Productivity

Highlights Global oil markets will remain balanced this year with OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy geared toward maintaining the level of supply just below demand.  This will keep inventories on a downward trajectory, despite short-term upticks due to COVID-19-induced demand hits in EM economies and marginal supply additions from Iran and Libya over the near term. Our 2021 oil demand growth is lower – ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, down ~ 800k from last month's estimate – given persistent weakness in realized consumption.  We have lifted our demand expectation for 2022 and 2023, however, expecting wider global vaccine distribution and increased travel toward year-end. The next few months are critical for OPEC 2.0: The trajectory for EM demand recovery will remain uncertain until vaccines are more widely distributed, and supply from Iran and Libya likely will increase this year.  This will lead to a slight bump in inventories this year, incentivizing KSA and Russia to maintain the status quo on the supply side. We are raising our 2021 Brent forecast back to $63/bbl from $60/bbl, and lifting our 2022 and 2023 forecasts to $75 and $78/bbl, respectively, given our expectation for a wider global recovery (Chart of the Week). Feature A number of evolving fundamental factors on both sides of the oil market – i.e., lingering uncertainty over the return of Iranian and Libyan exports and the strength of the global demand recovery – will test what we believe to be OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy in the next few months. Briefly, our maintained hypothesis views OPEC 2.0 as the dominant supplier in the global oil market. This is due to the low-cost production of its core members (i.e., those states able to attract capital and grow production), and its overwhelming advantage in spare capacity, which we reckon will average in excess of 7mm b/d this year, owing to the massive production cuts undertaken to drain inventories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Formidable storage assets globally – positioned in or near refining centers – and well-developed transportation infrastructures also support this position. We estimate core OPEC 2.0 production will average 26.58mm b/d this year and 29.43mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Brent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Brent Prices Likely Correct Then Move Higher in 2022-23 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Status Quo The putative leaders of the OPEC 2.0 coalition – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – have distinctly different goals. KSA's preference is for higher prices – ~ $70-$75/bbl (basis Brent) to the end of 2022. Higher prices are needed to fund the Kingdom's diversification away from oil. Russia's goal is to keep prices closer to the marginal cost of the US shale-oil producers, who we characterize as the exemplar of the price-taking cohort outside OPEC 2.0, which produces whatever the market allows. This range is ~ $50-$55/bbl. The sweet spot that accommodates these divergent goals is on either side of $65/bbl for this year. OPEC 2.0 June 1 Meeting Will Maintain Status Quo With Brent trading close to $70/bbl, discussions in the run-up to OPEC 2.0's June 1 meeting likely are focused on the necessity to increase the 2.1mm b/d being returned to the market over the May-July period. At present, we do not believe this will be necessary: Iran likely will be returning to the market beginning in 3Q21, and will top up its production from ~ 2.4mm b/d in April to ~ 3.85mm b/d by year-end, in our estimation. Any volumes returned to the market by core OPEC 2.0 in excess of what's already been agreed going into the June 1 meeting likely will come out of storage on an as-needed basis. Libya will likely lift its current production of ~ 1.3mm b/d close to 1.5mm b/d by year end as well. We are expecting the price-taking cohort ex-OPEC 2.0 to increase production from 53.78mm b/d in April to 53.86mm b/d in December, led by a 860k b/d increase in US output, which will take average Lower 48 output in the US (ex-GOM) to 9.15mm b/d by the end of this year (Chart 3). When we model shale output, our expectation is driven by the level of prompt WTI prices and the shape of the forward curve. The backwardation in the WTI forward curve will limit hedged revenues at the margin, which will limit the volume growth of the marginal producer. We expect global production to slowly increase next year, and the year after that, with supply averaging 101.07mm b/d in 2022 and 103mm b/d in 2023.  Chart 3US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 US Crude Output Recovers, Then Tapers in 2023 Demand Should Lift, But Uncertainties Persist We expect the slowdown in realized DM demand to reverse in 2H21, and for oil demand to continue to recover in 2H21 as the US and EU re-open and travel picks up. This can be seen in our expectation for DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption (Chart 4). EM demand – proxied by non-OECD oil consumption – is expected to revive over 2022-23 as vaccine distribution globally picks up. As a result, demand growth shifts to EM, while DM levels off. China's refinery throughput in April came within 100k b/d of the record 14.2mm b/d posted in November 2020 (Chart 5). The marginal draw in April stockpiles could also signify that as crude prices have risen higher, the world’s largest oil importer may have hit the brakes on bringing oil in. In the chart, oil stored or drawn is calculated as the difference between what is imported and produced with what is processed in refineries. With refinery maintenance in high gear until the end of this month, we expect product-stock draws to remain strong on the back of domestic and export demand. This will draw inventories while maintenance continues. Chart 4EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 EM Demand Will Recovery Accelerates in 2022-23 Chart 8China Refinery Runs Remain Strong China Refinery Runs Remain Strong China Refinery Runs Remain Strong COVID-19-induced demand destruction remains a persistent risk, particularly in India, Brazil and Japan. This is visible in the continued shortfall in realized demand vs our expectation so far this year. We lowered our 2021 oil demand growth estimate to ~ 5.3mm b/d y/y, which is down ~ 800k from last month's estimate, given persistent weakness in realized consumption. Our demand forecast for 2022 and 2023 is higher, however, based on our expectation for stronger GDP growth in EM economies, following the DM's outperformance this year, on the back of wider global vaccine distribution year-end (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus Our supply-demand estimates continue to point to a balanced market this year and into 2022-23 (Chart 6). Given our expectation OPEC 2.0's production-management strategy will remain effective, we expect inventories to continue to draw (Chart 7). Chart 6Markets Remained Balanced Markets Remained Balanced Markets Remained Balanced Chart 7Inventories Continue To Draw Inventories Continue To Draw Inventories Continue To Draw CAPEX Cuts Bite In 2023 In 2023, we are expecting Brent to end the year closer to $80/bbl than not, which will put prices outside the current range we believe OPEC 2.0 is managing its production around (Chart 8). We have noted in the past continued weakness in capex over the 2015-2022 period threatens to leave the global market exposed to higher prices (Chart 9). Over time, a reluctance to invest in oil and gas exploration and production prices in 2024 and beyond could begin to take off as demand – which does not have to grow more than 1% p.a. – continues to expand and supply remains flat or declines. Chart 8By 2023 Brent Trades to /bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl Chart 9Low Capex Likely Results In Higher Prices After 2023 OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus Bottom Line: We are raising our 2021 forecast back to an average of $63/bbl, and our forecasts for 2022 and 2023 to $75 and $78/bbl. We expect DM demand to lead the recovery this year, and for EM to take over next year, and resume its role as the growth engine for oil demand. Longer term, parsimonious capex allocations likely result in tighter supply meeting slowly growing demand. At present, markets appear to be placing a large bet on the buildout of renewable electricity generation and electric vehicles (EVs). If this does not occur along the trajectory of rapid expansion apparently being priced by markets – i.e., the demand for oil continues to expand, however slowly – oil prices likely would push through $80/bbl in 2024 and beyond.   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 The Colonial Pipeline outage pushed average retail gasoline prices in the US to $3.03/gal earlier this week, according to the EIA. This was the highest level for regular-grade gasoline in the US since 27 October 2014. According to reuters.com, the cyberattack that shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline was the most disruptive on record, shutting down thousands of retail service stations in the US southeast. Millions of barrels of refined products – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – were unable to flow between the US Gulf and the NY Harbor because of the attack, which was launched 7 May 2021 (Chart 10). While most of the system is up and running, problems with the pipeline's scheduling system earlier this week prevented a return to full operation. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices remained on either side of $4.55/lb (~ $10,000/MT) by mid-week following a dip from the $4.80/lb level (Chart 11). We remain bullish copper, particularly as political risk in Chile rises going into a constitutional convention. According to press reports, the country's constitution will be re-written, a process that likely will pave the way for higher taxes and royalties on copper producers.1 In addition, unions in BHP mines rejected a proposed labor agreement, with close to 100% of members voting to strike. In Peru, a socialist presidential candidate is campaigning on a platform to raise taxes and royalties. Precious Metals: Bullish According to the World Platinum Investment Council, platinum is expected to run a deficit for the third consecutive year in 2021, which will amount to 158k oz, on the back of strong demand. Refined production is projected to increase this year, with South Africa driving this growth as mines return to full operational capacity after COVID-19 related shutdowns. Automotive demand is leading the charge in higher metal consumption, as car makers switch out more expensive palladium for platinum to make autocatalysts in internal-combustion vehicles. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices continued to be better-offered following last week's WASDE report, which contained the department's first look at the 2021-22 crop year. Corn production is expected to be up close to 6% over the 2020-21 crop year, at just under 15 billion bushels. On the week, corn prices are down ~ 15.3%. Chart 10 RBOB Gasoline at a High RBOB Gasoline at a High Chart 11 Political Risk in Chile and Peru Could Bolster Copper Prices Political Risk in Chile and Peru Could Bolster Copper Prices     Footnotes 1     Please see Copper price rises as Chile fuels long-term supply concerns published 18 May 2021 by mining.