery sub-sector, as contractors will be forced to buy American-made machinery. The bottom line is that the Biden administration has coopted the Trump administration’s agenda on China, trade, and manufacturing, which itself was an attempt to steal thunder from the Obama administration. However, Biden and the Democrats bring a defensive and domestic-oriented approach rather than an offensive and foreign-oriented approach. Tariffs and investment restrictions will stay on China but they are not being increased or tightened (at least not yet). Instead the emphasis falls on fiscal largesse for US industry and manufacturing as well as research and development, promotion of STEM education (science, technology, education, and mathematics), and semiconductor subsidies. Chart 7Sustained Proactive Fiscal Policy Is Inflationary Sustained Proactive Fiscal Policy Is Inflationary Sustained Proactive Fiscal Policy Is Inflationary The goal is to increase the pace of US innovation, notwithstanding the fact that countries will continue to borrow, spy, and steal from each other. The international context of competition – and the widespread resort to debt monetization – will have a positive impact on productivity over the long run. But the protectionist regulations will combine with US supply constraints to put upward pressure on material and industrial prices over the short and medium run. Will Americans Hate Congress Less? A bipartisan industrial agenda in Congress raises the question of whether a bipartisan infrastructure deal can also be achieved. We remain optimistic, though the talks are currently wobbling. Biden’s approval among Democrats is falling as the Democratic caucus abandons his attempt to forge a bipartisan infrastructure deal and presses for a Democrat-only reconciliation bill. However, his overall approval rating is not likely to settle at a lower level than that of Presidents Obama and Trump. His approval rating on handling the economy has probably already hit its floor (Chart 8). He still has the ability to pass a signature piece of legislation, according to our Political Capital Index (Appendix). Chart 8Biden Struggles With Democratic Party A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Chart 9US Public Approving Of Congress?!? A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? The sharp increase in public approval for Congress is another signal of Biden’s political capital (Chart 9). About 36% of Americans now say they approve of the job Congress is doing while 61% disapprove. This is not very good in absolute terms but relative to Congress’s history it is notable. The sharp uptick is due in large part to the expanded unemployment benefits, stimulus checks, and other social subsidies doled out during the pandemic. A fleeting spike in approval also occurred around the GFC-era stimulus, only to give way to new lows. Yet there is a deeper source. Approval of Congress has risen continually since the bruising debt ceiling standoffs and government shutdowns of 2010-14, when the Obama administration squared off against a Republican Congress in the context of a sluggish economy (Chart 10). With Gallup polling data going back to the 1970s, the big picture is that Americans lost faith in Congress during the stagflationary 1970s, the first Gulf War and recession of the early 1990s, and especially the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and Great Recession. It is now slowly recovering to normally low (rather than abnormally low) levels. Chart 10A Longer View Of Public Attitudes Toward Congress A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Aside from fleeting rallies around the flag, such as after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, public approval of Congress rarely rises above 50%. The reasons are obvious: Congress is an institution in which power-hungry politicians engage in endless and petty quarrels over the minutiae of public policy in full view of the world. Its job is inherently unpopular.3 But as partisanship and polarization have increased dramatically since the 1980s, Congress has lost effectiveness at its primary function of forging compromises and passing laws. The public differs on what laws should be passed but it generally disapproves of the lack of compromise (Chart 11). A clear uptrend in congressional approval has emerged since the near-recession of 2015. The one overriding change in national policy since that time has been the activation of the fiscal lever. Trump unleashed a bipartisan spending binge as well as tax cuts. COVID-19 encouraged a Trump-Biden spending binge. Now Biden’s measures are adding to this anti-austerity blowout. While voters rewarded Congress for balancing the budget in the 1990s, the Great Recession marked a secular change. Disapproval rose with the process of fiscal tightening from 2010-14 (budget sequestration) and fell as the fiscal deficit has widened since then (Chart 12). Chart 11Public Approves Of Lawmakers Who … Make Laws A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Chart 12Public Approves Of Spendthrift Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Voters do not approve of Congress based on wonky policy views. Their approval, like their approval of the president, tracks with the state of the nation. There is a fairly close correlation between the two approval ratings. A major deviation emerged in 2010-14 when President Obama partially restored public faith in the presidency (albeit with historically low approval ratings) while Congress sank to even lower lows than it witnessed during the Iraq war on the back of Republican obstructionism and Obama’s second-term legislative failures (Chart 13). The current trend is for presidential approval to remain flat at its post-2010 levels while Congress regains some support. Chart 13Approval Of Congress Tracks Approval Of President A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Congressional infighting will resume after Biden passes the American Jobs Plan. His American Families Plan is much less likely to pass. Opposition Republicans have a subjective 75% chance of retaking the House of Representatives in 2022, which would result in gridlock. However, congressional approval is normalizing from the