Policy

Highlights If fully implemented, President Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. We expect some of the proposed tax measures to be watered down, resulting in a 5% decline in earnings. Investors are likely to shrug off the near-term impact of higher taxes, given strong economic growth and continued support from accommodative monetary policy. Looking further out, however, we see four reasons why US tax rates are likely to keep rising, eventually reaching levels that hurt stock prices: First, the effective US corporate tax rate is still very low; second, the failure of President Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier eventually to fully reverse them; third, rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing; and fourth, and most importantly, the political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The Democrats have been moving leftward on economic matters for some time. For their part, conservative Republicans are starting to ask themselves why they should support tax cuts for a growing list of “woke” companies that seemingly hate them. The US corporate sector is at risk of being left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim. The Biden Tax Plan On March 31st, President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan. The plan proposes $2.25 trillion in new federal spending, spread out over eight years, on public infrastructure and other areas. As outlined in the Made In America Tax Plan, the Biden Administration will seek to raise $2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 15 years in order to fund the new spending package. The three most important provisions in the tax plan are: Raising the domestic corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%. This would bring the tax rate halfway back to where it was prior to the Trump tax cuts (35%). Taking into account the global distribution of corporate profits and other factors, such a tax hike would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 4%. Increasing the minimum tax on the foreign profits of US companies. The Biden administration proposes doubling the minimum tax rate on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) from 10.5% to 21%. It also plans to eliminate the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income deduction (FDII). These two measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about another 3.5%. A 15% minimum tax on “book income” (i.e., the earnings that companies report to shareholders). The tax applies to corporations with annual profits in excess of $2 billion. The Treasury department estimates that 45 companies will be liable for this tax. It would cut S&P 500 earnings by a further 0.5%. Taken together, these provisions would reduce S&P 500 earnings by about 8%. In practice, we think the impact will be closer to 5%. The Biden plan includes a variety of tax credits, focusing on areas such as clean energy and R&D, which should offset some of the tax increases. The ultimate corporate tax rate is also likely to fall short of 28%. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, the critical swing voter, has already said he would prefer to cap it at 25%. What Has Been Priced In? Chart 1Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Our reading of the data suggests that very little of the impact from higher taxes has been baked into either analyst earnings estimates or market expectations. Chart 1 displays the performance of Goldman‘s “Formerly High Tax” and “Formerly Low Tax” equity baskets. The formerly high-taxed companies gained the most from Trump’s tax cuts and presumably would lose the most if the tax cuts were rolled back. Yet, they have outperformed their low-taxed peers since the Georgia runoff election, which handed the Senate to the Democrats. Likewise, earnings estimates have not reacted to the prospect of higher taxes. This is not surprising. Chart 2 shows that analysts did not adjust their earnings estimates until shortly after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017. Similar to what happened back then, analysts appear to be waiting for the details of the ultimate tax package before changing their estimates. Chart 2Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes For Now, Business Cycle Dynamics Are More Important Than Taxes While the failure of the investment community to price in higher taxes represents a headwind to stocks, we would characterize it as a modest headwind. IBES estimates still point to earnings growth of 15% for S&P 500 companies in 2022. It would take an unrealistically large tax hit to keep corporate profits from rising next year. The IMF’s latest economic projections, released a few weeks ago, foresee US real GDP growing by 3.5% in 2022, one full percentage point faster than the Fund expected in January (Table 1). Given the strong correlation between equity returns and economic growth, the equity bull market will likely survive a tax increase (Chart 3). Table 1Growth Remains Robust Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 3Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong   Of course, some stocks could still feel the pinch from higher taxes. The tech sector is especially vulnerable, given that it currently enjoys one of the lowest effective tax rates in the S&P 500 (Chart 4). Tech companies have also been very adept at shifting income from intangible assets such as patents to offshore tax havens, which is likely to put them in the crosshairs of the soon-to-be bulked up IRS.1 We currently favor value over growth stocks. The likelihood that higher taxes will have a disproportionately negative effect on growth sectors such as tech only reinforces this view. Chart 4Tech Is Vulnerable To Higher Taxes Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital   Higher Taxes: Start Of A Long-Term Trend? While we are not too worried about the near-term impact of higher taxes on equity prices, we are more concerned about the longer-term consequences. As we discuss below, not only is Biden likely to raise personal income and capital gains taxes to fund future spending initiatives such as the forthcoming American Families Plan, but the pressure to keep raising business taxes will persist well beyond his administration. There are four reasons for this: Reason #1: The effective US corporate tax rate is still very low Chart 5Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low Corporate Tax Revenues Are Low In April 2018, four months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came into effect, the Congressional Budget Office projected that US corporations would pay $276 billion in corporate taxes in 2019. In the end, they paid only $230 billion.2 US corporate income tax receipts stood at only 1% of GDP in 2018-19, half of what they were in 2013-17 (Chart 5). During Ronald Reagan’s second term in office, US corporations faced an effective tax rate of around 30%. Today, it is less than 15% (Chart 6). As a share of GDP, the US government collects less corporate tax revenue than almost all other OECD economies (Chart 7).   Chart 6The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades The Economy-Wide Effective Corporate Tax Rate Has Been Shrinking For More Than Three Decades Chart 7US Corporate Taxation Is Not High Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 8Trump Was Unlucky To Be Singled Out By The IRS Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Moreover, the US government often does not even bother to even collect the money that is owed to it. Audits of corporations with more than $20 billion in assets are down 50% since 2011. Audits of individuals with annual income above $1 million are down 80% (Chart 8). In his testimony to the US Senate this week Chuck Rettig, IRS Commissioner, estimated that tax evasion costs the government $1 trillion per year. Reason #2: The failure of Trump’s tax cuts to boost investment spending will make it easier to eventually fully reverse them If the Trump tax cuts had raised investment spending, it would be easier to overlook the negative effect that they had on the budget deficit. The evidence, however, suggests that lower corporate taxes did very little to spur capex. Chart 9 shows that capital spending barely increased as a share of GDP in the two years following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to the International Monetary Fund, only one-fifth of the tax cuts were used to finance capital investment and R&D spending.3 Along the same lines, Hanlon, Hoopes, and Slemrod found that fewer than a quarter of S&P 500 companies discussed plans to increase capex in response to lower taxes during their conference calls.4 Chart 9Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Trump's Tax Cuts Did Little To Spur Investment Chart 10Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long Business Equipment And IP Do Not Last Long   Why did corporate investment fail to rise much? One answer is that a tax on profits is not the same thing as a tax on capital investment. As Appendix 1 explains, lower corporate taxes are unlikely to have much of an effect on debt-financed capital spending when interest costs are tax deductible. Unlike long-lived assets such as homes, most of the corporate capital stock is fairly short-lived (Chart 10). The demand for business equipment and software depends more on the outlook for aggregate demand than on the cost of capital. Finally, as we explained in a report entitled Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around, the majority of corporate profits these days can be attributed to monopolistic power of one form or another. Standard economic theory suggests that taxing monopoly rents will not reduce output or investment. Reason #3: Rising bond yields will make it more expedient to fund spending with higher taxes rather than increased borrowing With interest rates still at exceptionally low levels, there is no immediate need to raise taxes to finance increased government spending. This is especially true for infrastructure spending, which can reasonably be expected to boost economic growth (and hence tax receipts) over the long haul. Chart 11US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo US Interest Payments Will Skyrocket Under The Status Quo If interest rates were to rise, however, governments would likely find it advantageous to increase taxes rather than face spiralling debt-servicing costs. Public debt levels are very high in the US and in most other economies, so any increase in interest rates would siphon funds from social programs towards bondholders. This would not be popular with voters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal government interest payments will swell rapidly over the coming decades if measures are not taken to rein in budget deficits (Chart 11). As we discuss next, these measures are likely to take the form of higher taxes rather than spending cuts.   Reason #4: The political winds are shifting in favor of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy Democrats have been moving leftward for some time. In 2001, 50% of Democrats said that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Today, that number is 83% (Chart 12). Chart 12Democrats Want More Government Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 13Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising Big Ticket Social And Health Care Spending To Keep Rising While Republicans continue to show a preference for small government, this may not last. Medicare and Social Security consume over 40% of all federal non-interest spending. Outlays on both programs (Medicare in particular) are set to grow rapidly over the coming years (Chart 13). To the extent that the political preferences of older Americans lean Republican, this could make the GOP more inclined to support higher taxes in order to sustain benefits to the elderly. The fact that corporations and the rich increasingly favor socially liberal policies is leading conservative Republicans to ask why they should continue to support tax cuts for people and companies that seemingly hate them. Whereas Joe Biden won the richest US counties by 20 percentage points last November, Trump saw his support rise in the poorest counties (Chart 14). Reflecting this trend, the share of Republicans who expressed “hardly any confidence in Corporate America” rose from 19% in February 2018 to 30% in March 2021 (Chart 15).   Chart 14Democrats Have Made Serious Inroads Among The Better-Off Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 15Republicans Growing More Skeptical Of Corporate CEOs Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital More than twice as many Republicans now favor raising corporate taxes as lowering them (Chart 16). Nationally, 73% of Americans are dissatisfied with the influence that corporations have over the nation, a 25-point jump from 2001 (Chart 17). Chart 16More Americans Want To Soak The Rich Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Chart 17Souring Attitudes Toward Big Corporations Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Given the shift in public opinion, it is not too surprising that the Republican response to Biden‘s tax plan was decidedly “low energy”. After a perfunctory condemnation of the plan, Republican leaders quickly pivoted to attacking “woke” corporations. Addressing the corporate reaction to Georgia’s new election law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell declared “We are witnessing a coordinated campaign by powerful and wealthy people to mislead and bully the American people.” He went on to say, “From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.” If current trends continue, as we suspect they will, the US corporate sector will be left without a party to defend its interests. Thus, while the near-term outlook for stocks is still bright, the long-term outlook is growing increasingly dim.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: When Do Higher Taxes On Corporate Profits Reduce Investment? Suppose a company is considering whether to purchase a piece of machinery for $1000. Let us assume that the company faces an external rate of return, r, of 8%. That is to say, it can borrow and lend at 8%. The accompanying table illustrates how the firm’s profits will vary depending on its internal rate of return (the return on investment that the machine will generate). Let us start with the case where the company finances the purchase of the machine by issuing new debt. For now, assume that the internal rate of return is 10% and that the machine can be used indefinitely (i.e., it never depreciates). In this case, the machine will generate $100 in operating income per year. After subtracting the $80 in interest expense, the company will be left with $20 in pre-tax income (Example A). Suppose the company faces an income tax of 20% and interest is fully tax deductible. Then, the company will pay a tax of $20*0.2=$4, leaving it with $16 in after-tax profits (Example B). Notice that while the tax reduced the company’s after-tax profit, it did not extinguish the incentive to purchase the machine in the first place. After all, while $20 is better than $16, $16 is still better than zero. Thus, in this simple example, we see that when the purchase of capital equipment is financed through debt and interest payments are fully tax deductible, the imposition of a profit tax will not affect the ultimate decision of whether to invest or not. Things change when interest is not tax deductible. In this case, the internal rate of return must rise to r/(1-t) to make the company indifferent between buying the machine or not. In the example above, this means the internal rate of return must increase to 8%/(1-0.2)=10%. Then, the company will make an operating profit of $100, pay $20 in tax on that profit, and after paying $80 in interest, end up breaking even (Example C). The calculus in deciding whether to invest in new capital equipment is similar for equity financing as it is for debt financing when interest payments are not tax deductible. The best way to think about equity financing is to ask how much the market price of the machine will be after the company purchases it. If there is no tax and the internal rate of return is 10%, the market price will be $100/0.08=$1250 (Example D). Since the company can buy the machine for $1000, it makes sense to buy it. If the owner of the machine has to pay a profit tax of 20% on the stream of income that it generates, its market value will only be $80/0.08=$1000 (Example E). At this point, the company is indifferent about whether to purchase the machine or not. How do things change when we abandon the assumption that the machine lasts forever? The main difference is that the decision of whether to buy the machine becomes less sensitive to changes in the cost of capital. For example, suppose the machine only lasts one year. To make it worthwhile for the company to purchase that machine, the revenue that it generates in that one year must rise dramatically (Example F). This makes the decision to purchase the machine much less dependent on the interest rate and more dependent on business cycle considerations, especially the outlook for aggregate demand.   Appendix Table 1 Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Footnotes 1 Jed Graham, “Biden's Tax Plan: What It Means For Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,” Investor’s Business Daily (April 8, 2021). 2 “The Accuracy of CBO’s Baseline Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019,” Congressional Budget Office (December 2019). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “U.S. Investment Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” IMF Working Paper (May 31, 2019). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER Working Paper 25283 (November 2018). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Special Trade Recommendations Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital Current MacroQuant Model Scores Taxing Woke Capital Taxing Woke Capital