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Dear client, Next week, in lieu of our weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Thursday, March 25 at 10:00 am EDT and Friday March 26 at 9:00 am HKT. I look forward to your comments and questions during the webcast. Best regards, Chester Highlights During bear markets, counter-trend rallies in the dollar are capped around 4%. This time should be no different. Meanwhile, unless the Fed tightens policy to stem the increase in aggregate demand, inflation will rise and real short rates will drop. The relative equity performance of the US is critical for the dollar. Reserve diversification out of dollars has also started to place a natural ceiling against other developed market currencies. An attractive opportunity is emerging to short the AUD/CAD cross. Feature The 1.7% rise in the US dollar this year is reinvigorating the bull case. When presenting our key views last year, we highlighted that the DXY index was at risk of a 2-4% bounce.1 We reaffirmed this view in our January report: Sizing A Potential Dollar Bounce. At the time, the DXY index was at the 90 level, suggesting the rally should fizzle around 94. Therefore, the key question is whether the nascent rise in the DXY will punch through this level, or fade as we originally expected. The short-term case for the dollar remains bullish. The currency is much oversold. Meanwhile, real interest rates are moving in favor of the US, vis-à-vis a few countries. Third and interrelated, economic momentum in the US is quite strong, compared to other G10 countries. With the rising specter of a market correction, the dollar could also benefit from safe haven flows towards the US. The Federal Reserve’s meeting yesterday certainly reaffirmed that short-term rates will remain anchored near zero, at least until 2023. The Fed does not see inflation much above 2% a couple of years out. Nevertheless, a lot can change in the coming months. Cycles, Positioning And Interest Rates The dollar tends to move in long cycles, with the latest bull and bear markets lasting about a decade or so. In other words, the dollar is a momentum currency. As such, determining which regime you are in is critical to assessing the magnitude of any rally. This is certainly the case when sentiment remains overly dollar bearish, as now. During bear markets, counter-trend rallies in the dollar are capped around 4-6%. This was what happened in the early 2000s. In bull markets, such as after the financial crisis, the dollar achieves escape velocity, with more durable rallies well into the teens (Chart I-1). So far, the current rise still fits within the narrative of a healthy reset in a longer-term bear market. Chart I-1The Dollar Rally Is Still Benign The Dollar Rally Is Still Benign The Dollar Rally Is Still Benign Long interest rates have also been moving in favor of the dollar, especially relative to the euro area, Japan, and even Sweden. Currencies are driven by real interest rate differentials, and higher US yields are bullish. With the Fed giving no indication it will prevent the curve from steepening further, US interest rates could keep gaping higher. However, currencies are about relative rate differentials, and the rise in US interest rates has not been in isolation. Rates in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, countries that have managed the COVID-19 crisis pretty well, are beginning to rise faster than in the US (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Synchronized Rise In Global Yields A Synchronized Rise In Global Yields A Synchronized Rise In Global Yields US Versus World Growth The rise in US interest rates has been justified by better economic performance. Whether looking at purchasing managers’ indices, economic surprise indices, or even GDP growth expectations, the US has had the upper hand (Chart I-3). The Fed expects US growth to hit 6.5% this year. This is well above what other central banks expect for their domestic economies. The ECB expects 4%, the BoJ expects 3.9%, and the BoC expects 4.6% (Table I-1). Chart I-3AThe US Leads In Growth This Year The US Leads In Growth This Year The US Leads In Growth This Year Chart I-3BThe US Leads In Growth This Year The US Leads In Growth This Year The US Leads In Growth This Year Table I-1The US Leads In Growth And Inflation This Year Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears However, economic dominance can be transient, especially in a world of flexible exchange rates.  For one, a higher dollar will sap US growth via the export channel. This is especially the case since the starting point is an expensive currency. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the dollar is above its long-term mean (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, we expect the rest of the world to perform better as economies reopen. The services PMI in the US is already close to a cyclical high, similar to Sweden (Chart I-5). These are among the countries with the least stringent COVID-19 measures in the western hemisphere. This suggests that other economies, even manufacturing-centric ones, could see a coiled-spring rebound in growth as we put this pandemic behind us. Chart I-4The Dollar Is Expensive The Dollar Is Expensive The Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-5The US Service PMI Is At A Cyclical High The US Service PMI Is At A Cyclical High The US Service PMI Is At A Cyclical High The sweet spot for most economies is when growth is rising but inflation is low, allowing the resident central bank to keep policy dovish. However, it is an open question if the US can continue to boost spending, without a commensurate rise in inflation. The OECD estimates that the US output gap will close by 2022, with the $1.9-trillion fiscal package. This will put the US well ahead of any G10 country (Chart I-6). Unless the Fed tightens policy to stem the increase in aggregate demand, inflation will rise and real rates will drop (Chart I-7). Rising nominal rates and falling real yields will be anathema to the dollar. Chart I-6The US Output Gap Will Soon Close The US Output Gap Will Soon Close The US Output Gap Will Soon Close Chart I-7Wages And Inflation Should Inch Higher Wages And Inflation Should Inch Higher Wages And Inflation Should Inch Higher Equity Rotation And The Dollar A currency manager once noted that the most important variable to pay attention to when making FX allocations is relative equity performance. This might seem bizarre at first blush, but stands at the center of what an exchange rate is – a mechanism that equalizes rates of return across countries. As such while bond flows are important for exchange rates, equity flows matter as well. The relative equity performance of the US is critical for two reasons. First, the US equity market tends to do relatively better during bear markets. This was the case last year and during the 2008 crisis. Second, the outperformance of the US over the last decade has dovetailed with a dollar bull market (Chart I-8). It is rare to find a currency that has performed well both during equity bull and bear markets. If past is prologue, the near-term risks for the dollar are to the upside, especially if the market rally encounters turbulence as yields rise. The put/call ratio in the US is at a 5-year nadir. A move towards parity could violently pull up the DXY index (Chart I-9). However, a garden-variety 5-10% correction in the SPX should correspond to a shallow bounce in the DXY. This will also fit the pattern of bear market USD rallies, as we already highlighted in Chart I-1. Chart I-8US Equity Relative Performance And The Dollar US Equity Relative Performance And The Dollar US Equity Relative Performance And The Dollar Chart I-9The Dollar Could Rise In ##br##A Market Reset The Dollar Could Rise In A Market Reset The Dollar Could Rise In A Market Reset At the same time, any correction could usher in a violent rotation from cyclicals to defensives, especially if underpinned by higher interest rates. The performance of energy and financials are a leap ahead of other sectors in the S&P 500 this year. Importantly, they also massively outperformed during the February drawdown. Meanwhile, valuations are heavily elevated in the US compared to the rest of the world. This is true for growth sectors compared to value, and cyclicals compared to defensives. Throughout history, both exchange rates and valuations have tended to mean revert. Long-Term Dollar Outlook The 2020 pandemic was a one-in-a-hundred-year event. Coordinated fiscal and monetary stimuli have ushered in a new economic cycle. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar tends to do poorly (Chart I-10). This is because monetary stimulus provides more torque to economies levered to the global cycle. Once growth achieves escape velocity, the currencies of these more pro-cyclical economies benefit. The IMF projects that non-US growth should outpace US growth after 2021. Meanwhile, it is an open question that any rally in the dollar will be durable. The key driver behind the dollar increase in 2020 was a global shortage. Not only has the Fed extended its liquidity provisions to foreign central banks until September this year, the share of offshore US dollar debt issuance has fallen by a full 9 percentage points (Chart I-11). Simply put, the Fed is flooding the system with dollar liquidity at the same time that foreign entities are weaning themselves off it Chart I-10The IMF Expects Faster Growth Outside The US After 2021 The IMF Expects Faster Growth Outside The US After 2021 The IMF Expects Faster Growth Outside The US After 2021 Chart I-11Share Of US Dollar Debt ##br##Rolling Over Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears The reason behind this is balance-of-payment dynamics. The market has realized that ballooning twin deficits in the US come at a cost. For foreign issuers, it is the prospect of rolling over US-denominated debt at a much higher coupon rate. For bond investors, it is currency depreciation, especially if fiscal largesse becomes too “sticky,” and stokes inflation. As such, bond investors continue to avoid the US, despite rising rates (Chart I-12). Finally, reserve diversification out of dollars has started to place a natural ceiling on the US dollar, especially against other developed market currencies. Ever since the trend began to accelerate in 2015, the DXY has been unable to sustainably punch through the 100 level (Chart I-13). This will place a durable floor under developed market currencies in general and gold in particular. The Chinese RMB has also been gaining traction in global FX reserves. Chart I-12Little Appetite For US ##br##Treasurys Little Appetite For US Treasurys Little Appetite For US Treasurys Chart I-13Reserve Diversification Has Been A Headwind For The Dollar Reserve Diversification Has Been A Headwind For The Dollar Reserve Diversification Has Been A Headwind For The Dollar More specifically, the role of the USD/CNY exchange rate as a key anchor for emerging market currencies will rise, especially if the RMB remains structurally strong.2 The People’s Bank of China has massive foreign exchange reserves, worth about US$3.2 trillion. This means it can provide swap agreements that will almost cover the totality of EM foreign dollar debt. Swap agreements entail no exchange of currency, but are about confidence. The PBoC can instill this confidence in countries that have low and/or falling foreign exchange reserves. The dollar will remain the global reserve currency for years to come. However, a slow pivot towards reserve diversification will act as a structural headwind for the dollar. Housekeeping Chart I-14AUD/CAD Is Correlated To The VIX Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears We were stopped out of our CAD/NOK trade for a profit of 3.1%. The resilience of the US economy is benefiting the CAD more than the NOK for now. However, the Norges Bank confirmed it might be one of the first central banks to lift rates, as early as this year. We are both short USD/NOK and EUR/NOK and recommend sticking with these positions. Second, the growing spat between the EU and the UK could lead to more volatility in our short EUR/GBP position. Our target remains 0.8, but we are tightening stops to 0.865 to protect profits. The BoE left interest rates unchanged, but struck a constructive tone. This will bode well for cable, beyond near-term volatility. Third, our short USD/JPY position was stopped out amid the dollar rally. We are standing aside for now, but will reopen this trade later. Finally, a rise in volatility will boost the dollar, but also benefit short AUD/CAD positions. We are already short the AUD/MXN, but short AUD/CAD could be more profitable should market turmoil persist (Chart I-14).   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “2021 Key Views: Tradeable Themes,” dated December 4, 2020. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Currency In-Depth Report, titled “Will The RMB Continue To Appreciate?,” dated February 26, 2021. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Most data out of the US has been robust: Both PPI, import and export prices were in line with expectations for February. The PPI ex food and energy came in at 2.5% year-on-year. Empire manufacturing was robust at 17.4 in March, versus 12.1 last month. Housing starts and building permits came in a nudge below expectations in February, at 1421K and 1682K. The one disappointment was retail sales, which fell 3.3% year-on-year in February. The DXY index rose slightly this week. The FOMC remained dovish, without any revision to its median path of interest rate hikes. The markets disliked its reticence on rising long-bond yields. As such, equities are rolling over as yields continue to creep higher. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area are mending: The ZEW expectations survey rose to 74 in March, from 69.6. For Germany, the improvement was better at 76.6 from 71.2. The trade balance remained at a healthy €24.2bn euro surplus in January. The euro fell by 0.6% amidst broad dollar strength. With the ECB committed to cap the rise in yields and rise in peripheral spreads, relative interest rates will move against the euro. Sentiment remains elevated, and so a healthy reset is necessary to wash out stale longs. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan has been mixed: Core machinery orders grew 1.5% year-on-year in January. Exports fell by 4.5% in January, while imports rose by 11.8%. This has shifted the adjusted trade balance to a deficit of ¥38.7bn yen. The Japanese yen fell by 0.4% against the US dollar this week, and remains the weakest G10 currency this year. Rising yields have seen Japanese investors stampede into overseas markets such as the UK, while pushing down the yen. We remain yen bulls, but will stand aside for now since it could still go lower in the short term. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data out of the UK have been weak: Industrial production and construction output fell by 4.9% and 3% year-on-year in January. Monthly GDP growth fell by 2.9% in January. Rightmove house prices rose 2.7% year-on-year in March. The pound fell by 0.4% against the dollar this week. It however remains the best performing currency this year. The BoE kept monetary policy on hold, but struck a hawkish tone as vaccination progresses, giving way to higher mobility in the summer. We remain long sterling via the euro. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia was robust: Home prices rose by 3.6% in the fourth quarter. Modest home appreciation is welcome news by the RBA, given high-flying prices in its antipodean neighbor. The employment report was solid. There were 88.7K new jobs in February, all full-time. This pushed down the unemployment rate to 5.8% from 6.4%. The Aussie fell by 0.4% this week. The Australian recovery is fast approaching escape velocity, forcing the RBA to contain a more pronounced rise in long-bond yields. We remain long AUD/NZD. In the very near term, a market shakeout could pull the Aussie lower, favoring short AUD/CAD positions.  Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data out of New Zealand was weak: Credit card spending fell by 10.6% year-on-year in January. Q4 GDP contracted by 1% both year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter. The current account remains in deficit at NZ$-2.7bn for Q4. The New Zealand dollar fell by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. The new rule to include house prices in setting monetary policy will be a logistical nightmare for the RBNZ. In trying to achieve financial stability, the RBNZ will have to forego some economic stability, especially if the country still requires accommodative settings. Confused messaging could also introduce currency volatility. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 There was a data dump in Canada this week: The economy added 259.2K jobs in February. This pushed down the unemployment rate from 9.4% to 8.2%. Wages also increased by 4.3% in February. The Nanos confidence index rose from 60.5 to 62.7 in the week of March 12. Housing starts rose by 246K in February, as expected. The BoC’s preferred measures of CPI came in close to the 2% target. Headline CPI was weaker at 1.1% in February. The Canadian dollar rose by 0.3% against the US dollar this week. The correction in oil prices could set the tone for the near-term performance of the loonie, despite robust domestic conditions. However, at the crosses, CAD should have upside. We took profits on our short CAD/NOK position this week. Report Links: Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: Producer and import prices fell by 1.1% year-on-year in February. February CPI releases also suggest the economy remains in deflation. The Swiss franc fell by 0.4% against the US dollar this week. Safe-haven currencies continue to be sold as yields rise, making the Swiss franc the worst performing currency this year after the yen. This is welcome news for the SNB.  We have been long EUR/CHF on this expectation, and recommend investors to stick with this trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: The trade balance remained in surplus of NOK 25.1bn in February. The Norges bank kept interest rates on hold at 0%. The NOK fell by 1.2% against the dollar this week. The trigger was the selloff in oil prices. However, with the Norges bank signaling a rate hike later this year, placing it ahead of its G10 peers, there is little scope for the NOK to fall durably. Inflation in Norway is above target, and higher mobility later this year will benefit oil-rich Norway. We are long the Norwegian krone as a high-conviction bet against both the dollar and the euro. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data releases were a slight miss: Headline CPI came in at 1.4% in February. Core CPI came in at 1.2%. The unemployment rate remained at 8.9% in February. The Swedish krona fell by 0.8% against US dollar this week. Sweden is struggling to contain another wave of the pandemic and this has weighed on the currency this year. The saving grace for the economy has been a global manufacturing cycle that continues humming. Until Sweden is able to get past the pandemic, the currency will continue trading in a stop-and-go pattern. We remain long the SEK on cheap valuations and as a play on the global industrial cycle. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s ultra-dovish stance is not the only reason for markets to cheer. The US is booming, China is unlikely to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy, and Europe remains a source of positive political surprises. Still, the cornerstone of this cycle’s wall of worry has been laid: Biden faces a series of foreign policy challenges, the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s stimulus is not large enough to qualify as a game changer for potential GDP growth. Stay the course by maintaining strategic pro-cyclical trades yet building up tactical hedges and safe-haven plays. Feature Chart 1US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups The US is turning to tax hikes, China is returning to structural reforms, and Europe is bungling its vaccine rollout. Yet synchronized global debt monetization is nothing to underrate. Especially not in the context of a Great Power struggle that features a green energy race as well as a high-tech race. Governments are generating a cyclical growth boom and it is conceivably that their simultaneous pump-priming combined with a new capex cycle and private innovation could generate a productivity breakthrough. This upside risk is keeping global equity markets bullish even as it becomes apparent that construction has begun on this cycle’s wall of worry. The US dollar bounce should be watched closely in this context (Chart 1). After passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, which consists largely but not entirely of short-term cash handouts (Chart 2), President Joe Biden’s policy agenda will now turn to tax hikes. Thus far the tax hike proposals are in line with Biden’s campaign literature (Table 1). It remains to be seen whether the market will “sell the news” that Biden is pivoting to tax hikes. After all, Biden was the most moderate of the Democratic candidates and his tax proposals only partially reverse President Trump’s tax cuts. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Table 1Biden’s Tax Hike Proposals On The Campaign Trail Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Nevertheless higher taxes symbolize a regime change in the US – it is very unlikely tax rates will go down anytime soon but they could go easily higher than expected in the coming decade – and the drafting process will bring negative surprises, as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen highlighted by courting Europe to cooperate on a 12% minimum corporate tax and halt the global race to the bottom in taxes on multinational corporations. At the same time Biden’s foreign policy challenges are rising across the board: China is demanding a rollback of Trump’s policies: If Biden says yes, he will sacrifice hard-won American leverage on matters of national interest. If he says no, the Phase One trade deal will be null and void, as will sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and the new economic sanctions on Taiwan will expand beyond mere pineapples.1 Russia is recalling its US ambassador: Biden vowed to make Russia pay for alleged interference in the 2020 US election and sanctions are forthcoming.2 The real way to make Russia pay is to halt the construction of the Nordstream II natural gas pipeline, which reduces the leverage of eastern European democracies while increasing Germany’s energy dependence on Russia. But Germany is dead-set on that pipeline. If Biden levies sanctions the centerpiece of his diplomatic outreach to Europe will be further encouraged to chart an independent course from Washington (though the rest of Europe might cheer). North Korea is threatening to restart missile tests: North Korea is pouring scorn on the Biden administration for trying to restart negotiations.3 The North wants sanctions relief and it knows that Biden is willing to offer it but it may need to create an atmosphere of crisis first. China would be happy were that to happen as it could offer the US its good services on North Korea instead of concrete trade concessions. Iran is refusing to rejoin negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal: Biden has about five months to arrange for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Beyond that he will enter into another long negotiation with the master negotiators, the Persians. But unlike President Obama from 2009-15, he will not have support from Russia and China … unless he sacrifices his doctrine of “extreme competition” from the get-go. It is not clear which of these challenges will be relevant to financial markets, or when. However, with US and global equities skyrocketing, it must be said that the geopolitical backdrop is not nearly as reassuring as the Federal Reserve, which announced on Saint Patrick’s Day that it will not hike interest rates until 2024 even in the face of a 6.5% growth rate and the prospect of an additional, yet-to-be passed $2 trillion in US deficit spending. Herein lies Biden’s first victory. He has stressed that boosting the American economy and middle class is critical to his foreign policy. He envisions the US regaining its global standing by defeating the virus, super-charging the economy, and then orchestrating a grand alliance of European and Asian democracies to write new global rules that will put pressure on China to reform its economy. “I say it to foreign leaders and domestic alike. It's never, ever a good bet to bet against the American people. America is coming back. The development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines in record time is a true miracle of science.”4 The pandemic and economic part of this agenda are effectively done and now comes the hard part: creating a grand alliance while China and Russia demonstrate to their neighbors the hard consequences of joining any new US crusade. The contradiction of Biden’s foreign policy is his desire to act multilaterally and yet also get a great deal done. The Europeans are averse to conflict with China and Russia. The Russians and Chinese are not inclined to do any great favors on Iran or North Korea. Nobody is opening up their economy – Biden himself is coopting Trump’s protectionism, if less brashly. Cooperation with Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin on nuclear proliferation is possible – as long as Biden aborts his democracy agenda and his trade agenda. We continue with our pro-cyclical investment stance but have started building up hedges as we are convinced that geopolitical risk will deliver a rude awakening. This awakening will be a buying opportunity given the ultra-stimulating backdrop … unless it portends war in continental Europe or the Taiwan Strait. In the remainder of this report we highlight the takeaways from China’s National People’s Congress as well as recent developments in Germany. Our key views remain the same: China will not overtighten monetary/fiscal policy; Biden will be hawkish on China; Germany’s election may see an upset but that would be market-positive. China: No Overtightening So Far China concluded its National People’s Congress – the “Two Sessions” of legislation every year – and issued its 2021 Government Work Report. It also officially released the fourteenth five-year plan covering economic development for 2021-25. Table 2 shows the new plan’s targets as compared to the just expired thirteenth five-year plan that covered 2016-20. Table 2China’s Fourteenth Five Year Plan (2021-25) Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry For a full run-down of the National People’s Congress we recommend clients peruse BCA’s latest China Investment Strategy report. From a geopolitical point of view we would highlight the following takeaways: The Tech Race: China added a new target for strategic emerging industry value added as percent of GDP – it wants this number to reach 17% by 2025 but there is nothing solid to benchmark this against. The point is that by including such a target China is putting more emphasis on emerging industries, including: information technology, robotics, green energy, electric vehicles, 5G networks, new materials, power equipment, aerospace and aviation equipment, and others. China’s technological “Great Leap Forward” continues, with a