depths of the disinflationary 2010s to around the 30%-40% range. It will probably continue tracking presidential approval. And history shows that presidential approval ultimately hinges on peace and prosperity as opposed to war, recession, and scandal (Chart 14). This will dictate the direction under the Biden administration and beyond. Chart 14Approval Of President Tracks ‘Peace And Prosperity’ A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? A critical factor is whether polarization will continue to subside. High polarization makes it so that voters identify the passage or failure of government policy exclusively with the ruling party; this incentivizes the opposition to obstruct.4 Lower polarization enables bipartisan deals and thus forces the two parties to share the praise and the blame of new policies. Compromise and lawmaking increase congressional approval; higher congressional approval increases the odds of compromise. The current legislative agenda reveals several areas of emerging consensus, not only on industrial policy and manufacturing but also on anti-trust law and infrastructure (Table 3). Table 3Pending Legislation In Congress Under Biden A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? The Biden administration may only get one or two more major bipartisan legislative accomplishments. Polarization is still at historically elevated levels. In the next two-to-five years polarization could easily re-escalate, given the ongoing power struggle between the two dominant parties and the grievances over the 2020 election. However, over the next five-to-ten years, polarization should settle at levels beneath the record highs witnessed in 2020 due to foreign competition and fiscal accommodation. The USICA shows how this trend could take shape. Investment Takeaways The macro implications of Biden’s political capital and Congress’s rising approval rating consist of trends and themes that we have emphasized before: the return of Big Government; populist monetary and fiscal policy; protectionist industrial policy; nation building at home; and geopolitical struggle abroad. There is no direct market impact of a less unpopular Congress – the implication can be positive or negative depending on the policies, assets, and time frames in question. For example, the congressional effect, in which markets rally while Congress is at recess, is debatable.5 Congress is least active in January, July, August, and December and yet this recess schedule manifestly has no consistent impact on well-known equity market calendar effects (Chart 15). Chart 15Calendar Effects But No Congressional Calendar Effect A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Markets under congressional gridlock often outperform markets under single-party sweeps but the difference is small and debatable (Chart 16). Markets dislike both effective congresses that pursue market-unfriendly policies and ineffective congresses that would be pursuing market-friendly policies. The pandemic and recession required an effective congress, bipartisan stimulus resulted, and approval has gone up. Sustaining this approval will require avoiding both deflationary and stagflationary environments in the coming years, as well as gratuitous wars and massive scandals. That will be difficult. Chart 16Sweeps Don’t Always Underperform Gridlock A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Still, a floor in congressional approval has probably been established over the past decade as the US political establishment has rediscovered proactive fiscal policy at home and nationalism abroad. These two key trends create cross-currents for the dollar. The macroeconomic backdrop for the dollar is bearish but the political and geopolitical backdrop is bullish. At present the dollar stands at a critical juncture. Any increase in global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk abroad should push the dollar up (Chart 17). Given the dollar-bearish BCA House View, we are therefore neutral and will revisit the issue in our upcoming third quarter outlook report. We are adjusting our equity sector risk matrix. Our new US Equity Strategist, Irene Tunkel, argues convincingly that investors should continue favoring cyclicals but also take a more optimistic outlook on the tech and health sectors. We agree on health in particular since the Biden administration’s policy risks have largely been passed up. We are closing our long materials / short tech trade for a loss of 8.2% and our long fiscal advantage / NASDAQ trade for a loss of 1.3%. We will also close our long consumer staples trade for a gain of 6.5%. Chart 17Relative Policy Uncertainty Rising, Greenback On Edge Relative Policy Uncertainty Rising, Greenback On Edge Relative Policy Uncertainty Rising, Greenback On Edge   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Table A2Political Risk Matrix A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Table A3Political Capital Index A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets A Bipartisan Congress? A Bipartisan Congress? Footnotes 1     See David R. Mayhew, “Is Congress ‘The Broken Branch?,’” Boston University Law Review 89 (2009), 357-69, bu.edu. 2     See Danny Crichton, Chris Miller, and Jordan Schneider, “Labs Over Fabs: How The U.S. Should Invest In The Future Of Semiconductors,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, March 2021, www.fpri.org. 3    See John R. Hibbing and Christopher W. Larimer, “The American Public’s View Of Congress,” Faculty Publications: Political Science 27 (2008), digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscifacpub/27.  4    See David R. Jones, “Partisan Polarization and the Effect of Congressional Performance Evaluations on Party Brands and American Elections,” Political Research Quarterly 68:4 (2015), 785-801, jstor.org. See also Jones, “Declining Trust In Congress: Effects of Polarization and Consequences for Democracy,” The Forum 13:3 (2015), degruyter.com. 5    Some market participants and researchers have uncovered a “Congressional effect” in which stock market returns are higher on average on days when Congress is on recess than on days when it is in session.   

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