Highlights Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year.  We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies.  Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere.  China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert.  Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices.  Two-way price risk abounds.  In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts.  Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Upside Oil Price Risks Are Increasing Upside Oil Price Risks Are Increasing Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year DM Demand Surges This Year DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Upside Oil Price Risks Are Increasing Upside Oil Price Risks Are Increasing We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally.  Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT.  Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Base Metals Are Being Bullish Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise Gold Prices To Rise Gold Prices To Rise   Footnotes 1     Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth.  Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2     A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness.  It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now.  This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3    Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4    Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy.  The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea.  Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.”   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights Biden will host a global summit for Earth Day on April 22-23, giving public attention to his climate change policy push. Investors should count on Biden’s green infrastructure package becoming the bulk of his climate push, given uncertainty over the 2022 midterm elections. However, over the long run, American public opinion is shifting in favor of renewables and the US will seek to maintain its technological edge via participating in the green tech race. Go long our “Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket” versus the Nasdaq 100.  Feature The Biden administration’s $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is often referred to as a “green infrastructure” package and in this report we take a look at what makes it green – and what are the investment implications. Biden will virtually host a global climate summit on April 22-23, Earth Day, which the Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to attend, thus providing momentum to the green investment theme. The stock market anticipated Biden’s electoral victory last year and renewable energy stocks rallied exorbitantly, with ultra-easy monetary and fiscal policy as a fundamental support. The market’s reaction to Biden’s official outline of his plan last month suggests that investors are energized about Biden’s infrastructure package but already suffering from some green fatigue (Chart 1). However, this bill’s passage will initiate the US’s official entrance into the global green energy race and from that point of view renewable plays should recover. Once the American Jobs Plan passes, likely sometime this fall, Biden’s climate agenda will be virtually finished, from an investment perspective. Investors have little visibility beyond 2022 as the president’s party rarely hangs onto the House of Representatives in his first midterm election. However, over the long run, American public opinion is shifting in favor of renewable energy. And Biden also has regulatory tools to push the Democratic Party’s climate agenda from 2022-24 regardless. Chart 1Biden's AJP Already Priced Biden's AJP Already Priced Biden's AJP Already Priced Chart 2Biden’s First Budget: Boom In Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Biden’s first presidential budget, released on April 13, also highlights the US’s attempt to boost climate policy (the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding would go up by 21%). More broadly it highlights the US’s ongoing sea change in fiscal policy. Discretionary spending turned around under President Trump’s populism and will continue under Biden’s populism. The difference lies in social spending versus defense. Biden proposes a 15.2% increase in non-defense discretionary spending, with education, commerce, health, and environment while the departments of defense and justice see much smaller increases (Chart 2). But we doubt that even defense spending will be curtailed given the US’s global strategic challenges. The president’s budget proposals are drops in the bucket compared to the trillions in his economic stimulus packages. Biden’s American Family Plan will be outlined in detail later this month but it only has a 50/50 chance of passing by the 2022 midterm election. This leaves us with the American Jobs Plan as the real macro policy factor to watch. And in the case of green energy, in particular, the Democrats may not have another opportunity to pass major legislation for many years. The US’s Strategic Basis For Green Energy The American Jobs Plan is billed as a $2.3 trillion green infrastructure package but in reality the package should be broken into traditional infrastructure ($784 billion for roads and bridges), social welfare ($647 billion  for elderly care, education, etc), green initiatives ($370 billion for electrical grid and retrofits, etc), tech initiatives ($280 billion for broadband, semiconductors, research and development), and small business support, in order of dollar value (Chart 3). The implication is that climate policy is important but not the top priority. Still, $370 billion is the biggest green package the US has ever launched. It consists of $150 billion for “hard” green infrastructure, such as new electricity grid and $220 billion for “soft” green infrastructure, such as tax credits for buying EVs (Chart 4). Chart 3Biden’s AJP: Green Initiatives Total $370 Billion Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Chart 4Biden’s AJP: Green Initiatives Mostly Rebates/Incentive Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives The US has moved slowly on green energy policy – relative to Europe or China – because it does not face the same strategic necessity. China faces domestic social unrest if it does not reduce pollution, it faces American strategic containment if it does not reduce its dependency on the Middle East (35% of total oil consumption), and it faces the middle-income trap if it does not increase innovation and productivity. Europe is similarly dependent on a geopolitical enemy for its energy supply – Russia provides 35% of its oil consumption and 38% of its natural gas – and it must also increase productivity. Europe and China are net energy importers who have a great strategic interest in making energy supply a matter of manufacturing prowess rather than divine natural resource endowment (Chart 5). The US is late to the green energy game in part because it does not share the same degree of strategic necessity. Like the EU, the US took care of its most pressing pollution problems decades ago. But unlike the EU, the US is a net energy exporter thanks to the fracking revolution. However, the US is not truly energy independent – an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause global oil prices to spike and trigger a recession. And the US also has a powerful strategic interest in maintaining its global leadership and its edge in technology, innovation, and productivity (Chart 6). The US cannot afford to miss out on the green tech race even if starting from a more secure natural resource base. Chart 5US Green Focus Less Motivated By Energy Security Than China, EU Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives US public opinion is also following European opinion regarding climate change and environmental protection. True, voters are more urgently concerned about the economy, jobs, and health care over the environment – as we showed in our Special Report on health care earlier this year. But the administration has decided not to rehash the health care battles of the Obama administration – having seen Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare – and instead to open up a new policy domain with climate change. Even if the environment is low priority for most voters, they do not oppose green projects in principle – in fact, they favor renewable energy over fossil fuels when it comes to the US’s energy future (Chart 7). And voters strongly favor infrastructure, which means they are more susceptible to green energy projects when presented as part of a broader infrastructure buildout – as opposed to a transformative “Green New Deal” designed to revolutionize every aspect of US life. Chart 6US Green Focus Motivated By Global Innovation/Tech Race Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Chart 7US Public Supports Renewable Energy Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives The US shift to green energy is well underway, with renewables ready to surpass coal in the national energy mix (Chart 8). The natural gas boom of the past decade has worked wonders in reducing coal dependency and hence overall carbon emissions (Chart 9). Chart 8Shift To Renewables Well Underway Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Chart 9US Carbon Emissions To Fall Further Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Bottom Line: The US does not have the same energy security problems as China and the EU, which is one reason the US trails these competitors in green energy production and policy. But the US has a powerful interest in maintaining its technological edge and productivity growth. So policymakers will continue to push the green agenda even as the public follows Europe in becoming more favorable toward it over the long run. US Climate Policy Will Advance In Fits And Starts The fact that the US lacks the same strategic urgency as Europe and China suggests that the green energy push in the US will progress in fits and starts rather than in a straight line. Popular opinion cited above is supportive enough to allow a political party to push a green agenda if it has control of both the White House and Congress. The Biden administration has moderate-to-strong political capital based on our Political Capital Index (Appendix). But this could change with the next election, which would introduce a ruffle in the current narrative in which Biden saves planet earth. One factor that helps Biden is that his presidency is entirely about economic stimulus and recovery, which enables him to minimize the regulatory and punitive side of his party’s energy agenda. While the American Jobs Plan includes corporate tax hikes, his climate policy in itself is all about spending rather than taxation. There is no carbon pricing scheme anywhere to be seen. And Biden’s Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg (“Mayor Pete,” a center-left politician from Indiana), immediately reversed his recent suggestion that the government levy a gasoline tax or vehicle mileage tax. Biden cannot get any revolutionary green measures passed through the Senate, given that moderate Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and John Tester of Montana hail from coal-heavy states. The Democrats must also pay heed to the swing states for future elections. Biden only narrowly won his home state of Pennsylvania, after pledging to phase out oil and natural gas in the last presidential debate. True, Biden’s American Jobs Plan will remove subsidies for the oil and gas sector – but these subsidies are not very large. Notably, subsidies for renewables already overwhelm those for traditional infrastructure, even under the Trump administration (Chart 10). Chart 10Subsidy Reform Will Promote Renewables Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Chart 11Green Policy At Risk In 2022 Midterm Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives These points underscore the fact that US climate policy is uncertain over the medium term, when the pandemic fades and the Democrats attempt more ambitious climate proposals. The Republican Party supports the traditional energy sector and is skeptical about climate change. The GOP could easily make a net gain of five seats in the 2022 midterm elections and take back control of the House of Representatives. They would not be able to repeal Biden’s laws or regulations, given his veto and likely Democratic majority in the Senate, but they would be able to pare back green funding. Republicans are not uniform on the issue of climate but more than half of Trump supporters in 2020 considered climate change unimportant. Young party members, moderates, and women were more split on the issue, with 60% of moderate Republicans viewing climate change as somewhat or very important (Chart 11). The takeaway is that Republicans would obstruct but not repeal future climate policy. Climate policy would be limited to Biden’s regulations until at least 2024. Hence investors can expect US climate policy to plow forward in the short run but to encounter resistance in the medium run. This is also likely to be the case as various other crises will emerge and soak up government attention and resources (most likely geopolitical conflicts). Chart 12Green Policy More Likely Over Long Term Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Over the long run climate policy will have more reliable support. Younger Republicans support federal environmental policy more than their elders, are increasingly favorable toward government regulation to that end, and prefer renewables to fossil fuels (Chart 12). The millennials and younger generations will make up more than half of the electorate by around 2028. Even then the government’s focus on climate will wax and wane given the other pressing matters of the day. Investment Takeaways A tsunami of money has been created, a lot of it is finding its way into the stock market, and a lot of it is finding its way into green and sustainable energy companies – companies that now have a privileged position in terms of both government support and conspicuous consumption. Combine this with a tidal wave of institutional funds pouring into anything and everything labeled ESG (environmental, social, and governance) – and the stigma attached to climate skepticism and denialism – and investors should fully expect irrational exuberance and stock bubbles. Consider the US’s premier EV maker, Tesla. The vertical run-up in Tesla stock has occurred alongside the run-up in US money supply. Tesla’s price trend conforms with the profile of a range of stock market bubbles of the past (Chart 13), as shown by our US Equity Strategy. Chart 13ALow Rates And Vast Money Growth... Low Rates And Vast Money Growth... Low Rates And Vast Money Growth... Chart 13B...Will Fuel Green Bubble ...Will Fuel Green Bubble ...Will Fuel Green Bubble That being said, renewables stocks surged throughout 2020 on the back of stimulus and Biden’s likely election – and have since fallen back. They have underperformed cyclical and defensive sectors alike this year to date (Chart 14). As highlighted above, the Democrats’ climate ambitions could yet be pared back in the Senate. However, given the argument in this report, there is sufficient political capital for the climate provisions of the American Jobs Plan to pass. Renewable plays should recover, at least on a tactical, “buy the rumor, sell the news” basis. To play Biden’s American Jobs Plan, our US Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou constructed a “Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket” comprising eight ETFs and one stock, all equal weighted (Chart 15, top panel). Instead of buying specific stocks, Anastasios opted for ETFs so as to diversify away company-specific risk. Chart 14Renewables Corrected But Will Recover Renewables Corrected But Will Recover Renewables Corrected But Will Recover Chart 15Introducing The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket Introducing The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket Introducing The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket The goal was to filter for ETFs that hold mostly US companies and that offered the highest possible liquidity. From a portfolio construction perspective, he aimed to match the different spending segments of Biden’s White House proposal with an ETF. The ticker symbols included in the basket are: PAVE, PHO, QCLN, TAN, WOOD, SOXX, HAIL, GRID and SU. We choose SU as there is no pure play Canadian oil sands ETF trading in USD. Granted there is some replication of stocks included in these ETFs. In certain ETFs there is also a sizable international stock exposure, including EM and Chinese stocks. One final caveat is that these ETFs have a high concentration of technology stocks. Our sense is that this basket should outperform the S&P500 on a cyclical and structural basis albeit not tactically (Chart 15, middle panel). However, given the high-tech exposure, our preferred way to express this trade is via a long/short pair trade versus the QQQ high-tech ETF, which tracks the largest 100 companies on the Nasdaq stock exchange (Chart 15, bottom panel). Table 1 shows a number of related ETFs that did not make the cut but that readers may find intriguing and that deserve further research. Later this month we will publish a joint special report with our US Equity Strategy service, updating our views on Biden’s proposals and elaborating on this equity basket. Table 1Infrastructure and Renewables Related ETFs Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives More broadly, US equities are still enjoying a positive cyclical backdrop, whereas the passage of the American Jobs Plan later this year has a 50% chance of marking peak stimulus (the American Families Plan may not pass). Tactically, however, we are more cautious. There are also several pronounced foreign policy stress tests facing the Biden administration imminently, including serious Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, and China/Taiwan saber-rattling that we fully expect to engender volatility and safe-haven flows. At least one FOMC member, Saint Louis Fed President Jim Bullard, is now openly thinking about thinking about the Fed’s tapering asset purchases – that is, once the US vaccination rate reaches 75%. Our US Investment Strategy recently showed that this rate of vaccination could be reached as early as September.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Table A2Political Capital Index Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Biden's Green Initiatives Biden's Green Initiatives