focus on domestic production and upgrading the manufacturing sector that is bound to stiffen the competition with the United States. China’s removal of a target for service industry growth suggests that Beijing does not want de-industrialization to occur any faster – another reason for global trade tensions to stay high. Research and Development: For R&D spending, previous five-year plans set targets for the desired level. For example, over the last five years China vowed to increase annual R&D spending to 2.5% of GDP. A reasonable expectation for the coming five years would have been a 3% target of GDP. However, this time the government set a target of an annual growth rate of no less than 7% during 2021-2025. The point is that China is continuing to ascend the ranks in R&D spending relative to the US and West in coordination with the overarching goal of forging an innovative and high-tech economy. Unemployment: China has restored an unemployment rate target. In its twelfth five-year plan Beijing aimed to keep the urban surveyed unemployment rate below 5% but over the past five years this target vanished. Now China restored the target and bumped it up slightly to 5.5%. This target should not be hard to meet given the reported sharp decline in urban unemployment to 5.2% already. However, China’s unemployment statistics are notoriously unreliable. The real takeaway is that unemployment will be higher as trend growth slows, while social stability remains the Communist Party’s ultimate prize – and any reform or deleveraging process will occur within that context. The Green Energy Race: China re-emphasized its pledge to tackle climate change, aiming for peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. However, no detailed action plans were mentioned. Presumably China will not loosen its enforcement of existing environmental targets. Most of these were kept the same as over the past five years, except for pollution (PM2.5 concentration). Previously the government sought to reduce PM2.5 concentration by 18%. Now the target is set at 10% aggregate reduction, which is lower, though further reduction will be difficult after a 43% drop since 2014. Overall, China has not loosened up its environmental targets – if anything, enforcement will strengthen, resulting in an ongoing regulatory headwind to “Old China” industries. Military Power: Last week we noted that the government’s goals for the military have changed in a way that reinforces themes of persistently high geopolitical tensions. The info-tech upgrades to the People’s Liberation Army were supposed to be met by 2020, with full “modernization” achieved by 2035. However, last October the government created a new deadline, the one-hundredth anniversary of the PLA in 2027 (“military centenary goal”). No specific measures or targets are given but the point is that there is a new deadline of serious importance – an importance that matches the party’s much-ballyhooed centennial on July 1 of 2021 and the People’s Republic’s centennial in 2049. The fact that this deadline is only six years away suggests that a rapid program of military reform and upgrade is beginning. The official defense spending growth target of 6.8% is only slightly bigger than last year’s 6.6% but these targets mask the significance of the announcement. The takeaway is that the Chinese military is preparing for an earlier-than-expected contingency with the United States and its allies. What about China’s all-important monetary, fiscal, and quasi-fiscal credit targets? There is no doubt that China is tightening policy, as we highlight in our updated China Policy Tightening Checklist (Table 3). But will China overtighten? Probably not, at least not judging by the Two Sessions, but the risk is not negligible. Table 3A Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry The government reiterated that money and credit growth should remain in a reasonable range in 2021, with “reasonable range” referring to nominal economic growth. Chinese economists estimate that the nominal growth rate will be around 8%-9% in 2021. The IMF projection is 8.1%, while latest OECD forecast is at 7.8%.5 Because China’s total private credit (total social financing) growth is inherently higher than M2 growth, we would use pre-pandemic levels as our benchmark for whether the government will tighten policy excessively: If total social financing growth plunges below 12%, then our view is disproved and Beijing is over-tightening (Chart 3). If M2 growth plunges below 8%, we can call it over-tightening. Anything above these benchmarks should be seen as reasonable and expected tightening, anything below as excessive. However, the Chinese and global financial markets could grow jittery at any time over the perennial risk of a policy mistake whenever governments try to prevent excessive leverage and bubbles. As for fiscal policy, the new quotas for local government net new bond issuance point to expected rather than excessive tightening. New bonds can be used to finance capital investment projects. The quota for total new bond issuance is 4.47 trillion CNY, down by 5.5% from last year. Though local governments may not use up all of the quota, the reduction is small. In fact, total local government bond issuance will be a whisker higher in 2021 than in 2020. The quota for net new bonds is only slightly below the 2020 level and much higher than the 2019 level. Therefore the chance of fiscal overtightening is small – and smaller than monetary overtightening. Chart 3China Policy Overtightening Benchmark China Policy Overtightening Benchmark China Policy Overtightening Benchmark Chart 4China’s Real Budget Deficit Is Huge Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry China’s official budget balance is a fiction so we look at the IMF’s augmented net lending and borrowing, which reached a whopping -18.2 % of GDP in 2020. It is expected to decrease gradually to -13.8% by 2025. That level will be slightly higher than the pre-pandemic level from 2017-2019 (Chart 4).6 By contrast, China’s total augmented debt is expected to keep rising in the coming years and reach double the 2015 level by 2025. Efforts to constrain debt could lead to a larger debt-to-GDP ratio if growth suffers as a consequence, as our Global Investment Strategy points out. So China will tighten cautiously – especially given falling productivity, higher unemployment, and the threat of sustained pressure from the US and its allies. US-China: Biden As Trump-Lite Chinese and US officials will convene in Alaska on March 18-19. This is the first major US-China meeting under the Biden administration and global investors will watch closely to see whether tensions will drop. So far tensions have not fallen, highlighting a persistent and once again underrated risk to the global equity rally. Biden’s foreign policy team has not completed its review of China policy and Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are trying to schedule a bilateral summit in April – so nothing concrete will be decided before then. Chart 5US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer The Biden administration is setting up a pragmatic policy, offering areas to engage with China while warning that it will not compromise on democratic values or national interests. China would welcome the opportunity to work with the Americans on nuclear non-proliferation, namely North Korea and Iran, as this would expend US leverage on an area of shared interest while leaving China a free hand over its economic and technological policies. China at least partially enforced sanctions on these countries in response to President Trump’s demands during the trade war and official statistics suggest it continues to do so. Oil imports from Iran remain extremely low while Chinese business with North Korea is, on paper, nil (Chart 5). If this data is accurate then North Korea’s economy has not benefited from China’s stimulus and snapback. If true, then Pyongyang will offer partial concessions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. At the moment, instead of staging any major provocations to object to US-Korean military drills, the North is using fiery language and threatening to restart missile tests. This suggests a diplomatic opening. But investors should be prepared for Pyongyang to stage much bigger provocations than missile tests. In March 2010, while the world focused on the financial crisis, the North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean corvette, the Chonan, and shelled some islands, at the risk of a war. The problem under the Trump administration was that Trump wanted a verifiable and durable deal of economic opening for denuclearization whereas the North Koreans wanted to play for time, reduce sanctions, study the data from their flurry of missile tests during the Obama and early Trump years, and see if Trump would get reelected before offering any concrete concessions. Trump’s stance was not really different from Bill Clinton’s but he tried to accelerate the timeline and go for a big win. By Trump’s losing the election North Korea bought four more years on the clock. Chart 6US-China: Biden Lukewarm On China Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry The Biden administration is willing to play for time if it gets concrete results in phases. This would keep North Korea at bay and retain a line of pragmatic engagement with Beijing. But if North Korea stages a giant provocation Biden will not hesitate to use threats of destruction like Clinton and Trump did. The American public is not much concerned about North Korea (or Iran) but is increasingly concerned about China, with a recent Gallup opinion poll showing that nearly 50% view China as America’s greatest enemy and Americans consistently overrate China’s economic power (Chart 6). Biden will not let grassroots nationalism run his policy. But it is true that he has little to gain politically from appearing to appease China. With progress at hand on the pandemic and economic recovery, Biden will devote more attention to courting the allies and attempting to construct his alliance of democracies to meet global challenges and to “stand up” to China and Russia. The allies, however, are risk-averse when it comes to confronting China. This is as true for the Europeans as it is for China’s Asian neighbors, who stand directly in its firing line. In fact, Europe’s total trade with China is equivalent to that of the US (Chart 7). The Europeans have said that they will pursue tougher trade enforcement through the World Trade Organization, which would tie the Biden administration’s hands. Biden and his cabinet officials insist that they will use the “full array” of tools at their disposal (e.g. tariffs and sanctions) to punish China for mercantilist trade policies. Chinese negotiators are said to be asking explicitly for Biden to roll back Trump’s policies. Some of these policies relate to trade and tech acquisition, others to strategic disputes. We doubt that Biden will compromise on the trade issues to get cooperation on North Korea and Iran. But he will have to offer major concessions if he wants durable denuclearization agreements on these rogue states. Otherwise it will be clear that his administration is mostly focused on competition with China itself and willing to sideline the minor nuclear aspirants. Our expectation is that Americans care about the China threat and the smaller threats will be used as pretexts with which to increase pressure and sanctions on China. Asian equities have corrected after going vertical, as expected. But contrary to our expectations geopolitics was not the cause (Chart 8). This selloff could eventually create a buying opportunity if the Biden administration is revealed to take a more dovish line on China, trade, and tech in exchange for progress on strategic disputes like North Korea. Any discount due to North Korean provocations in particular would be a buy. On Taiwan, however, China’s new 2027 military target underscores our oft-recited red flag. Chart 7EU Risk Averse On China EU Risk Averse On China EU Risk Averse On China Chart 8Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Bottom Line: Investors should stay focused on the US-China relationship. What matters is Biden’s first actions on tariffs and high-tech exports. So far Biden is hawkish as we anticipated. Investors should fade rumors of big new US-China cooperation prior to the first Biden-Xi summit. Any major North Korean aggression will create a buy-on-the-dips opportunity. Unless it triggers a war, that is – and the threshold for war is high given the Chonan incident in 2010. Germany: Markets Wake Up To Election Risk – And Smile This week’s election in the Netherlands delivered a fully expected victory to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s liberal coalition. The German leadership ranks next to the Dutch in terms of governments that received an increase in popular support as a result of the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 9). However, in Germany’s case the election outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Chart 9German Leadership Saw Popularity Bounce Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry As we highlighted in our annual forecast, an upset in which a left-wing bloc forms the government for the first time since 2005 is likelier than the market expects. This scenario presents an upside risk for equities and bund yields since Germany would become even more pro-Europe, pro-integration, and proactive in its fiscal spending. In the current context that would be greeted warmly by financial markets as it would reinforce the cyclical rotation into the euro, industrials, and European peripheral debt. Incidentally, it would also reduce tensions with Russia and China – even as the Biden administration is courting Germany. Recent state elections confirm that the electorate is moving to the left rather than the right. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the third largest state by population and economic output, and a southern state, the Christian Democrats slipped from the last election (-2.9%), the Social Democrats slipped by less (-1.7%), the Free Democrats gained (2.2%), the Greens gained (2.3%), and the far-right Alternative for Germany saw a big drop (-5.4%). In the smaller state of Rhineland-Palatinate the results were largely the same although the Greens did even better (Tables 4A & 4B).7 In both cases the Christian Democrats saw the worst result since prior to the financial crisis while the Greens tripled their support in Baden and doubled their support in the Palatinate over the same time frame. Table 4AGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Table 4BGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry To put this into perspective: Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel and her coalition have seen a net 6% increase in popular support since COVID-19. The coalition, led by the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, still leads national opinion polling. What we are highlighting are chinks in the armor. The gap with the combined left-leaning bloc is less than 10% points (Chart 10). Chart 10German Party Polling German Party Polling German Party Polling Merkel is a lame duck whose party has been in power for 17 years. She is struggling to find an adequate successor. Her current frontrunner for chancellor-candidate, Armin Laschet, is suffering in public opinion, especially after the state election defeats, while her previous successor was ousted last year. Other chancellor-candidates, like Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, and Norbert Röttgen may find themselves to the right of the median voter, which has been shifting to the left. Merkel’s party’s handling of COVID-19 first received praise and now, in the year of the vote, is falling under pressure due to difficulties rolling out the vaccine. Even as conditions improve over the course of the year her party may struggle to recover from the damage, since the underlying reality is that Germany has suffered a recession and is beset by global challenges. While the Christian Democrats performed relatively well in the 2009 election, in the teeth of the global financial crisis, times have changed. Today the Social Democrats are no longer in free fall – ever since their Finance Minister Olaf Scholz led the charge for fiscal stimulus in 2019 – while third parties like the Free Democrats, Greens, and Die Linke all gained in 2009 and look to gain this year (Table 5). In today’s context it is even more likely that other parties will rise at the ruling party’s expense. Still, the Christian Democrats have stout support in polls and do not have to split votes with the far-right, which is in collapse. Table 5German Federal Election Results Show 2021 Could Throw Curveball For Ruling Party Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Therein lies the real market takeaway: right-wing populism has flopped in Germany. The risk to the consensus view that Merkel will hand off the baton seamlessly to a successor and secure her party another term in leadership is that the establishment left will take power (the Greens in Germany are essentially an establishment party). Chart 11German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections Near-term pandemic and economic problems have caused bund yields to fall and the yield curve to flatten so far this year (Chart 11). But that trend is unlikely to continue given the global and national outlook. Election uncertainty should work against this trend since the only possible uncertainty gives more upside to the fiscal outlook and bond yields. If the consensus view indeed comes to pass and the Christian Democrats remain in power, the election holds out policy continuity – at least on economic policy. Fiscal tightening would happen sooner under the Christian Democrats but it would not be aggressive or premature, at least not in the 2021-22 period. It is the current coalition that first loosened Germany’s belt – and it did so in 2019, prior to COVID-19. Germany’s and the EU’s proactive fiscal turn will have a major positive impact on growth prospects, at least cyclically, though it is probably too small thus far to create a structural improvement in potential growth. Fiscal thrust is negative over next two years even with the EU’s Next Generation Recovery Fund being distributed. A structural increase in growth is possible given that all of the major countries are simultaneously pursuing monetary and fiscal stimulus as well as big investments in technology and renewable energy that will help engender a new private capex cycle. But productivity has been on a long, multi-decade decline so it remains to be seen if this can be reversed. Geopolitically speaking, Germany’s and the EU’s policy shift arrived in the nick of time to deepen European integration before divisions revive. Integration is broadly driven by European states’ need to compete on a grand scale with the US, Russia, and China. But Putin, Brexit, and Mario Draghi demonstrate the more tactical pressures: Brexit discourages states from exiting, especially with ongoing trade disputes and the risk of a new Scottish independence referendum; Putin’s aggressive foreign policy drives eastern Europeans into the arms of the West; and the formation of a unity government in Italy encourages European solidarity and improves Italian growth prospects. The outlook for structural reforms is not hopeless. Prime Minister Draghi’s government has a good chance of succeeding at some structural reforms where his predecessors have failed. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron is still favored to win the French election in 2022, which is good for French structural reform. The fact that the EU tied its recovery fund to reform is positive. Most importantly the green energy agenda is replacing budget cutting for the time being, which, again, is positive for capex and could create positive long-term productivity surprises. Of course, structural reform intensity slowed just prior to COVID, in Spain, France, and Italy. Once the recovery funds are spent the desire to persist with reform will wane. This is clear in Spain, which has rolled back some reforms and has a weak government that could dissolve any time, and Italy, where the Draghi coalition may not last long after funds are spent. If the global upswing persists and Chinese/EM growth improves, then Europe will benefit from a macro backdrop that enables it to persist with some structural reforms and crawl out of its liquidity trap. But if China/EM growth relapses then Europe will fall back into a slump. Thus it is a very good thing for Europe, the euro, and European equities that the US is engaged in an epic fiscal blowout and that China’s Two Sessions dampened the risk of overtightening. Incidentally, if the German government does shift, relations with Russia would improve on the margin. While US-Russia tensions will remain hot, German mediation could reduce Russia’s insecurity and lower geopolitical risks for both Russia and emerging Europe, which are very cheaply valued at present in part because they face a persistent geopolitical risk premium. Bottom Line: German politics will drive further EU integration whether the Christian Democrats stay in power or whether the left-wing parties manage a surprise victory. Europe will have to provide more fiscal stimulus but otherwise the global context is favorable for Europe. Investors should not be too pessimistic about short-term hiccups with the vaccine rollout. Investment Takeaways The US is stimulating, China is not overtightening, and German’s election risk is actually an upside risk for European and global risk assets. These points reaffirm a bullish cyclical outlook on global stocks and commodities and a bearish outlook on government bonds. It is especially positive for global beneficiaries of US stimulus excluding China, such as Canada and Mexico. It is also beneficial for industrial metals and emerging markets exposed to China over the medium term, after frenzied buying suffers a healthy correction. Any premium in European equities should be snapped up. However, the cornerstone has been laid for the wall of worry in this global economic cycle: the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s fiscal stimulus will probably fall short. Moreover a consensus outcome from the German election would be a harbinger of earlier-than-expected fiscal normalization. There is not yet a clear green light in US-China relations – on the contrary, our view that Biden would be hawkish is coming to pass. Biden faces foreign policy tests across the board and now is a good time to hedge against the inevitable return of downside risks given the remorseless increase in tensions between the Great Powers. Housekeeping A number of clients have written to ask follow-up questions about our contrarian report last week taking a positive view on cybersecurity stocks despite the tech selloff and a positive view on global defense stocks, especially in relation to cybersecurity. The main request is, Which companies offer the best value? So we teamed up with BCA’s new Equity Analyzer to highlight the companies that receive the best BCA scores utilizing a range of factors including value, safety, payout, quality, technicals, sentiment, and macro context – all relative to a universe of global stocks with a minimum market cap of $1 billion. The results are shown in the Appendix, which we hope will come in handy. Separately our tactical hedge, long US health care equipment versus the broad market, has stopped out at -5%. This makes sense in light of the pro-cyclical rotation. Health care equipment is still likely to outperform the rest of the US health care sector amid a policy onslaught of higher taxes, government-provided insurance, and pharmaceutical price caps.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix Table ABCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Appendix Table BBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Appendix Table CBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Building Back … The Wall Of Worry Footnotes 1 China is asking for export controls that have hamstrung Huawei and SMIC to be removed as well as for sanctions and travel bans on Communist Party members and students to be lifted. See Lingling Wei and Bob Davis, "China Plans To Ask U.S. To Roll Back Trump Policies In Alaska Meeting," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2021, wsj.com; Helen Davidson, "Taiwanese urged to eat ‘freedom pineapples’ after China import ban," The Guardian, March 2, 2021, theguardian.com. 2 "Putin on Biden: Russian President Reacts To US Leader’s Criticism," BBC, March 18, 2021, bbc.com. 3 Pyongyang is likely to test a new, longer range intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since its self-imposed missile test moratorium began in 2018 after President Trump’s summit with leader Kim Jong Un. See Lara Seligman and Natasha Bertrand, "U.S. ‘On Watch’ For New North Korean Missile Tests," Politico, March 16, 2021, politico.com. 4 See ABC News, "Transcript: Joe Biden delivers remarks on 1-year anniversary of pandemic", ABC News, Mar. 11, 2021, abcnews.com. 5 Please see IMF Staff, "World Economic Outlook Reports", IMF, Jan. 2021, imf.org and OECD Staff, "OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2021", OECD, March 9, 2021, oecd.org. 6 Please see IMF Asia and Pacific Dept, "People’s Republic of China : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the People's Republic of China", IMF, Jan. 8, 2021, imf.org. 7 The other state elections coming up this year will coincide with the federal election on September 26, with one minor exception (Saxony-Anhalt). Opinion polls show the Christian Democrats slipping below the Greens in Berlin and the Social Democrats in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Alternative for Germany is falling in all regions.

Highlights UK Interest Rates: A series of rolling shocks dating back to the 2008 financial crisis has prevented the Bank of England (BoE) from normalizing crisis-era levels of interest rates, even during years when inflation was overshooting the BoE 2% target. Brexit and COVID-19 were the last of those two shocks, but the growth- and inflation-dampening effects of both are fading fast. Implications for Gilts & GBP: The BoE’s dovish rhetoric, including hints that negative policy rates are still a viable option, looks increasingly inappropriate. The surge in real UK bond yields seen over the past month is just the beginning of a medium-term process of interest rate normalization. Maintain below-benchmark duration on Gilts, while downgrading UK allocations within dedicated global fixed income portfolios to neutral. The pound has upside in this environment, especially if depressed UK productivity starts to recover. Feature Chart 1UK Real Yields: Deeply Negative Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? The UK has become one of the more peculiar corners of the global fixed income universe. The outright level of longer-term Gilt yields is in the middle of the pack among the major advanced economies. The story is much different, however, when breaking those nominal UK yields into the real and inflation expectations components. The deeply negative real yields on UK inflation-linked Gilts are the lowest among the majors, even in a world where sub-0% real yields are prevalent in most countries (Chart 1). The flipside of that deeply negative real yield is a high level of inflation expectations. The breakeven inflation rate derived from the difference between the nominal and real 10-year Gilt yields is 3.3%, the highest in the developed “linkers” universe. Inflation expectations in UK consumer surveys are at similar levels, well above the 2% inflation target of the Bank of England (BoE), suggesting little confidence in the central bank’s ability or willingness to hit its own inflation goals. In this Special Report, jointly published by BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy, we investigate why UK real interest rates have remained so persistently negative and assess the possibility of a shift in the low interest rate regime in a post-Brexit, post-pandemic UK – a move that could be quite bearish for UK fixed income markets and bullish for the British pound. Can The BoE Ignore Cyclical Upward Pressure On UK Bond Yields? The UK has suffered from a series of shocks, starting with the 2008 crisis, that have limited the ability of the BoE to attempt to tighten monetary policy. The 2011/12 European debt crisis hurt the UK’s most important trading partners, while the 2016 Brexit vote began a multi-year process of uncertainty over the future of those trading relationships. The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest shock, triggering a recession of historic proportions. The UK economy contracted by -10% in 2020, the largest decline since “The Great Frost” downturn of 1709. UK bond yields collapsed in response as the BoE cut rates to near-0% and reinforced that easy stance with aggressive quantitative easing and promises to keep rates unchanged over at the next few years. Today, UK financial markets are waking up to a world beyond the current COVID-19 lockdowns. The UK is running one of the world’s most successful vaccination rollouts, with 23 million jabs, or 35 per 100 people, already having been administered. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently unveiled a bold plan to fully reopen the UK economy from the current severe lockdowns by mid-year. The UK government’s latest budget called for additional spending measures over the next year, including maintaining the work furlough scheme that has supported household incomes during the pandemic. As a result, UK growth expectations have exploded higher. According to the Bloomberg consensus economics survey, UK nominal GDP growth is expected to surge to 8.4% over calendar year 2021, an annual pace not seen since 1990 (Chart 2). Nominal Gilt yields have begun to reprice higher to reflect those surging growth expectations, with the 5-year/5-year forward Gilt yield climbing 67bps so far in 2021. Real Gilt yields are also moving higher with the 10-year inflation-linked Gilt climbing 38bps year to date, providing additional interest rate support that has fueled a surge in the pound versus the dollar (bottom panel). Our own BoE Monitor - containing growth, inflation and financial variables that typically lead to pressure on the central bank to adjust monetary policy – is signaling a reduced need for additional policy easing (Chart 3). The momentum of changes in longer-maturity UK Gilts and the trade-weighted UK currency index are usually correlated to the ebbs and flows of the BoE Monitor. The latest surge higher in yields and the currency suggests that the markets are anticipating the type of recovery that will put pressure on the BoE to tighten. Chart 2A Growth-Driven Repricing Of Gilts & GBP A Growth-Driven Repricing Of Gilts & GBP A Growth-Driven Repricing Of Gilts & GBP Chart 3Gilts & GBP Sniffing Out A Less Dovish BoE? Gilts & GBP Sniffing Out A Less Dovish BoE? Gilts & GBP Sniffing Out A Less Dovish BoE? It may take a while to see the BoE turn more hawkish, however. The BoE has become one of least active central banks in the world over the past decade. After the BoE cut its official policy interest rate, the Bank Rate, by 500bps during the 2008 financial crisis and 2009 recession, rates were kept in a range between 0.25% and 0.75% for ten consecutive years. The BoE cut rates aggressively in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lowering the Bank Rate in March 2020 from 0.75% to 0.1%, where it still stands. The BoE has used quantitative easing (QE) and forward guidance to try and limit movements in bond yields whenever cyclical surges in inflation could have justified tighter monetary policy. That has led to an extended period of a negative BoE Bank Rate, something not seen since the inflationary 1970s (Chart 4). Back then, the BoE was lagging the surge in UK inflation, but still hiking nominal interest rates. Today, the central bank is keeping nominal rates near 0% with much lower levels of inflation. Chart 4Over A Decade Of Negative Real UK Interest Rates Over A Decade Of Negative Real UK Interest Rates Over A Decade Of Negative Real UK Interest Rates Short-term interest rate markets are still pricing in a very slow response from the BoE to the current growth optimism. Only 36bps of rate hikes over the next two years are discounted in the UK overnight index swap (OIS) curve. This go-slow response is in line with the BoE’s guidance on future rate hikes which, similar to the language used by other central banks like the Fed, calls for no pre-emptive rate hikes before inflation has sustainably returned to the BoE target. That combination would be consistent with current forward market pricing on both short-term interest rates and inflation. Chart 5BoE Keeping Real Rates Well Below R* BoE Keeping Real Rates Well Below R* BoE Keeping Real Rates Well Below R* In Chart 5, we show the real BoE Bank Rate, constructed by subtracting UK core CPI inflation from the Bank Rate. We also show a forward real rate calculated using the forward UK OIS and CPI swap curves. The market-implied path of the real Bank Rate shows very little change over the next decade, with the real Bank Rate expected to average around -2.5%. This is far below the estimates of a neutral UK real rate (or “r-star”) of just under 2%, as calculated by the New York Fed or recent academic studies. The neutral UK real rate has likely dipped because of the pandemic. The UK Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that there has been a long-term “scarring” of the UK economy from COVID-19 through supply-side factors like weaker investment spending, lower productivity growth and diminished labor force participation – equal to three percentage points of the level of potential GDP.1 The BoE estimates a smaller “scarring” of 1.75 percentage points of potential output, but coming with a 6.5% reduction in the size of the UK capital stock. While these are significant reductions in the supply-side of the UK economy, they are not enough to account for the 4.5 percentage point difference between pre-pandemic estimates of the UK r-star and the market-implied path of the real BoE Bank Rate over the next decade. The implication is that the markets are not expecting the BoE to deviate from its strategy of doing very little with interest rates, even as growth recovers from the pandemic shock. That can be seen in the recent upturn in UK inflation expectations that is evident in both market-implied and survey-based measures. Chart 6UK Inflation Expectations Reflect BoE Policy, Not Actual Inflation UK Inflation Expectations Reflect BoE Policy, Not Actual Inflation UK Inflation Expectations Reflect BoE Policy, Not Actual Inflation The 5-year/5-year forward UK CPI swap rate now sits at 3.6%, not far off the 3.3% level of 5-10 year consumer inflation expectations from the latest YouGov/Citigroup survey (Chart 6). The fact that inflation expectations can remain so elevated at a time when headline CPI inflation is struggling to avoid deflation is striking. This indicates a belief that the BoE will do very little in the future to stop a booming UK economy that is expected to put sustained downward pressure on the UK unemployment rate over the next few years (bottom panel). This is from a relatively low starting point of the unemployment rate given the massive government support programs that have limited the amount of pandemic-related layoffs over the past year. The BoE should have reasons to be more concerned about a resurgence of UK inflation. In its latest Monetary Policy Report, the BoE published estimates showing that the entire collapse in UK inflation in 2020 was attributable to weaker demand for goods and services – especially the latter (Chart 7). This suggests that UK inflation could rebound by a similar amount as the UK economy reopens from pandemic lockdowns. According to the UK OBR, 21% of UK household spending is on items described as “social consumption”, like restaurants and hotels (Chart 8). This is a much larger proportion than seen in other major developed economies (excluding Spain) and explains why consumer spending plunged so much more dramatically in the UK during 2020 than in other countries. Chart 7Only A Temporary Drag On UK Inflation From COVID-19 Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? Chart 8UK Households More Focused On “Social Consumption” Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? If the UK pandemic-related restrictions are eased as planned over the next few months, the potential for a sharp snapback in UK consumer spending is significant. The BoE estimates that UK households now have £125bn of “excess” savings thanks to government income support and reduced spending on discretionary items like dining out and vacations. This is the fuel to support a rapid recovery in consumption over the next 6-12 months, especially as personal income growth will get a boost as furloughed workers begin returning to work (Chart 9). Chart 9UK Economy On The Mend UK Economy On The Mend UK Economy On The Mend Chart 10Big Boost To UK Growth From Housing & Government Spending Big Boost To UK Growth From Housing & Government Spending Big Boost To UK Growth From Housing & Government Spending A similar argument can be made for investment spending – the BoE estimates that UK businesses have amassed £100bn pounds of excess cash, and the latest reading on the BoE’s Agents' Survey of UK firms shows a slight increase after months of decline (bottom panel). With a Brexit deal with the EU finally reached at the start of 2021, UK businesses can also look to increase investment spending that had been delayed because of the years of Brexit uncertainty. The UK economy is already getting a boost from a recovery in the housing market fueled by low interest rates, high household savings and improving consumer confidence. Mortgage approvals have soared to the highest level since 2007, while house prices are now expanding at a 6.4% annual rate (Chart 10). Add it all up, and the economic momentum in the UK is positive and likely to accelerate further in the coming months as a greater share of the population becomes vaccinated. The BoE’s dovish policy stance is likely to appear increasingly inappropriate relative to accelerating UK growth and inflation trends over the next several months. Thus, on a cyclical basis, UK bond yields, both nominal and real, have more upside potential even after the recent increase. Bottom Line: A series of rolling shocks dating back to the 2008 financial crisis has prevented the Bank of England (BoE) from normalizing crisis-era levels of interest rates, even during years when inflation was overshooting the BoE 2% target. Brexit and COVID-19 were the last of those two shocks, but the growth- and inflation-dampening effects of both are fading