Highlights Global Inflation: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: ILB valuations, however, are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot Markets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot Markets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot The global reflation trade over the past year has been highly rewarding to investors. Equity and credit markets worldwide have delivered outstanding returns on the back of highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies implemented to deal with the negative economic effects of COVID-19. The global INflation trade has also paid off for investors in inflation-linked bonds (ILBs), which have outperformed nominal government debt across the developed economies dating back to last spring. The rising trend for global inflation breakevens remains intact, but is approaching some potential resistance points. A GDP-weighted average of 10-year breakeven inflation rates among the major developed economies is just shy of the 2% level that has represented a firm ceiling over the past decade (Chart of the Week). At the same time, the Bloomberg consensus forecast for headline CPI inflation for that same group of countries calls for an increase to only 1.8% by year-end before slowing to 1.7% in 2022. The latest forecasts from the IMF are similar, calling for headline inflation in the advanced economies to reach 1.6% in 2021 and 1.7% in 2022. If those modest forecasts for realized inflation come to fruition, then there is likely not much more upside in inflation breakevens, in aggregate. Country selection within the ILB universe will become more important over the next 6-12 months, as divergences in growth, realized inflation and central bank reactions will lead to a more heterogeneous path for global inflation breakevens. Underlying Inflation Backdrop Still Supports Rising Breakevens On a total return basis, ILBs enjoyed an extended run of success prior to this year. The cumulative total return of the asset class (in local currency terms) between 2012 and 2020 was a whopping 61% in the UK, 25% in Canada, 22% in the US and 21% in the euro area (aggregating the individual countries in the region with inflation-linked bonds). However, the absolute performance of ILBs has been more disperse on a country-by-country basis so far in 2021. ILBs are down year-to-date in Canada (-6.2%), the UK (-5.0%) and the US (-1.4%). On the other hand, euro area ILBs have delivered a positive total return of +0.5% so far in 2021. Real bond yields have climbed off the lows in the US, UK and, most notably, Canada where the overall index yield on the Bloomberg Barclays inflation-linked bond index is now in positive territory for the first time since before the pandemic started (Chart 2). At the same time, real bond yields have been drifting lower in the euro area. These real yield moves are related to shifting perceptions of central bank responses to the global growth upturn. For example, pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves have pulled forward the timing and pace of future interest rate increases in the US and Canada – i.e. real policy rates will become less negative - while there has been comparatively little change in euro zone rate expectations. While the absolute returns for ILBs have become less correlated, the relative trade between nominal and inflation-linked government bonds in all countries remains intact. 10-year breakeven inflation rates have been steadily climbing in the US and UK, while depressed Japanese breakevens have crept modestly higher (Chart 3). Even Europe, where inflation has remained subdued for years, has seen a significant shift higher in inflation breakevens. (Chart 4). The turn in breakevens has occurred alongside a major change in investor perceptions of future inflation, with surveys like the ZEW showing an overwhelming majority of financial professionals expecting higher inflation in the US, Europe and the UK. Chart 2A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 3A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations Chart 4European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize Inflation forecasts have shifted in response to faster global growth expectations on the back of vaccine optimism and aggressive US fiscal stimulus. Yet inflation forecasts remain modest compared to the huge growth figures expected for 2021 and 2022. In its latest World Economic Outlook published last week, the IMF upgraded its global real GDP forecast to 6.0% for 2021 and 4.4% for 2022. This represented an increase of 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively, from the last set of forecasts published back in January. While growth upgrades occurred across all major developed and emerging economies, the biggest upgrades came in the US and Canada, for both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the IMF projects the output gap in both countries to turn positive over 2022 and 2023, and be nearly closed in core Europe, Australia and Japan (Chart 5). The IMF is not projecting a major inflation surge on the back of those upbeat growth forecasts, though. While headline inflation in the US is expected to climb to 2.3% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2022, the same measure in Canada is only projected to rise to 1.7% and 2.0% over the same two years. European inflation is expected to remain subdued, reaching only 1.4% this year and drifting back to 1.2% in 2022 despite real GDP growth averaging 4.1% over the two-year period. The IMF attributes the benign inflation outcomes, even in the face of booming growth rates and the rapid elimination of output gaps, to the structural disinflationary backdrop for so-called “non-cyclical” inflation (Chart 6). The IMF defines this as the components of inflation indices that are less sensitive to changes in aggregate demand. The IMF estimates show that the contribution from non-cyclical components to overall inflation in the advanced economies had fallen to essentially zero at the end of 2020. Chart 5A Big Expected Narrowing Of Output Gaps How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart 6Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation There is considerable upside risk for the more cyclical components of inflation that could result in inflation overshooting the IMF projections (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary For example, in the US, the Prices Paid component of the ISM Manufacturing index remains elevated at post-2008 highs, while the year-over-year change in the Producer Price Index soared to 6% in March. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission business and consumer surveys have shown a big surge in the net balance of respondents expecting higher inflation in manufacturing and retail trade. Previous weakness in the US dollar and surging commodity prices are playing a major role in this rapid pick-up in price pressures seen in many countries. Given the current backdrop of strong global growth expectations, with actual activity accelerating as vaccinations increase and more parts of the global economy reopen, inflation pressures are unlikely to fade in the near term. With realized inflation rates set to spike due to base effect comparisons to the pandemic-fueled collapse one year ago, the upward pressure on global ILB inflation breakevens will persist in the coming months – especially with breakevens still below levels that would prompt central banks to turn less dovish sooner than expected. Bottom Line: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Assessing Value In Developed Market Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 8USD Outlook Now More Mixed USD Outlook Now More Mixed USD Outlook Now More Mixed Although the current backdrop remains conducive to a continuation of the rising trend in global ILB breakevens, there are factors that could begin to slow the upward momentum. The future path of the US dollar is now a bit less certain (Chart 8). While the DXY index is still down 7.4% compared to a year ago, it is up 2.4% so far in 2021. Shorter-term real interest rate differentials between the US and the other major developed markets remain dollar-bearish. At the same time, longer-term real yield differentials have risen in favor of the US (middle panel). Furthermore, US growth is outperforming other developed economies, typically a dollar-bullish factor (bottom panel). Given the usual negative correlation between the US dollar and commodity prices, a loss of downside dollar momentum could also slow the pace of commodity price appreciation. This represents a risk to additional global ILB outperformance versus government bonds. Our GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year ILB breakevens for the major developed economies is currently just under 2% - levels more consistent with oil prices over $80/bbl than the current price closer to $60/bbl (Chart 9). Chart 9Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Given some of these uncertainties over the strength of any future inflationary push from a weaker US dollar and rising commodity prices, a broad overweight allocation to ILBs across the entire developed market universe may no longer generate the same strong returns versus nominal government bonds seen over the past year. With the “easy money” already having been made in the global breakeven widening trade, country allocation within the ILB universe has now become a more important dimension for bond investors to consider. To assess the relative attractiveness of individual ILB markets, we turn to a few valuation tools. Our regression-based valuation models for 10-year ILB breakevens in the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia are all presented in the Appendix on pages 14-17. The two inputs into the model are the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms (as a measure of shorter-term inflation pressure) and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation (as a longer-term trend that provides a structural “anchor” for breakevens based off actual inflation outcomes). We first presented these models in April 2020, but we have now made a change in response to some of the unprecedented developments witnessed over the past year.1 Despite the strong visual correlation between the level of oil prices and inflation breakevens in most countries, we chose to use the annual growth of oil prices, rather than the level, in our breakeven models. This is because we found it more logical to compare a rate of change concept like inflation (and breakevens) to the rate of change of oil. However, the oil input into our breakeven models could produce nonsensical results during periods of extreme oil volatility that did not generate equivalent swings in breakeven inflation rates. A good example of that occurred in 2016, when the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price briefly surged toward 100%, yet 10-year US TIPS breakevens did not rise above 2% (Chart 10). An even bigger swing in oil prices has occurred over the past year, with oil prices up over +200% compared to the collapse in prices that occurred one year ago. Putting such an extreme move into our US model would have pushed the “fair value” level of the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 4% - an implausible outcome given that the 10-year breakeven has never risen to even as high as 3% in the entire 24-year history of the TIPS market. Chart 10Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits To deal with this problem, we have truncated the rate of change of oil prices in all our breakeven models at levels consistent with past peaks of breakevens. Going back to the US example, we have “capped” the rate of change of the Brent oil price at +40%, as past periods when oil price momentum was greater than 40% did not translate into any additional increase in TIPS breakevens. We then re-estimated the model using this truncated oil price series to generate fair value breakeven levels. Chart 11A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens We did this for all eight of our individual country breakeven models and in all cases, truncating extreme oil moves improved the accuracy of the model. Interestingly, we did not truncate the downside momentum of oil prices, as there was no obvious “cut-off” point where periods of collapsing oil prices did not generate equivalent declines in breakevens. Oil prices remain the most critical short-term variable to determine ILB breakeven valuation. While it is intuitive to think that currency movements should also have a meaningful impact on inflation (both realized and expected), the effect is not consistent across countries. For example, euro area breakevens appear to be positively correlated to the euro, while Japanese breakevens rarely rise without yen weakness (Chart 11). One other factor to consider when evaluating the value of breakevens is the possible existence of an inflation risk premium component during periods of higher uncertainty over future inflation. Such uncertainty could result in increased demand for ILBs from investors driving up the price of ILBs (thus lowering the real yield) relative to nominal yielding bonds, leading to wider breakevens that do not necessarily reflect a true rise in expected inflation. A simple way to measure such an inflation risk premium is to compare market-based breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation forecasts taken from sources like the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters and the Bank of Canada’s Survey Of Consumer Expectations. The assumption here is that the survey-based measures represent a more accurate (or, at least, less biased) depiction of underlying inflation expectations in an economy. We present these simple measures of inflation risk premia, comparing 10-year breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, in Chart 12 and Chart 13. Breakevens had been trading well below survey-based measures of inflation expectations after the negative pandemic growth shock in 2020 in all countries shown. After the steady climb in global breakevens seen over the past year, those gaps have largely disappeared, with breakevens now trading slightly above survey based inflation expectations in the US, UK and Australia. Chart 12No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets Chart 13Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Chart 14Assessing The Value Of Breakevens Assessing The Value Of Breakevens Assessing The