fast. Structural Forces Keeping UK Interest Rates Low Are Fading Looking beyond the cyclical drivers, the structural factors that have held down UK interest rates in recent years are also starting to fade. The supply side of the UK economy has suffered because of Brexit uncertainty. The OECD’s estimate of potential UK GDP growth fell from 1.75% in 2015 to 1.0% in 2020 (Chart 11). This was mostly due to declining productivity growth – a consequence of years of very weak business investment. The 5-year annualized growth rate of real UK investment spending fell to -3% in 2020, a contraction only matched during the past 30 years after the 1992 ERM crisis and 2008 financial crisis. That plunge in investment coincided with almost no growth in UK labor productivity over that same 5-year window. Chart 11The Road To Faster Potential UK Growth Starts With Investment The Road To Faster Potential UK Growth Starts With Investment The Road To Faster Potential UK Growth Starts With Investment Slowing population growth also weighed on UK potential growth, slowing to the lowest level in 15 years in 2019 as immigration from EU countries to the UK fell sharply. COVID-19 also hurt immigration flows into the UK last year. The UK Office for National Statistics estimated that the non-UK born population in the UK fell by 2.7% between June 2019 and June 2020. Diminished potential GDP growth is a factor that would structurally reduce the equilibrium real UK interest rate. We are likely past the worst for that downward pressure on potential growth and real rates. Population growth should also stabilize as the UK borders open up again and pandemic travel restrictions are loosened. Measured productivity is already starting to see a cyclical recovery, while investment spending is likely to improve as cash-rich UK companies began to ramp up capital spending plans deferred by Brexit and COVID-19. While the process leading from faster investment spending into speedier productivity growth is typically slow, the key point is that the worst of downtrend is likely over. This is an important development that has implications for UK fixed income markets. When looking at an international comparison of real central bank policy rates within the developed economies, the UK has fallen into the grouping of countries with persistently negative policy rates, namely Japan, the euro area, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway (Chart 12). We have dubbed that group the “Secular Stagnation 5”, after the term made famous by former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers describing a state where the “natural” real rate of interest (r-star) that equates savings with investment is structurally negative. Chart 12Does The UK Belong In The 'Secular Stagnation 5'? Does The UK Belong In The 'Secular Stagnation 5'? Does The UK Belong In The 'Secular Stagnation 5'? Does the UK belong in the “Secular Stagnation 5”? As a way to assess this, we made some comparisons of selected UK data with the same data for those five countries. When looking at potential GDP growth and population growth, the UK sits right in the middle of the range of those growth rates for the five countries (Chart 13). UK productivity growth has underperformed the others recently but, prior to the 2016 Brexit shock, UK productivity was also in the middle of the Secular Stagnation 5 range. Chart 13Brexit Became A Major Hit To UK Potential Growth Brexit Became A Major Hit To UK Potential Growth Brexit Became A Major Hit To UK Potential Growth Chart 14UK Economy Less Focused On Investment & Exports UK Economy Less Focused On Investment & Exports UK Economy Less Focused On Investment & Exports On other measures, the UK is nothing like those other countries. The UK’s economy is far less geared towards exports and investment (Chart 14) and is more tilted towards consumer spending. That can be seen most clearly when looking at the data on savings/investment balances. The UK continuously runs a current account deficit, as opposed to the persistent surpluses seen in the Secular Stagnation 5 (Chart 15). Put another way, the UK is not a “surplus” country that saves more than it invests on a structural basis, a condition that typically depresses real interest rates. Chart 15The UK Is Not A Surplus Country The UK Is Not A Surplus Country The UK Is Not A Surplus Country Chart 16Gilts Will Not Become A Low-Beta Market Gilts Will Not Become A Low-Beta Market Gilts Will Not Become A Low-Beta Market Based on these cross-country comparisons, it is unusual for the UK to have such persistently low real interest rates. This has implications for UK bond yields. Over the past few years, Gilts have been transitioning from a status as a “high yield beta” market – whose yield movements are more correlated to swings in the overall level of global bond yields. The lower beta markets are in countries like Germany, France and Japan – all members of the Secular Stagnation club (Chart 16). The UK does not appear to warrant a permanent membership in that low-yielding group, based on structural factors. That is evident when looking at how Gilt yields are rising even with the BoE absorbing an increasing share of the stock of outstanding Gilts (bottom panel). We conclude that the transition of the UK to a low-beta market is related to the Brexit uncertainty post 2016 and the pandemic shock that has hit the consumer-focused UK economy exceptionally hard – both factors that are set to fade over the next year. Bottom Line: The BoE’s dovish rhetoric, including hints that negative policy rates are still a viable option, looks increasingly inappropriate. The surge in real UK bond yields seen over the past month is just the beginning of a medium-term process of interest rate normalization. Investment Conclusions Chart 17Downgrade Gilts To Underweight Downgrade Gilts To Underweight Downgrade Gilts To Underweight Our assessment of the cyclical and structural drivers of UK interest rates leads us to the following conclusions on UK fixed income and currency strategy: Duration: Maintain a below-benchmark exposure to UK interest rate movements. Gilt yields will rise by more than is discounted in the forwards over the next 6-12 months (Chart 17), coming more through rising real yields as the UK economy continues its post-Brexit, post-pandemic recovery. Country Allocation: Downgrade strategic allocations to UK Gilts to neutral from overweight in dedicated fixed income portfolios. Our long-standing view that Brexit uncertainty would lead to the outperformance of Gilts versus other developed bond markets is no longer valid. It is still too soon to move to a full underweight stance on Gilts – a better opportunity will develop by mid-year once it is more evident that the current success on UK vaccinations leads to a faster reopening of the UK economy. Yield Curve: Maintain positioning for a bearish steepening of the UK Gilt yield curve. While there is limited scope for more steepening through an even larger increase in inflation breakevens from current elevated levels, the long end of the Gilt curve can move higher by more than the front end as the market re-rates Gilts to a higher-beta status with a higher future trajectory for UK interest rates. Corporate Credit: Downgrade UK investment grade corporate bond exposure to neutral from overweight in dedicated fixed income portfolios. UK corporate spreads have returned to the 2017 lows and, while an improving growth dynamic is not overly bearish for credit, there is no longer a compelling valuation-based case for staying overweight UK investment grade corporates. This move brings our recommended UK allocation in line with our neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates. Chart 18GBP/USD Appears Cheap On A PPP Basis GBP/USD Appears Cheap On A PPP Basis GBP/USD Appears Cheap On A PPP Basis Chart 19Low Productivity Is Weighing On The Pound Low Productivity Is Weighing On The Pound Low Productivity Is Weighing On The Pound Currency: A growth-driven path towards interest rate normalization should be positive for the British pound, which remains undervalued versus the US dollar on a purchasing power parity basis (Chart 18).2 A move to 1.45 on GBP/USD is possible within the next six months. A broader move towards pound strength will require an improvement in business investment, as the trade-weighted pound looks fairly valued on our productivity-based model (Chart 19). We do maintain our view that EUR/GBP can approach 0.80 by year-end based on a relatively stronger cyclical improvement in UK growth versus the euro area.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on the OBR estimates of UK growth, inflation and fiscal policy, please see the March 2021 OBR Economic & Financial Outlook, which can be found here: https://obr.uk/ 2 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Thoughts On The British Pound", dated December 18, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China’s primary vulnerabilities over the past decade have been, and remain, credit/money excesses and a misallocation of capital. China’s advantage has not been its banking system or monetary policy’s "magic touch," but its ability to continuously raise productivity at a solid rate. Inflation has remained subdued due to robust productivity gains. Without the latter, policymakers would have little room to navigate and secure economic and financial stability. As long as solid productivity gains persist, the economy will absorb excesses over time and remain structurally sound. Feature China’s credit and fiscal stimulus has peaked and will roll over significantly in 2021. Hence, the question now is: what will be the extent of the economic slowdown? The magnitude of the growth slowdown depends not only on the pace and extent of credit and fiscal tightening but also on the structural health of the economy. In a structurally sound economy, the end of a credit and fiscal stimulus does not produce a sharp and extended slowdown. Conversely, in an economy saddled with structural malaises, modest policy tightening could produce a dramatic or prolonged business cycle downtrend. Two examples from China’s not-so-distant past are the credit tightening in 2004 and policy tightening in 2013-14. After the acute credit tightening in 2004 and the ensuing loan slowdown, China’s growth moderated briefly but remained robust and, in fact, reaccelerated in 2005 (Chart 1, top panel). However, following the 2013-14 policy tightening episode, China’s industrial sector experienced an extended downtrend (Chart 2, top panel). Chart 1China In Mid-2000s: Market Performance Amid Credit Tightening China In Mid-2000s: Market Performance Amid Credit Tightening China In Mid-2000s: Market Performance Amid Credit Tightening Chart 2China In Mid-2010s: Market Performance Amid Policy Tightening China In Mid-2010s: Market Performance Amid Policy Tightening China In Mid-2010s: Market Performance Amid Policy Tightening   Consistently, China-related plays in financial markets experienced only a brief and short-lived shakeout in 2004 and resumed their bull market within a short time span (Chart 1, bottom panel). But in 2013-15, China-plays experienced a deep and extended bear market (Chart 2, bottom panel). In this report, we assess the structural health of the mainland economy. “Soft-Budget” Constraints And Capital Misallocation China’s primary vulnerabilities over the past decade have been, and remain, credit excesses and a misallocation of capital. Loose credit and fiscal policies – “soft-budget” constraints – starting in 2009 fueled money creation on a grand scale, causing corporate and household debt to mushroom. This has massively inflated property prices and led to capital misallocation. Many of these excesses have by and large lingered. In particular: Broad money supply in China has surged 4.7-fold since January 2009 (Chart 3, top panel). This is significantly above the 2.3-fold increase in the US, and the 1.6-fold rise in the euro area and in Japan. Chart 3Broad Money Excesses: China Has Been An Outlier Broad Money Excesses: China Has Been An Outlier Broad Money Excesses: China Has Been An Outlier Not only has broad money supply skyrocketed in China by much more than in other economies, but it has also risen by much more relative to its own nominal GDP (Chart 3, middle panel). Since January 2009, as unorthodox monetary policies gained traction around the world, the broad money-to-GDP ratio has risen by 80 percentage points in China, 35-percentage points in the US, 25-percentage points in the euro area and 70-percentage points in Japan.     