Value Of Breakevens In Chart 14, we show the valuation residuals from our 10-year ILB breakeven models, along with two other measures of potential breakeven valuation: a) the distance between current breakeven levels and their most recent pre-pandemic peaks; and b) the difference between breakevens and the survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The model results show that breakevens are furthest below fair value in France, Japan and Germany, and the most above fair value in the UK and Australia. The message of undervaluation from our models is confirmed in the other two metrics for France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy. The overvaluation message for Australia is consistent across all three valuation metrics, while the signals are mixed for US and UK breakevens. In Japan, while the combined signals of all three valuation metrics indicate that breakevens are far too low, the very robust positive correlation between Japanese breakevens and the USD/JPY exchange rate implies that a bet on wider breakevens requires a much weaker yen. In Canada, while the 10-year breakeven does appear cheap, the real yield has also climbed faster than any of the other countries over the past several months as markets have rapidly repriced a more hawkish path for the Bank of Canada. Recent comments from Bank of Canada officials have leaned a bit hawkish, hinting at a possible taper of its bond-buying program, as the central bank appears unhappy with the renewed boom in Canadian housing values. An early tightening of monetary conditions would likely cap any additional upside in Canadian inflation breakevens. In Europe, the undervaluation of breakevens is more compelling. The ECB is likely to maintain its dovish policy settings into at least 2023, even if growth recovers later this year as increased vaccinations lead to the end of lockdowns. As shown earlier, European breakevens can continue to rise even if the euro is also appreciating versus the US dollar, especially if growth is recovering and oil prices are rising. Euro area breakevens are likely to continue drifting higher over at least the rest of 2021. Currently in our model bond portfolio, we have allocations to ILBs out of nominal government bonds in the US, France, Canada and Italy, with no allocations in Germany, Japan, Australia or the UK. After assessing our valuation measures, we are comfortable with the ILB exposure in France and Italy and lack of positions in the UK and Australia. We still see the upside case for US breakevens, with the economy reopening rapidly fueled further by fiscal policy, and the Fed likely to maintain its current highly dovish forward guidance until much later in 2021. We are reluctant to add exposure to Japanese ILBs, despite attractive valuations, as we are not convinced that USD/JPY has enough upside potential to help realize that undervaluation of Japanese breakevens. Thus, as a new change to our model portfolio this week that reflects our assessment of ILB breakeven valuations and risks, we are closing out the exposure to Canadian ILBs and adding a new position in German ILBs of equivalent size (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 18-19). Bottom Line: ILB valuations are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart A1Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A2Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A3Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A4Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A5Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A6Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A7Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Chart A8Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? Recommendations How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? How Much More Juice Is Left In The Global Inflation Breakeven Trade? The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics and the yield curve discounts a much quicker pace of rate hikes than is currently signaled by the Fed’s “dot plot”. However, the economic data continue to beat expectations by a wide margin. This suggests that bond yields could overshoot their fair value in the near term. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Employment: The US employment boom is just getting started. Total employment is still 8.4 million below pre-pandemic levels, but 37% of missing jobs are from the Leisure & Hospitality sector where demand is about to surge. Fed: The US economy will reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” in 2022. This will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, an event that will be preceded by an announcement of asset purchase tapering either late this year or early next year. Feature Chart 1Price Pressures Building Price Pressures Building Price Pressures Building The past two weeks brought us a couple of interesting developments directly related to the Treasury market. First, long-dated Treasury yields declined somewhat, presumably because many investors concluded that the yield curve is already priced for the full extent of future Fed rate hikes. Second, we received further evidence – from March’s +916k employment report, the 12% year-over-year increase in producer prices and continued elevated readings from PMI Prices Paid indexes – that economic activity is recovering more quickly than even the most optimistic forecasters anticipated (Chart 1). These two opposing forces highlight a tension in the current outlook for US Treasury yields. Yields now look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics, a fact that justifies keeping bond portfolio duration close to benchmark. However, cyclical economic indicators are surging, a fact that suggests yields will keep rising in the near-term, causing them to overshoot fair value for a time. This week’s report looks at this tension between valuation indicators and cyclical economic indicators through the lens of our Checklist To Increase Portfolio Duration. While we think there are convincing arguments in favor of both “At Benchmark” and “Below Benchmark” portfolio duration stances on a 6-12 month investment horizon, we are deciding to stick with our recommended “Below Benchmark” stance for now, until the economic data are more in line with market expectations. Checking In With Our Checklist Back in February, following the big jump in bond yields, we unveiled a Checklist of several criteria that would cause us to increase our recommended portfolio duration stance from “Below Benchmark” to “At Benchmark”.1 As is shown in Table 1, the Checklist contains seven items that can be grouped into two categories: Valuation Indicators that compare the level of Treasury yields to some estimate of fair value Cyclical Indicators that look at whether trends in the economic data are consistent with rising or falling bond yields Table 1Checklist For Increasing Duration Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory Valuation Indicators Chart 2Valuation Indicators Valuation Indicators Valuation Indicators As mentioned above, valuation indicators show that Treasury yields are roughly consistent with fair value, suggesting that a neutral duration stance is appropriate. First, consider the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield relative to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 2). Last week, survey estimates from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers were updated to March, and while there was some upward movement in the estimated long-run neutral rate ranges, the median estimates in both surveys were unchanged from January. The result is that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield remains near the top-end of its survey-derived fair value band (Chart 2, top 2 panels). Second, the same two surveys also ask respondents to forecast what the average fed funds rate will be over the next 10 years. We can derive an estimate of the 10-year term premium by subtracting those forecasts from the 10-year spot Treasury yield (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). In this case, respondents did raise their average fed funds rate forecasts and our term premium estimates were revised down as a result. While both term premium estimates are now below their 2018 peaks, they remain elevated compared to recent historical averages. Third, we turn to the front-end of the yield curve to look at what sort of Fed rate hike path is priced into the market (Chart 3). We see that the market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in December 2022 and for a total of four 25 basis point rate hikes by the end of 2023. Only a handful of FOMC participants forecasted a similar path at the March Fed meeting. Chart 3Market Priced For December 2022 Liftoff Market Priced For December 2022 Liftoff Market Priced For December 2022 Liftoff We discussed the wide divergence between market expectations and the Fed’s “dot plot” in a recent report.2 Essentially, the divergence boils down to the Fed focusing more on actual economic outcomes while the market takes its cues from economic forecasts. We think there’s good reason for optimism about the economy, and therefore expect that the Fed will revise its interest rate forecasts higher in the coming months as the “hard” economic data improve. However, we should point out that respondents to the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers and Survey of Market Participants also have much more benign interest rate forecasts than the market, and respondents to those surveys do not share the Fed’s bias toward actual economic outcomes. Table 2 shows that the average respondent to the Survey of Market Participants only sees a 35% chance that the Fed will lift rates before the end of 2022 and the Survey of Primary Dealers displays a similar result. Table 2Odds Of A Fed Rate Hike By End Of Year Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory The wide gap between rate hike expectations embedded in the yield curve and forecasts from both the FOMC and the New York Fed’s surveys suggests that Treasury yields are at least fairly valued, and perhaps too high. However, the most important question is whether the market’s rate hike expectations look lofty compared to our own forecast. As is explained in the below section (titled “The Employment Boom Is Just Getting Started”), we think that the jobs market will be strong enough for the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022 and that the market’s anticipated rate hike path looks reasonable. However, even this view is only consistent with a neutral stance toward portfolio duration. Chart 4Higher Inflation Is Priced In Higher Inflation Is Priced In Higher Inflation Is Priced In For our final valuation indicator we focus specifically on the outlook for inflation compared to what is already priced into the forward CPI swap curve (Chart 4). The forward CPI swap curve is priced for headline CPI inflation to rise to 2.7% by May 2022 before falling back down only slightly. In reality, year-over-year headline CPI will probably spike to even higher levels during the next two months but will then recede more quickly. We think it’s reasonable to expect headline CPI inflation to be between 2.4% and 2.5% in 2022, a range consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE target, but the forward CPI swap curve reveals that this outcome is already priced. All in all, the message from the valuation indicators in our Checklist is that a robust economic recovery is already reflected in market prices. Thus, even with our optimistic economic outlook, Treasury yields look fairly valued, consistent with an “At Benchmark” portfolio duration stance.  Cyclical Indicators While valuation indicators perform well over longer time horizons, they are notoriously bad at pinpointing market turning points. It’s for this reason that we augment our Checklist with cyclical economic indicators, specifically high-frequency cyclical economic indicators that correlate tightly with bond yields. First, we look at the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index and gold (Chart 5). The CRB index is a good proxy for global economic growth and gold is inversely correlated with the stance of Federal Reserve policy – gold falls when policy is perceived to be getting more restrictive and rises when policy is perceived to be easing. This ratio has shown little evidence of rolling over and further gains are likely as the economy emerges from the pandemic. We also look at other high-frequency global growth indicators like the relative performance between cyclical and defensive equities and the performance of Emerging Market currencies (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). The trend of cyclical equity sector outperformance continues while EM currencies have shown some tentative signs of weakness. The US dollar is one particularly important indicator for bond yields. As US yields rise relative to yields in the rest of the world it makes the US bond market a more attractive destination for foreign investors. When US yields are attractive enough, these foreign inflows can stop them from rising. One good indication that US yields are sufficiently high to attract a large amount of foreign interest is when investor sentiment toward the dollar turns bullish. For now, the survey of dollar sentiment we track shows that investors are still bearish on the US dollar (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bearish dollar sentiment supports further increases in bond yields. Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Cyclical Indicators Cyclical Indicators Chart 6Data Surprises Still Positive Data Surprises Still Positive Data Surprises Still Positive Finally, we track the US Economic Surprise Index as an excellent summary indicator of the US data flow relative to market expectations. The index also correlates tightly with changes in bond yields (Chart 6). Though the index has fallen significantly from the absurd highs seen late last year, it is still elevated compared to typical historical levels. In general, bond yields tend to rise when the economic data are beating expectations, as indicated by a positive Surprise Index. All in all, we see that the cyclical indicators in our Checklist are sending a very different signal than the valuation indicators. This suggests a high probability that yields could overshoot fair value in the near term. Bottom Line: Treasury yields look fairly valued on several different valuation metrics and the yield curve discounts a much quicker pace of rate hikes than is currently signaled by the Fed’s “dot plot”. However, the economic data continue to beat expectations by a wide margin. This suggests that bond yields could overshoot their fair value in the near term. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Employment Boom Is Just Getting Started Chart 7Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" The Fed has conditioned the first rate hike of the cycle on both (i) 12-month PCE inflation being at or above 2% and (ii) the labor market being at “maximum employment”. As we’ve previously written, we see strong odds that the inflation trigger will be met in time for a 2022 rate hike.3 This week, we assess the likelihood that “maximum employment” will be reached in time for the Fed to lift rates next year. Fed communications have made it clear that the FOMC’s definition of “maximum employment” is equivalent to an environment where the unemployment rate is between 3.5% and 4.5% - the range of FOMC participants’ NAIRU estimates – and the labor force participation rate has made a more-or-less complete recovery to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 7). Following March’s blockbuster employment report, we update our calculations of the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that must occur to hit “maximum employment” by different future dates (Tables 3A-3C). Table 3AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory Table 3BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory Table 3CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory For example, to reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” by December 2022, nonfarm payroll growth must average between +410k and +487k per month between now and then. To reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year, payroll growth must average between +701k and +833k over the remaining nine months of 2021. It’s probably unrealistic to expect a return to “maximum employment” by the end of this year, but we do expect at least a couple more monthly payroll reports that are even stronger than last month’s +916k. Our optimism stems from the industry breakdown of the current jobs shortfall. Table 4 shows the change in overall nonfarm payrolls between February 2020 and March 2021. In total, we see that the US economy is missing 8.4 million jobs compared to pre-pandemic. We also see that 3.1 million (or 37%) of those jobs come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector. That sector is predominantly made up of restaurants and bars, two services where demand is about to ramp up significantly as COVID vaccination spreads across the US. A few months in a row of 1 million or more jobs added is highly likely in the near future. Table 4Employment By Industry Overshoot Territory Overshoot Territory Bottom Line: We see the boom in employment as just getting started and we expect that the US economy will reach the Fed’s definition of “maximum employment” in 2022. This will cause the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, an event that will be preceded by an announcement of asset purchase tapering either late this year or early next year.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/387 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Limit Rate Risk, Load Up On Credit”, dated March 16, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Private-sector savings exploded during the pandemic, swelling the already large global savings glut. Reluctant to sit on excess cash, households shifted some of their funds into the stock market. With corporate buybacks outpacing new share issuance, stock prices had nowhere to go but up. Falling bond yields further supercharged equity valuations. Despite the run-up in stocks, the global equity risk premium – measured as the forward equity earnings yield minus the real bond yield – still stands at about 6%, similar to where it was in late-2009. Using a simple example, we show why investors should hold more stock than the standard 60/40 rule suggests when bond yields are still this low. While bond yields will rise further over the coming years, it is likely to be a slow process. Investors should remain bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon, favouring non-US equities over their US peers. Did A Surfeit Of Savings Lead To A Shortage Of Assets? Real interest rates have fallen dramatically since the early 1980s (Chart 1). Economic theory posits that lower real rates discourage savings while encouraging spending. Yet, as Chart 2 shows, with the exception of the late-1990s and the mid-2000s – two periods when spending was buoyed first by the dotcom bubble and then by the housing bubble – the US private sector has run a large financial surplus; that is to say, it has consistently spent less than it earned. Private-sector financial balances in most other economies have followed a similar trend. Chart 1Real Bond Yields Have Been Trending Lower Since The 1980s Real Bond Yields Have Been Trending Lower Since The 1980s Real Bond Yields Have Been Trending Lower Since The 1980s Chart 2The Private Sector Has Been Mostly Running Surpluses The Private Sector Has Been Mostly Running Surpluses (I) The Private Sector Has Been Mostly Running Surpluses (I) Ben Bernanke famously cited chronic private-sector financial surpluses as evidence of a “global savings glut.” The concept of a savings glut is closely related to the concept of demand-side secular stagnation, an idea popularized by Larry Summers prior to his heel-turn towards stimulus skeptic. When the private sector is unable to find enough worthy investment projects to make use of all available savings, the economy will struggle to attain full employment, even in the presence of very low interest rates. The concept of a savings glut is also related to another, less well known, concept: a safe asset shortage. If the private sector earns more than it spends, it must, by definition, accumulate assets. In principle, governments can satiate the demand for safe assets by issuing more bonds. In practice, governments have often been reluctant to run persistently large budget deficits for fear that this could undermine their credibility. Faced with a shortage of safe assets, the private sector has stepped in to fill the void, often with disastrous consequences. Most notably, in the lead-up to the Global Financial Crisis, banks sliced and diced portfolios of risky mortgages with the goal of creating safe assets that could be sold into the market. Most financial crashes occur when investors conclude that the assets they once thought were safe are not so safe after all. This was precisely what happened to mortgage-backed securities during the 2008 mortgage meltdown. The exact same pattern repeated itself two years later when investors finally came around to the seemingly obvious conclusion that Greek government bonds were not as safe as say, German bunds. The Safe Asset Shortage In A Post-Pandemic World This brings us to the present day. After falling from 7% of GDP in 2009 to 3% of GDP in the lead-up to the pandemic, the global private-sector financial balance surged to 11% of GDP in 2020. The IMF expects the global private-sector balance to average 9% of GDP in 2021 before trending lower over the coming years. Arithmetically, the private-sector financial balance must equal the sum of the fiscal deficit and the current account balance.1 By running large budget deficits during the pandemic, governments endowed the private sector with income they otherwise would not have had. This income consisted of transfers (stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, business subsidies, etc.) as well as income generated from direct government spending on goods and services. As of the end of March, we estimate that US households had accumulated about $2.2 trillion (10.5% of GDP) in savings over and above what they would have had in the absence of the pandemic. About 40% of those “excess savings” stemmed from fiscal policy with the remainder reflecting decreased consumption (Chart 3). Chart 3Lower Spending And Higher Income Have Led To Mounting Savings Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Chart 4Government Largesse Boosted Savings And Fattened Bank Deposits Government Largesse Boosted Savings And Fattened Bank Deposits Government Largesse Boosted Savings And Fattened Bank Deposits As the private sector’s financial balance increased, so did its asset holdings. Unlike in normal fiscal expansions where governments fund budget deficits by selling debt to the public, this time around, governments largely sold the debt to central banks. The money that governments received from central banks in return was then pumped into the economy, leading to a surge in bank deposits (Chart 4).   The Nature Of Stock Market “Flows” What happened to the money after it reached people’s bank accounts? A popular narrative is that some of it flowed into the stock market. While this description is technically true, it is somewhat misleading in that it conveys the false impression that there was a net inflow of money into stocks. The reality is more nuanced. When I buy some stock, I gain some shares but lose some cash. Conversely, whoever sold me the stock gains some cash and loses some shares. In aggregate, there is no change in either the number of shares or the amount of cash that investors hold. What does change is the value of the shares in relation to the cash that investors hold. My purchase must lift the share price by enough to persuade someone else to part with their shares. If the seller does not want to hold the additional cash, he or she may try to place an order to purchase a different stock that appears more attractively priced. This game of hot potato will only end when the value of the stock market rises by enough that all investors are happy with how much stock they own in relation to how much cash they hold. Rethinking The 60/40 Split The standard investment mantra is that investors should hold 60% of their portfolios in stock and the rest in cash, bonds, and other financial assets. The discussion above casts doubt on this simple rule of thumb. Suppose that Melanie holds $600 in stock and $400 in cash, and that cash earns a real interest rate of 2%. Let us also assume that Melanie requires a 4% equity risk premium. Hence, the equity earnings yield must be 6% (i.e., her $600 in stock must correspond to $36 in earnings).2 Now let us suppose that the central bank cuts the policy rate, so that the real interest rate falls to zero. In order to maintain a 4% equity risk premium, the earnings yield must decline to 4%, which implies that the value of the stock must rise to $900 ($36/0.04=$900). Thus, we have gone from a position where Melanie holds 60% of her portfolio in stock to one where she holds about 69% ($900/$1300) in stock. In other words, even though the equity risk premium did not change at all, the desired ratio of stock-to-cash rose from $600/$400=1.5 to $900/$400=2.25. Let us continue the thought experiment and imagine a scenario where the government sends Melanie and everyone else a stimulus check of $100. Now she has $500 in cash and $900 in stock. If she wants to maintain a stock-to-cash ratio of 2.25, she would need to use some of her cash to buy stock. However, since everyone else is also looking to purchase stock with their stimulus checks, before Melanie has a chance to enter a buy order, she finds that the stock in her portfolio has appreciated to $1125. Since $1125/$500 is equal to 2.25, Melanie cancels her buy order, content with the knowledge that she holds as much stock as she wants. Notice that in this simple example, neither interest rate cuts nor stimulus checks did anything to boost corporate profits. All that happened is that stock prices rose, causing the equity earnings yield to first fall from 6% to 4% after the central bank cut rates, and then fall again from 4% to 3.2% ($36/$1125) after the stimulus checks were sent out. If all of this sounds a bit familiar, it should. The sequence of events described above is precisely what has happened over the past 12 months. And not just to stock prices. As interest rates fell and cash balances swelled, other risky assets such as cryptocurrencies went to the proverbial moon. Is The Party Over? Given that fiscal stimulus has peaked and interest rates cannot be cut any further in the major economies, are stocks set to fall? Not necessarily! The amount of stock that investors choose to hold in relation to their cash balances is a function of animal spirits. While US consumer confidence rebounded in March to the highest level in a year, it still remains well below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The percentage of households in The Conference Board’s survey who expect stock prices to rise over the next 12 months is still around its long-term average (Chart 6). Chart 5Stocks Could Rise Further As Confidence Recovers Stocks Could Rise Further As Confidence Recovers Stocks Could Rise Further As Confidence Recovers Chart 6The Percentage Of Households Who Expect Stock Prices To Rise Over The Next 12 Months Is Still Around Its Long-Term Average The Percentage Of Households Who Expect Stock Prices To Rise Over The Next 12 Months Is Still Around Its Long-Term Average The Percentage Of Households Who Expect Stock Prices To Rise Over The Next 12 Months Is Still Around Its Long-Term Average Fortunately, the US is on target to provide a vaccine shot to everyone who wants one by the end of April.3 As the economy continues to reopen, confidence will rise further. Rising confidence, in turn, may prompt investors to increase their equity holdings. Our US equity strategists expect share buybacks to exceed share issuance over the next 12 months. Thus, the value of equity portfolios will only be able to rise if share prices go up. Outside the US and the UK and a few other smaller economies, the vaccination campaign has gotten off to a rocky start. However, the pace of inoculations is set to accelerate rapidly in the second quarter, which should pave the way to faster global growth. Global equities usually outperform bonds when growth is on the upswing (Chart 7). Chart 7Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong While equity allocations have risen, they are below the level reached in 2000 (Chart 8). Back then, the global equity earnings yield was on par with the real bond yield. Today, the earnings yield is about six percentage points above the bond yield, a similar gap to what prevailed in late-2009 (Chart 9). Chart 8Stock Allocations Have Rebounded, But Remain Below Their 2000 Peak Stock Allocations Have Rebounded, But Remain Below Their 2000 Peak Stock Allocations Have Rebounded, But Remain Below Their 2000 Peak Chart 9The Equity Risk Premium Is At Levels Similar To Late-2009 The Equity Risk Premium Is At Levels Similar To Late-2009 The Equity Risk Premium Is At Levels Similar To Late-2009 Granted, today’s high equity risk premium largely reflects the exceptionally low level of bond yields. If bond yields were to move up, the equity risk premium would shrink. While we do think that bond yields will rise by more than expected in the long run, the path to higher yields is likely to be a slow one. Rate expectations 2-to-3 years out tend to move closely in line with the 10-year yield (Chart 10). Already, there is a large gap between market expectations and the Fed dots. Whereas the market expects the Fed to start lifting rates late next year, the median Fed “dot” continues to signal no rate hike at least until 2024 (Chart 11). It is unlikely that market expectations will shift towards an even more aggressive path of rate tightening unless the Fed’s dovish rhetoric turns hawkish. As we discussed in our recently published Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, we do not expect this to happen anytime soon. Thus, with monetary policy still very loose, stocks can continue to grind higher. Chart 10Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out   Chart 11A Wide Gap Has Opened Up Between Market Expectations And The Fed Dots A Wide Gap Has Opened Up Between Market Expectations And The Fed Dots A Wide Gap Has Opened Up Between Market Expectations And The Fed Dots Regionally, we favour stock markets outside the US. Not only will overseas markets benefit from a rotation in growth from the US to the rest of the world in the second half of this year, but US corporate tax rates are almost certain to rise. We will be exploring the tax issue over the coming weeks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Just as the private-sector financial balance is the difference between what the private sector earns and spends, the fiscal balance is the difference between what the government earns and spends. If the fiscal balance is negative, the government runs a deficit. If the fiscal balance is positive, the government runs a surplus. Thus, added together, the private-sector financial balance and the fiscal balance simply equals the difference between what the country as a whole earns and spends which, by definition, is equal to the current account balance. One can also see this point by rewriting the equation Y=C+I+G+X-M as (Y-T)-(C+I)=(G-T)+(X-M) where T is tax revenue, Y-T is private-sector earnings, C+I is what the private sector spends on consumption and capital goods, G-T is the fiscal deficit, and X-M is the current account balance, broadly defined to include not only the trade balance but also net income from abroad. 2 The relative attractiveness of stocks can also be inferred by subtracting the real bond yield from the earnings yield on stocks in order to get an implied equity risk premium (ERP). It is necessary to subtract the real bond yield, rather than the nominal bond yield, from the earnings yield because the earnings yield provides an estimate of the real total expected return to shareholders. For further discussion on this, please see Appendix A of the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3 Mia Sato, “The US is about to reach a surprise milestone: too many vaccines, not enough takers,” MIT Technology Review, March 22, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Special Trade Recommendations Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Current MacroQuant Model Scores Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split Savings Gluts, Asset Shortages, And The 60/40 Split

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely US-Russia Conflit Likely US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Copper Prices Surge As Global Storage Draws Copper Prices Surge As Global Storage Draws Chart 10 Gold Disconnected From US Dollar And Rates Gold Disconnected From US Dollar And Rates       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights Our 80% odds that Biden will pass the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan stem from public opinion as well as Democratic control of Congress. Voters favor both higher taxes on corporations and higher infrastructure spending, as well as Biden’s proposal to pay for the latter by means of the former. A bipartisan consensus favors infrastructure spending, including “soft” infrastructure. Republicans who campaigned on the need for infrastructure over the past five years will not gain voter support by opposing it now. The Senate parliamentarian’s recent ruling on budget reconciliation procedures enables the Democrats to pass a second reconciliation bill, as expected. This puts Biden’s American Families Plan, to be detailed this month, officially into play for FY2022. Our initial premise remains a 50/50 chance that the $1.9 trillion bill passes before the 2022 midterms. Infrastructure plays benefit from a rising budget deficit but will also face a global headwind as China’s stimulus and growth momentum wane. Feature The market cheered the Biden administration’s $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan despite the confirmation that corporate tax rates will go up as expected (Chart 1). The details of the plan are shown in Table 1, which makes it clear that $760 billion can easily be subtracted from the plan during negotiations as not having to do with infrastructure. However, investors should wager that most of the new spending, including the social welfare components, will pass, since Democrats will use the budget reconciliation process. Chart 1Market Response To Biden, Infrastructure, Tax Hikes Market Response To Biden, Infrastructure, Tax Hikes Market Response To Biden, Infrastructure, Tax Hikes Table 1Biden's 'American Jobs Plan' Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? The bigger question is tax hikes. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia reiterated that a 25% corporate tax rate is as high as he is willing to go. Since Democrats cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (not to mention six or seven votes, which Manchin claims to have on his side), the corporate tax rates may be compromised. Still, investors should prepare for the worst, i.e. the 28% rate that Biden presented or only slightly less. While Manchin is the critical marginal voter – his vote will turn the balance of power in the Senate – nevertheless there will be enormous pressure on him not to “betray” his party and vote against the signature legislative proposal of the Biden presidency. Insofar as Manchin succeeds, he presents a “less bad” outcome for equity sectors that stand to suffer the most from a higher headline corporate tax rate, such as utilities, health care, and information technology (Chart 2). Chart 2Corporate Tax Rates Will Rise To 25%-28%, A Big Increase For Real Estate, Health Care, Tech, Utilities, And Consumer Staples Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? It will take time to draft and negotiate the spending and tax provisions and then get them passed in both the House and Senate. The Democrats also face tight margins in the House, where they can only lose four votes (the balance in the House is 218-211 after the death of Florida Representative Alcee Hastings). The earliest possible passage – based on historical precedent – is in May. The average length of time would put passage in November. In the worst case the negotiations could drag on till Christmas but we highly doubt the Democrats will take that long (Diagram 1). We attach an 80% subjective probability to the view that the American Jobs Plan will pass by end of year. Diagram 1Time Line For Congress To Pass American Jobs Plan By End Of 2021 Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Where we are less certain is in the second part of Biden’s economic plan, the $1.9 trillion American Families Plan, which contains social welfare spending, an expansion of the child tax credit and other tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, and the tax hikes on upper-middle class and wealthy individuals and households. This program will be outlined this month. It will be a challenge to pass it prior to the 2022 midterm elections, depending on how fast infrastructure flies through Congress. Our subjective 50% odds received initial support on April 5 when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that the Democrats can indeed pass more than one budget reconciliation bill per fiscal year, contrary to previous practice. This bill is just as likely to be the Democratic campaign platform for 2022 as to be passed in early 2022 under the current Congress. Senate Parliamentarian Enables Democrats To Bypass Filibuster We must pause here to note that the parliamentarian’s ruling is highly consequential as it erodes the checks and balances on passing legislation in the Senate. The new ruling holds that under Section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 the annual budget resolution can be revised. If it can be revised, then a new budget reconciliation bill can be crafted according to the new budget resolution. And reconciliation enables the ruling party to push through bills on a simple majority (51 votes) in the Senate. It will be hard for the Senate, as a body, to limit the ramifications of this decision in future. If the Democrats can pass two reconciliation bills in FY2021, then who is to say that some later Congress cannot pass three? Regardless, it is hard for a party to pass more than three major pieces of legislation in a single year, so the window is just wide enough to enable major breakthroughs in legislation (and, whenever the opposing party regains the House and Senate, big reversals of legislation). We have argued that Democrats would eventually, if not immediately, remove the Senate filibuster (the rule that requires 60-votes to end debate on regular legislation). At the moment there are still not enough votes to remove the filibuster entirely, although moderate Democrats are looking at technical ways of diminishing its influence, such as via the “talking filibuster” that would increase the difficulty of the process and thus reduce its use in the Senate.1 But this new ruling on budget reconciliation process substantively bypasses the filibuster. While the reconciliation process will still come with various technical limitations (the “Byrd rule,” and relevance to the budget), they are pliable. Clearly the ruling party calls the shots – especially if it is a party in synch with the political establishment in Washington. The Public Favors Tax Hikes For Infrastructure Where do we get our 80% subjective probability that Biden’s American Jobs Plan will pass Congress? Why so confident? First, Democrats have control of Congress, albeit narrowly. Second, public opinion not only favors infrastructure but also favors tax hikes on corporations – especially if they are to pay for infrastructure. The solution has been to rebrand renewable energy, broadband Internet, subsidized housing, and a range of other government programs as “infrastructure,” and meanwhile to rebrand social welfare as “human infrastructure.” Consider the following: The public favors higher taxes on corporations: 69% of Americans believe corporations pay too little in taxes, while only 6% believe they pay too much (Chart 3). While this is a general view, and does not reflect regional variations, it calls into question Joe Manchin’s opposition to a corporate tax rate of 28%. Manchin has his eye on the economic recovery, small business owners, as well as the particular industries and political orientation of his state. But the point is that opposition to corporate tax hikes is politically weak and therefore we continue to expect the result to be closer to Biden’s 28% than to Manchin’s 25%. The public favors higher taxes on high-income earners: As for Biden’s second slate of tax hikes, on individuals and households under the yet-to-be detailed American Families Act, 62% of Americans believe that upper-income earners pay too little in taxes and again only 9% believe they pay too much (Chart 4). Since Biden’s proposals amount to only a partial repeal of President Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which was itself unpopular in opinion polling, investors should also have a presumption in favor of individual tax hikes. However, as noted above, the American Families Plan only has a 50% chance of passing prior to the midterms due to the time crunch. Chart 3Public Favors Tax Hikes On Corporations Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Chart 4Public Favors Tax Hikes On The Rich Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Government is not seen as incompetent on infrastructure: Net public approval of the government’s performance on infrastructure is positive, just barely, unlike immigration, health care, or the environment. This means Biden can tap into a greater level of trust in government on this policy, while still calling on a general belief that infrastructure needs to be improved (Chart 5). Chart 5Public Gives Government Decent Grades On Infrastructure Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Chart 6No Partisan Gap On whether Infrastructure Should Be Prioritized Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Infrastructure is bipartisan: The gap in the views of Republicans and Democrats is narrow when it comes to infrastructure, unlike other policy issues that are extremely polarized. The gap is narrow whether infrastructure should be prioritized (Chart 6), whether government should play a larger role (Chart 7), and whether the federal government does a good job in this area (Chart 8). Democrats are more supportive of these propositions and they are currently in charge. But even Republicans tend to agree, as indicated by President Trump’s own emphasis on infrastructure, which the grassroots of his party supported despite establishment Republican hesitations due to concerns about the deficit. These charts also suggest that voters, especially Democratic voters, will not be bothered by the presence of non-traditional or “soft” infrastructure in Biden’s package as long as it can be successfully pitched as helping the economy, jobs, and American supply chains. Chart 7Government Role In Infrastructure Not Too Partisan Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Chart 8Government Performance On Infrastructure Not Too Partisan Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? The public approves of Biden’s corporate-tax-hikes-for-infrastructure tradeoff: About 54% approve outright, in line with Biden’s overall approval rating, including 52% of independents and a non-negligible 32% of Republicans. A further 27% support infrastructure spending without raising taxes, including 42% of Republicans (Chart 9). This poll does not stand alone but corroborates a range of polling over the past decade on both taxes and infrastructure. It strongly implies that the median voter will support Biden’s plan. (And again it suggests that while Senator Manchin may turn the balance in the Senate he is not standing on solid rock in calling for Biden to pare back his corporate tax hikes.) Chart 9Voters Back Tax Hikes For Infrastructure Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? No need to rely on polling – look at how people vote: Ballot measures on the local level for transportation funding usually win high levels of voter approval, meaning that people vote to increase their own taxes if they think traditional infrastructure will be improved. The average approval for such measures stood at 74% in 2016 and rose to 94% in the 2020 election cycle (Chart 10). And voters clearly understood that this combination is what they would get in voting for Biden, given that he did not shy away from his tax proposals in the presidential debates (although he insisted no tax hikes on those who earn less than $400,000 per year). Chart 10Voters Accept Higher Taxes For Infrastructure Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? The Democrats have the votes for an infrastructure package, they have the votes for at least some degree of corporate tax hikes, and they have popular opinion behind the principle of tax hikes in exchange for infrastructure upgrades. Furthermore the rise of geopolitical struggle abroad and populism at home have given Biden and the traditional Democrats extraordinary impetus to pass this bill. If they fail, they will have wasted precious congressional time, they will be less likely to pass the American Families Plan, and they will be more likely to lose control of the House or even the Senate in 2022, as their failure would energize both the democratic socialists on their left and the Trump Republicans on their right. It is unlikely that Senator Manchin alone is willing or able to cause such a train wreck for his party given the popularity of the proposals.2 The implication is that corporate tax hikes will be compromised only somewhat. It is also possible that non-infrastructure components of the bill, such as housing or some social spending, could be pared back, although these are not the controversial parts of the bill and we would not bet on the overall size of spending to be reduced by much. A bill with Biden’s spending measures and only half of the tax hikes would increase the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion, as we showed last week. A bill with all spending and all tax hikes would increase the deficit by $400 billion. Bottom Line: Biden has an 80% chance of passing the American Jobs Act, although some non-infrastructure provisions could be pared back and the corporate tax hike may not reach all the way to 28%. Most likely the final bill will be substantially similar to Biden’s proposal on spending, while the tax hikes will be compromised, reflecting the populist and proactive fiscal turn in US politics. Investment Takeaways A basket of the 50 companies in the S&P 500 with the highest median effective tax rates outperformed the S&P500 upon Trump’s election and subsequent tax cuts (Chart 11). Since Biden’s election they have also outperformed on the expectation of post-pandemic reopening and economic stimulus. However, the high-tax companies and high-tax sectors have underperformed on an equal-weighted basis since the Democratic Party won control of the Senate and tax hikes became inevitable. Tax hikes are largely but not fully priced from this point of view. Historically a rising budget deficit does not have a clear or positive correlation with the S&P 500, cyclical sectors, value stocks, or small caps. Fiscal thrust normally surges during recessions and bear markets. Nevertheless infrastructure plays – by which we include building products, construction materials and services, environmental services, metals and mining, machinery, and steel – tend to perform better when the deficit blows out. That trend looks to be intact today (Chart 12). Chart 11High-Tax Companies Rallied Despite Biden's Tax Hikes (But Not On Equal-Weighted Basis) High-Tax Companies Rallied Despite Biden's Tax Hikes (But Not On Equal-Weighted Basis) High-Tax Companies Rallied Despite Biden's Tax Hikes (But Not On Equal-Weighted Basis) Chart 12US Budget Blow-Out Positive For Infrastructure Plays US Budget Blow-Out Positive For Infrastructure Plays US Budget Blow-Out Positive For Infrastructure Plays The budget deficit is generally a stronger predictor of the performance of these sub-sectors than global manufacturing surveys and leading economic indicators, although the improvement in global sentiment and growth is clearly a positive backdrop (Chart 13). Europe and countries other than China will soon improve their vaccinations, reopen, and start catching up to the US economic rebound. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse is closely correlated with US infrastructure plays and this has not changed since the trade war began (Chart 14). Importantly, China is tapping on the policy brakes and its economy is set to decelerate in the second half of the year, which has important implications for our BCA Infrastructure Basket and long trades. This indicator suggests that the relative performance of infrastructure plays will face a gradually rising headwind from abroad even as the US economy continues to provide a tailwind. Chart 13Global Sentiment Positive But Not A Big Driver Of US Infrastructure Plays Global Sentiment Positive But Not A Big Driver Of US Infrastructure Plays Global Sentiment Positive But Not A Big Driver Of US Infrastructure Plays Chart 14Infrastructure Plays Face Headwind From China's Waning Stimulus Infrastructure Plays Face Headwind From China's Waning Stimulus Infrastructure Plays Face Headwind From China's Waning Stimulus Infrastructure plays shown here – which consist of goods and services that fall under greater demand when infrastructure is built – should not be confused with infrastructure companies themselves, which tend to be classified under the much more defensive utilities and telecommunication sectors (Chart 15). This ratio is looking very toppy, in keeping with the general rollover in cyclical equity sector performance relative to defensives.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 15Infrastructure Plays Versus Utilities And Telecoms Infrastructure Plays Versus Utilities And Telecoms Infrastructure Plays Versus Utilities And Telecoms   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Table A2Political Capital Index Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure? Will Biden Get The Votes For Infrastructure?   Footnotes 1     Molly E. Reynolds, “What is the Senate filibuster, and what would it take to eliminate it?” Brookings Institution, September 9, 2020, brookings.edu. 2     On the contrary, while the bill will pass via party-line voting, it is still conceivable that one or two moderate Senate Republicans could be brought to endorse Biden’s American Jobs Plan.  

Highlights Q1/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +55bps during the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +68bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (+63bps). Spread product allocations underperformed by -11bps, primarily due to an overweight on UK corporates (-8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral. Feature The first quarter of 2021 saw a sharp sell-off in global bond markets on the back of rising growth expectations, fueled by US fiscal stimulus and vaccine optimism. The US was near the front of the pack, with 10-year Treasuries having their biggest first quarter sell-off since 1994. Accommodative financial conditions, fueled by a highly stimulative mix of monetary and fiscal policies and improving sentiment, have lit a fire under a global economy set to reopen from pandemic lockdowns. Going forward, we expect US growth to continue leading the way, with implications for the dollar, commodity prices, and the expected path of policy rates. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the first quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2021 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Steering Clear Of Duration Chart 1Q1/2021 Performance: Bearish UST Bets Pay Off Q1/2021 Performance: Bearish UST Bets Pay Off Q1/2021 Performance: Bearish UST Bets Pay Off The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -1.83%, dramatically outperforming the custom benchmark index by +55bps (Chart 1).1 This follows modest outperformance in 2020 which was driven largely by overweights on spread product initiated after the pandemic shock to markets. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +68bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -11bps. Our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the US, Canada and Europe - which were a source of outperformance in 2020 - modestly underperformed this quarter (-2bps) as global real yields finally began to pick up. Our outperformance this quarter was driven overwhelmingly by our decision to go significantly underweight US Treasuries, and to position for a bearish steepening of the Treasury curve, ahead of last November’s US presidential election (Table 2). That resulted in the US Treasury allocation generating a massive +63bps of excess return in Q1/2022 as longer-term US yields surged higher. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening The size of the US underweight was unusually large as we maintained only a neutral exposure to the other “high beta” markets that are typically positively correlated to US yield moves, Canada and Australia. Although the returns for those two government bond markets were very similar to that of US Treasuries in Q1, so the choice to stay neutral even with a bearish directional view on US yields did not impact the overall portfolio performance. Overweights to the more defensive “low beta” markets of Germany, France and Japan contributed a combined +4bps. We did see some losses on nominal government bonds in peripheral Europe (Italy: -0.6bps; Spain: -1.9bps), however, with the narrowing in spreads thrown off by a botched vaccine rollout. In spread product, underperformance came from overweights to UK investment grade corporates (-8bps), US CMBS (-4bps), and EM USD-denominated corporates (-2bps). This was despite the fact that spreads for UK corporates remained flat while US CMBS spreads actually narrowed. These losses were slightly offset by the overweight to lower-rated US high-yield (+3bps) and underweight to US agency MBS (+2bps). Our spread product losses, in total return terms, highlight the importance of considering duration risk when making a call on spread product, especially at a time when sovereign yields are rising and spreads offer little “cushion”. Duration also played a big part in nominal government bond outperformance, with a whopping +43bps of our total +55bps outperformance concentrated in just US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years. In other words, overweighting overall global spread product and underweighting government bonds still generated major portfolio outperformance, even if there was a more mixed bag of returns within that credit overweight. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+43bps), maturity between 7 and 10 years (+11bps), and with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (+7bps) Overweight US high-yield (+3bps) Underweight US agency MBS (+2bps) Overweight Italian inflation-indexed BTPs (+2bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight UK investment grade corporates (-8bps) Overweight US agency CMBS (-4bps) Overweight Spanish government bonds (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. On that front, our portfolio allocations performed exceptionally well in Q1. In total return terms, the global bond market sell-off was a disaster for both government bonds and spread product. US high-yield, one of our longer-standing overweights, was the only sector to emerge unscathed, delivering a positive return of +42bps. Within our government bond allocation, the “defensive” markets—Japan (-44bps), Germany, (-261bps) and France (-371bps)—were nevertheless shaken by rising yields. On the other hand, we limited our downside by maintaining a neutral stance on the higher beta markets such as Canada (-406bps), New Zealand (-415bps), and the UK (-1389bps). Gilts sold off especially sharply as the UK outperformed global peers on COVID-19 vaccinations while inflation expectations continued to pick up. Our two underweights, US Treasuries (-426bps) and European high-yield (-426bps), were prescient. The latter market was one we chose to underweight given that spreads didn’t offer nearly enough compensation on a default-adjusted and breakeven basis. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the first quarter of the year by +55bps – a positive result driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market and overall below-benchmark global duration stance. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Chart 5More Growth-Driven Upside For Global Yields Ahead More Growth-Driven Upside For Global Yields Ahead More Growth-Driven Upside For Global Yields Ahead Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven predominantly by the future moves of global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored leading indicators for global bond yields continue to signal more upside over at least the next six months (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of measures of future economic sentiment and momentum, remains at an elevated level. The ongoing climb in the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, suggests that the recent uptick in real yields can continue into the second half of 2021. We are still maintaining a bias towards bearish yield curve steepening across all the countries in the model bond portfolio. It is still far too soon to see bearish flattening of yield curves given the dovish bias of global central banks, many of which are actively targeting an overshoot of their own inflation targets. The US will be the first central bank to see any bearish flattening pressure, as the market more aggressively pulls forward the liftoff date of the next Fed tightening cycle in response to strong US growth, but that is an outcome we do not expect until well into the second half of 2021. With regards to country allocations within the government bond segment of the model bond portfolio, we continue to focus our maximum underweight on the US, while limiting exposure to the markets that are more sensitive to changes in US interest rates (Chart 6). Those “lower yield beta” markets (Germany, France and Japan) will continue to outperform the higher beta markets (Canada, Australia) over the latter half of 2021. We currently have Canada on “downgrade watch”, as economic momentum is accelerating and the housing bubble looks to be reflating, both of which will make the Bank of Canada turn more hawkish shortly after the Fed does. We are more comfortable keeping Australia at neutral, as Australian inflation is likely to remain too underwhelming for the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish and risk a surge in the Australian dollar. UK Gilts are a more difficult case, atypically acting like a lower beta market over the past few years. As we discussed in a Special Report published last month, we attribute the declining Gilt yield beta to the rolling shocks the UK has suffered over the past thirteen years – the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2012 euro area debt crisis, Brexit and, now, COVID-19 – that have hamstrung the Bank of England’s ability to try even modest interest rate hikes.2 With the impact of those shocks on UK growth now diminishing, we see the central bank under greater pressure to begin normalizing UK monetary policy over the couple of years. We downgraded our cyclical stance on UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight in that Special Report and, this week, we are making the same reduction in UK weightings in our model bond portfolio (see the portfolio tables on pages 20-21). After that change, the overall duration of the model bond portfolio remains below that of the custom benchmark index, now by -0.75 years (Chart 7). Chart 6Low-Beta Markets Will Continue To Outperform USTs Low-Beta Markets Will Continue To Outperform USTs Low-Beta Markets Will Continue To Outperform USTs Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark We continue to see the dovish bias of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt (Chart 8). Yes, the “easy money” has been made betting on a recovery of inflation expectations from the bombed-out levels seen after the COVID-19 recession in 2020. However, within the major developed economies with inflation-linked bond markets, 10-year breakevens have already climbed beyond the pre-pandemic levels of early 2020 (Chart 9). The next targets are the previous cyclical highs seen in 2018 (and 2019 for the UK). Chart 8Dovish Central Banks Still Positive For Inflation-Linked Bonds Dovish Central Banks Still Positive For Inflation-Linked Bonds Dovish Central Banks Still Positive For Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 9Inflation Breakevens Returning To Past Cyclical Peaks Inflation Breakevens Returning To Past Cyclical Peaks Inflation Breakevens Returning To Past Cyclical Peaks Chart 10Still A Supportive Backdrop For Global Corporates Still A Supportive Backdrop For Global Corporates Still A Supportive Backdrop For Global Corporates The 10-year US TIPS breakeven is already past that 2018 peak of 2.18%, and with the Fed showing no sign of concern about US growth and inflation accelerating, the 10-year US breakeven should end up moving into the high end of our expected 2.3-2.5% target range before the Fed begins to turn less dovish. Thus, we are maintaining a core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy, France and Canada. The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy that has been good for relative inflation-linked bond performance continues to benefit global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England remains an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 55% pace, corporate bonds are still likely to continue to outperform government debt over the remainder of 2021. Much of that expected return outperformance of corporates will come via carry rather than spread compression, though. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads, the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, shows that only US high-yield spreads are above the bottom quartile of their history among the credit sectors in our model portfolio (Chart 11). Given the absence of spread cushion in those other markets, we are maintaining an overweight stance on US high-yield in the model bond portfolio – especially versus euro area high-yield where we are underweight - while staying neutral investment grade credit in the US and Europe. Chart 11US High-Yield: The Last Bastion Of Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds over investment grade corporates, given the European Central Bank’s more explicit support for the former through quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect Italian yields and spreads to converge down to Spanish levels, likely within the next 6-12 months, while there is limited downside for euro area investment grade spreads given tight valuations. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area IG Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area IG Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area IG We are not only looking at relative valuation considerations in developed market credit. Emerging market (EM) USD-denominated credit has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD credit, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, with the Chinese credit impulse likely to slow in the latter half of 2021 as Chinese policymakers look to rein in stimulus, a slower pace of Chinese economic growth represents a risk to EM credit (Chart 13). The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating with US bond yields rising and the markets questioning the Fed’s dovish forward guidance on future rate hikes (Chart 14). A strong US dollar would also be a risk to the commodity price rally that has supported EM financial assets. Chart 13Global Policy Mix Becoming Less Supportive For EM Global Policy Mix Becoming Less Supportive For EM Global Policy Mix Becoming Less Supportive For EM Chart 14A Stronger USD Is A Risk For EM Corporates Vs Sovereigns A Stronger USD Is A Risk For EM Corporates Vs Sovereigns A Stronger USD Is A Risk For EM Corporates Vs Sovereigns Chart 15A Moderate Overweight To Spread Product Vs Government Debt GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop, we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to neutral from overweight. We are maintaining our relative preference for EM investment grade corporates over sovereigns, however, within that overall neutral allocation. Summing it all up, we are sticking with a moderately overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt in the model portfolio, equal to four percentage points (Chart 15). That overweight comes entirely from the US high-yield allocation. After the changes made to our UK and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 41bps (Chart 16). This is an unsurprising outcome given that the current positioning is focused so heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral. That will change as 2021 progresses but, for now, our highest conviction views are in US fixed income. One final point – the relatively concentrated positioning leaves the portfolio “flat carry”, with a yield roughly equal to that of the benchmark index (Chart 17). Chart 16Limited Use Of Portfolio 'Tracking Error' Limited Use Of Portfolio 'Tracking Error' Limited Use Of Portfolio 'Tracking Error' Chart 17Model Portfolio Yield Close To Benchmark Model Portfolio Yield Close To Benchmark Model Portfolio Yield Close To Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the UK and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Base case: Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy reopening over the summer, with excess savings built up during the pandemic – augmented by ongoing fiscal support – starting to be spent. US economic growth will be most robust out of the major economies, given the additional boost from fiscal stimulus, while China implements actions to slow credit growth and the euro area lags on vaccinations. The Fed stands its ground and maintains no rate hikes until at least 2023, and US TIPS breakevens climb to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate (2.3-2.5%). The US Treasury curve continues to bear-steepen, with the 10-year US yield rising to 2%. The VIX falls to 15, the US dollar is flat, the Brent oil price rises +5%, and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0%. Optimistic case: A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a reopening euro area. Chinese policymakers tighten credit by less than expected. Markets begin to pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US but also in the other countries like Canada and the UK. Real bond yields continue to climb globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated. The steepening trend of the US Treasury curve ends, and mild bear flattening begins with the 10-year reaching 2.2% and the 2-year yield climbing to 0.4%. The VIX stays unchanged at 18, the US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price climbs +2.5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Pessimistic case: Setbacks on the pandemic, either from struggles with vaccine distribution or a surge in variant cases, lead to a slower pace of global growth momentum. Europe cannot reopen, China tightens credit policy faster than expected, and US households hold onto to excess savings amid lingering virus uncertainty. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.5%. The VIX rises to 25, the US dollar falls -2.5% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 18 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 19. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 18Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 19US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case and +54bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -27bps in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We are sticking with an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, given accelerating global growth momentum, expanding vaccinations and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield given more stretched valuations in other credit sectors. On the margin, we are making the following changes to the portfolio allocations: downgrading both UK Gilts and UK investment grade corporates to neutral, while cutting the overall allocation to EM USD credit to neutral.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Grand Reopening Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The Eurozone economy and assets remain beholden to the global manufacturing cycle. This sensitivity reflects the large share of output generated by capex and exports. Yet, the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022 could see euro area growth follow the beat of its own drum. This is a consequence of the unique role of consumption in the COVID-19 recession. European growth will therefore outperform expectations, even if economic momentum slows outside of Europe. Consequently, the euro and Eurozone equities will outperform for the coming 12 to 18 months. Feature For the past 20 years, investors have used a simple rule of thumb to understand European growth and markets. Europe is a derivative of global growth because of its large manufacturing sector and torpid domestic economy. A reductionist approach would even argue that China’s economy is what matters most for Europe. Is this model still valid to analyze Europe? In general, this approach still holds up well. However, the nature of the 2020 COVID-19 recession suggests that the European economy could still accelerate in the second half of the year, despite a small slowdown in the Chinese economy and global manufacturing sector. The Origin Of The Pro-Cyclicality Narrative Investors in European markets have long understood that Eurozone equities outperform when the global manufacturing cycle accelerates. This pro-cyclicality of European stocks is a consequence of their heavy weighting toward cyclical and value stocks, such as industrials, consumer discretionary and financials. Chart 1German/US Spreads: Global Manufacturing Cycle German/US Spreads: Global Manufacturing Cycle German/US Spreads: Global Manufacturing Cycle Historically, European yields have also moved in a very pro-cyclical fashion. Over the past 30 years, periods when German 10-year yields rose relative to that of US Treasury Notes have coincided with an improvement in the global manufacturing sector as approximated by the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart 1). Investors also understand that the euro is a pro-cyclical currency. Some of this behavior reflects the counter-cyclicality of the US dollar. However, if German yields rise more than US ones when global growth improves and European equities outperform under similar conditions, the euro naturally attracts inflows when the global manufacturing sector strengthens. Chart 2China Is A Key Determinant Of European Activity China Is A Key Determinant Of European Activity China Is A Key Determinant Of European Activity Ultimately, the responsiveness of the euro and European assets to global growth is rooted in the nature of the European economy. Trade and manufacturing account for nearly 40% and 14% of GDP, respectively, compared to 26% and 11% for the US. This economic specialization has made Europe extremely sensitive to the gyrations of the Chinese economy, the largest contributor to fluctuation in the global demand for capital goods. As Chart 2 highlights, European IP and PMI outperform the US when China’s marginal propensity to consume (as approximated by the growth in M1 relative to M2) picks up. Is The Pro-Cyclical Narrative Still Valid? Despite the euro area debt crisis and the slow health and fiscal policy response of European authorities to COVID-19, evidence suggests that the Eurozone’s pro-cyclicality is only increasing. Chart 3Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World Europe Is Becoming More Sensitive To The Rest Of The World A simple statistical analysis confirms this hypothesis. A look at the beta of European GDP growth against the Global PMI reveals that the sensitivity of Eurozone growth and German growth to the Global PMI has steadily increased over the past 20 years (Chart 3, top panel). Moreover, the beta of euro area growth to the global PMI is now higher than that of the US, despite a considerably lower potential GDP growth, which means that a greater proportion of the Eurozone’s GDP growth is affected by globally-driven fluctuations. The bottom panel of Chart 3 shows a more volatile but similar relationship with Chinese economic activity. Correlation analysis confirms that Europe remains very sensitive to global factors. Currently, the rolling correlation of a regression of Eurozone GDP growth versus that of China stands near 0.7, which is comparable to levels that prevailed between 2005 and 2012. The correlation between German and Chinese GDP growth is now higher than at any point during the past two decades. Chart 4The Declining Role Of Consumption The Declining Role Of Consumption The Declining Role Of Consumption The increasing influence of global economic variables on the European economy reflects the evolution of the composition of the Eurozone’s GDP. Over the past 11 years, the share of consumption within GDP has decreased from 57% to 52%. For comparison’s sake, consumption accounts for 71% of US GDP. The two sectors that have taken the primacy away from consumption are capex and net exports, whose combined share has grown from 22% to 26% of GDP (Chart 4). This shift in the composition of GDP echoes the structural forces facing the Eurozone. An ageing population, a banking system focused on rebuilding its balance sheet, and the tackling of the competitiveness problems of peripheral economies have hurt wage growth, consumption and imports. Meanwhile, exports have remained on a stable trend, thanks to both the comparative vigor of the euro area’s trading partners and a cheap euro. Therefore, net exports expanded. Capex benefited from the strength in European exports. A Granger causality test reveals that consumption has little impact on fixed-capital formation in the euro area. However, the same method shows that fluctuations in export growth cause changes in investment. This makes sense. The variance in exports is an important contributor to the variability of Eurozone profits (Chart 5). Thus, rising exports incentivize the European corporate sector to expand its capital stock to fulfill foreign demand. The expanding share of output created by exports and capex along with the role of exports as a driver of capex explains why Europe economic activity is bound to remain so sensitive to the fluctuations in global trade and manufacturing activity. Moreover, the capex/exports interplay even affects consumption. As Chart 6 shows, the growth of euro area personal expenditures often bottoms after the annual rate of change of the new orders of capital goods has troughed, which reflects the role of exports as a driver of European income. Chart 5Profits And Exports Profits And Exports Profits And Exports Chart 6Consumption Doesn't Move In A Vacuum Consumption Doesn't Move In A Vacuum Consumption Doesn't Move In A Vacuum Bottom Line: European economic activity remains a high beta play on global and Chinese growth. The decrease in consumption to the benefit of exports and capex explains why this reality will not change anytime soon. 2021, An Idiosyncratic Year? In 2021, consumption will be the key input to the European economic performance, despite the long-term relationship between European GDP and foreign economic activity. This will allow European growth to narrow some of its gap with the US and the rest of the world in the second half of this year and the first half of 2022, even if the global manufacturing sector comes off its boil soon. The 2020 recession was unique. In a normal recession, capex, real estate investment, spending on durable goods and the manufacturing sector are the main contributors to the decline in GDP. This time, consumption and the service sector generated most of the contraction in output. These two sectors also caused the second dip in GDP following the tightening of lockdown measures across Europe last winter. Once the more recent wave of lockdowns is behind us, consumption will most likely slingshot to higher levels. More than the US, where the economy has been partially open for months now, Europe remains replete with significant pent-up demand. Obviously, fulfilling this demand will require further progress in the European vaccination campaign, something we recently discussed. Chart 7The Money Supply Forecasts A Rapid Recovery The Money Supply Forecasts A Rapid Recovery The Money Supply Forecasts A Rapid Recovery The surge in M1 also points to a sharp rebound in consumption once governments lift the current lockdowns (Chart 7). M1 is a much more reliable predictor of economic activity in Europe than in the US, because disintermediation is not as prevalent in the Eurozone, where banks account for 72% and 88% of corporate and household credit, respectively, compared to 32% and 29% in the US. We cannot dismiss the explosion in the money supply as only a function of the ECB’s actions. European banks are in much better shape today than they were 10 years ago. Non-performing loans have been steadily decreasing. A rise in delinquencies is likely in the coming quarters due to the pandemic; however, the EUR3 trillion in credit guarantees by governments will limit the damages to the private sector’s and banking system’s balance sheets. Moreover, the Tier-1 capital ratio of the banking system ranges between 14% for Spain and 17% for Germany, well above the 10.5% threshold set by Basel-III (Chart 8). In this context, the pick-up in money supply mirrored credit flows. Thus, even if some of that credit reflects precautionary demand, the likelihood is high that a significant proportion of the built-up cash balances will find its way into the economy. Another positive sign for consumption comes from European confidence surveys. Despite tighter lockdown measures, consumer confidence has sharply rebounded, which historically heralds stronger consumption. Moreover, according to the ECB’s loan survey, stronger consumer confidence is causing an improvement in credit demand, which foreshadows a decline in savings intentions, especially now that wage growth is stabilizing (Chart 9). Nonetheless, there is still a risk that the advance in wages peters off. The recent wage agreement reached by Germany’s IG Metall union in North Rhine Westphalia was a paltry 1.3% annual pay raise, and once the Kurzarbeit programs end, the true level of labor market slack will become evident. However, for consumption to grow, all that we need to see now is stable wage growth, even if at a low rate.  Chart 8European Banks Are Feeling Better European Banks Are Feeling Better European Banks Are Feeling Better Chart 9Confidence Points To Stronger Consumption Confidence Points To Stronger Consumption Confidence Points To Stronger Consumption Beyond consumption, Europe’s fiscal policy will be positive compared to the US next year. The NGEU plan will add roughly 1% to GDP in both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the Eurozone’s net fiscal drag should be no greater than 1% of GDP next year. This compares to a fiscal thrust of -7% in the US in 2022, even after factoring in the new “American Jobs Act” proposed by the Biden Administration last week, according to our US Political Strategy team. Bottom Line: The revival in European consumption in the second half of 2021 and the first half of 2022 will allow the gap between European and global growth to narrow. This dynamic will be reinforced next year, when the fiscal drag will be lower in Europe than in the US. These forces will create a rare occasion when European growth will improve despite a deceleration (albeit a modest one) in global manufacturing activity. Investment Conclusions The continued sensitivity of the euro area economy to the global industrial and trade cycle indicates that over the long-term, European assets will remain beholden to the gyrations of global growth. In other words, the euro and European stocks will outperform in periods of accelerating global manufacturing activity, as they have done over the past 30 years. The next 12 to 18 month may nonetheless defy this bigger picture, allowing European assets to generate alpha for global investors. Chart 10The Euro Will Like Idiosyncratic European Growth The Euro Will Like Idiosyncratic European Growth The Euro Will Like Idiosyncratic European Growth First, the gap between US and euro area growth will narrow over the coming 12 to 18 months, thus the euro will remain well bid, even if the maximum acceleration in global industrial activity lies behind. As investors re-assess their view of European economic activity and the current period of maximum relative pessimism passes, inflows into the euro area will accelerate and the euro will appreciate (Chart 10). Hence, we continue to see the recent phase of weakness in EUR/USD as transitory. Second, European equities have scope to outperform US ones over that window. Some of that anticipated outperformance reflects our positive stance on the euro. However, a consumption-driven economic bounce will be positive for European financials as well. Such a recovery will let investors ratchet down their estimates of credit losses in the financial system. Moreover, banks are well capitalized, thus the ECB will permit the resumption of dividend payments. Under these circumstances, European banks have scope to outperform US ones temporarily, especially since Eurozone banks trade at a 56% discount to their transatlantic rivals on a price-to-book basis. An outperformance of financials will be key for Europe’s performance. Chart 11German/US Spreads Near Equilibrium? German/US Spreads Near Equilibrium? German/US Spreads Near Equilibrium? Finally, we could enter a period of stability in US/German yield spreads over the coming months. The ECB remains steadfast at limiting the upside in European risk-free rates, as Christine Lagarde reiterated last week. However, BCA’s US bond strategist, Ryan Swift, believes US yields will enter a temporary plateau, as the Federal Reserve will not adjust rates until well after the US economy has reached full employment. Hence, the Fed is unlikely to let the OIS curve bring forward the date of the first hike currently priced in for August 2022 on a durable basis, which also limits the upside to US yields. Thus, looking at core CPI and policy rate differences, US yields have reached a temporary equilibrium relative to Germany (Chart 11).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com