Chart 4China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far Notably, China’s broad money-to-GDP ratio is the highest in the world, as illustrated in the middle panel of Chart 3. Finally, the absolute amount of broad money – all types of local currency deposits and cash in circulation converted into dollars to make numbers comparable – now stands at $40 trillion in China, $18 trillion in the US and the euro area each and $11 trillion in Japan (Chart 3, bottom panel). In brief, China’s money (RMB) supply is greater than the sum of money supply in the US and euro area. China’s domestic credit growth has been outpacing nominal GDP growth since 2008 (Chart 4, top panel). Consequently, its domestic credit-to-GDP ratio is making new highs (Chart 4, bottom panel). A continuously rising domestic debt-to-GDP ratio indicates that the nation has not really deleveraged in the past ten years. Concerning debt structure, local and central government debt stands at 61% of GDP, enterprise (including SOE) debt represents 162% of GDP and household debt is 61% of GDP. Notably, enterprise debt is the highest in the world, as illustrated in Chart 5.  This chart shows a decline in China’s corporate credit-to-GDP ratio from 2016 to 2018. The drop, however, is due to the Local Government Financing Vehicles (LGFV) debt swap. Authorities simply moved debt from LGFV balance sheets to local governments, which represents an accounting reshuffle and not genuine deleveraging. Meanwhile, households in China are as leveraged as those in the US (Chart 6) when debt-to-disposable income ratios are compared. The latter is how consumer debt is measured in all countries around the world. Chart 5Chinas Corporate Debt Is The Highest In the World Chinas Corporate Debt Is The Highest In the World Chinas Corporate Debt Is The Highest In the World Chart 6Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As US Ones Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As US Ones Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As US Ones Chart 7Debt Servicing Costs In China Are High Debt Servicing Costs In China Are High Debt Servicing Costs In China Are High Finally, the true indicator of debt stress is the debt-service ratio. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimates that the debt-service ratio for Chinese enterprises and households is above 20% of income. The same ratio for the US rolled over at 18% in 2007 during the credit crisis (Chart 7). There are several symptoms consistent with pervasive capital misallocation. First, return on assets (RoA) for non-financial onshore listed companies has dropped to an 20-year low (Chart 8, top panel). Companies have raised substantial capital to invest but the return on investment has been disappointing, resulting in a falling RoA. Second, a falling output-to-capital ratio – an inverse analog of a rising incremental capital-to-output ratio (ICOR) – also indicates capital misallocation and falling efficiency (Chart 9). Chart 8Falling Return On Assets And Slowing Productivity Growth Falling Return On Assets And Slowing Productivity Growth Falling Return On Assets And Slowing Productivity Growth Chart 9Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling   Falling return on capital is the natural outcome of too much investment. It is simply impossible to invest more than 40% of GDP every year over a 20-year period without capital misallocation. It has become difficult to find profitable projects, especially as China’s economy is no longer as underinvested as it was 20 years ago. Falling efficiency ultimately entails lower productivity and, eventually, declining potential real GDP growth. Has China Deleveraged? Following such an epic credit boom, one would typically expect creditors in general and banks in particular to undertake profound cleansing of their balance sheets, and for the amounts involved to be colossal. However, Chinese banks have not yet done this on a meaningful scale. We estimate that banks have disposed – written-off and sold - RMB 9.4 trillion in loans since 2012, which is equivalent to 6.6% of all loans originated since January 2009 (when the credit boom commenced). In addition, banks’ NPL provisions remain very low at 3.4% of their loan book. In a nutshell, banks have not yet sufficiently cleansed their balance sheets. Not surprisingly, their share prices have been among the worst performers in the Chinese equity universe and in the EM space more generally. Overall, the Chinese economy was very healthy and was on an extremely solid foundation until the credit boom (“soft-budget” constraints) began in 2009. Since then, the economic model has bred inefficiencies which could weigh on growth going forward. One widely circulated counterargument against the thesis of excessive credit/money growth in China has been that Chinese households save a lot. As the argument goes, this is what has prompted banks to lend out those deposits. This analysis is incorrect, and we have written extensively about this topic in a series of reports that are available upon request. The interaction between money creation, credit and savings is outside the scope of this report. We therefore limit the discussion to the key inferences from the series of reports we published: National savings, including household savings, do not create money supply or deposits. Also, banks do not lend out deposits. Money/deposits are created by commercial banks when they make loans to, or buy assets from, non-banks. This is true for any economy in the world. Chart 10Gradual Deleveraging But No Crisis In Japan In 1990s Gradual Deleveraging But No Crisis In Japan In 1990s Gradual Deleveraging But No Crisis In Japan In 1990s We agree that Chinese households do have a high savings rate. However, their savings do not impact whether banks originate loans and create deposits, i.e., expand money supply. To expand their balance sheets, banks require liquidity/excess reserves, not deposits. In short, the enormous money supply in China has been an outcome of reckless behavior on the part of banks and borrowers rather than originating out of household or national savings. As such, at the current levels, Chinese money and credit represent major excesses and, thereby, pose risks to financial stability and long-term development. A pertinent question is as follows: Is there an economy that did not experience a credit crisis following a credit bubble? Japan is one example. Yet, Japan suffered from deleveraging. The top panel of Chart 10 demonstrates that bank loan growth peaked at 12% in 1990 and gradually slowed thereafter, ultimately contracting. The bottom panel of Chart 10 shows that Japan’s companies and households underwent gradual deleveraging beginning in the mid-1990s. Such a long lasting but gradual adjustment contrasts with the acute and sharp crisis that occurred in the US in 2007-08. To sum up, credit excesses do not need to culminate in a credit crisis; Japan being the primary example. However, it is unusual for the non-public debt-to-GDP ratio to continuously rise from already elevated levels. In brief, China has seen its money and credit excesses rise continually and the problem has yet to be addressed. Other Structural Headwinds Chart 11China Is Much More Industrialized Than Commonly Believed China Is Much More Industrialized Than Commonly Believed China Is Much More Industrialized Than Commonly Believed The Chinese economy is facing other structural headwinds: First, the oft-quoted 60% urbanization rate understates the extent of China’s industrialization. China is much more industrialized than generally perceived: the country’s industrialization rate is currently 85% – i.e., 85% of jobs in China are already in non-agricultural sectors (Chart 11). This entails a slower rate of industrialization and urbanization going forward. Second, the labor force is shrinking. This is a major drag on the nation’s potential real GDP growth rate – which is equal to the sum of productivity growth and labor force growth. In turn, productivity growth is estimated to have slowed down to about 6% with total factor productivity growth slipping to 2% (Chart 8, bottom panel, above). Chart 12Re-Balancing Is About Slowing Capex Not Accelerating Consumer Spending Re-Balancing Is About Slowing Capex Not Accelerating Consumer Spending Re-Balancing Is About Slowing Capex Not Accelerating Consumer Spending As we discussed in our recent Special Report A Primer On Productivity, productivity is the most important variable for any country’s long-term development and 6% is still a very high number. The challenge for China in the coming years is to prevent its productivity growth rate from dropping below 4.5-5%. Third, there is a misconception about what rebalancing really means for this economy. Consumer spending in China has in fact been booming over the past 20 years – it has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.3% in real terms from 1998 until 2020 (pandemic) (Chart 12, top panel). Hence, the imbalance in China has not been sluggish consumer spending, which has actually been booming for the past 20 years. Rather, capital expenditure has been too strong for too long (Chart 12, bottom panel). Healthy rebalancing entails a slowdown in investment spending – not an acceleration in household demand. Hence, the market relevant question is: can the growth rate of household expenditure accelerate above 10% CAGR in real terms as capital spending decelerates? Our hunch is that this is unlikely. The basis is that investment outlays account for more than 40% of GDP and create many jobs and income, which in turn feeds into consumer spending. A meaningful downshift in capital expenditures will produce lower household income growth, resulting in a moderation in consumer spending growth. Bottom Line: Maturing industrialization, a shrinking labor force and an imperative to slow capital spending all constitute formidable headwinds to China’s secular growth outlook. China’s Advantage: What Makes It Distinct  Chart 13China Does Not Have An Inflation Problem China Does Not Have An Inflation Problem China Does Not Have An Inflation Problem Although all of the above structural drawbacks have persisted for the past ten years, the Chinese economy (1) has not experienced a credit crisis; and (2) has not seen an inflation outbreak despite burgeoning money supply. The question is: why? Concerning the credit excesses and the property bubble, China has avoided a credit crisis because its banking system has shown extreme forbearance towards debtors, i.e., banks have not forced corporate restructuring when companies were unable to service their debt. Besides, authorities – being fully aware of the risk of financial instability – have been lenient towards banks and debtors, tolerating continued credit overflow and rising credit excesses. The domestic credit growth rate has never dropped below nominal GDP growth (Chart 4 above). Rather, it has remained above 10% – despite several episodes of policy tightening and deleveraging campaigns. Authorities in any country with effective control over banks could do this. However, many economies with such a rampant money/credit boom would exhibit very high inflation. Yet, inflation in China has been absent (Chart 13). Critically, China’s advantage over other nations has not been its banking system or its monetary policy’s "magic touch" but its ability to continuously grow productivity at a solid rate. Inflation has remained subdued due to robust productivity gains. Without the latter, policymakers would have little room to navigate and secure economic and financial stability. The lack of inflation in China amid the credit and money boom is critical to understanding the unique structure and character of its economy. We have the following considerations: First, rampant money growth is typically associated with higher inflation because of the presumption that new money creation stimulates the demand for, but not the supply of goods and services. This is presently the case in the US where monetarization of public debt and fiscal transfers to households are boosting demand but not the potential productive capacity. However, in China’s case, credit flow to enterprises has always dwarfed credit to consumers. This means that the lion’s share of credit origination/money creation has been going directly into capital spending. Investment expenditures have led to rapid expansion of production capacity in the majority of industries. As a result, output has exceeded demand, resulting in an oversupply of goods and services and ultimately, in falling prices. Chart 14A and 14B illustrate that production capacity in many sectors in China has exploded over the past 20 years. In many industries, production capacity and output have expanded more than 10-fold since 2000. The outcome has been chronic deflation in many goods (Chart 15). Chart 14AProduction Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Production Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Production Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Chart 14BProduction Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Production Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Production Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries   In short, too much credit/money channeled into expanding production capacity could lead to deflation. Second, when banks make new loans/create new money, inflation occurs in goods/commodities that money is used to purchase. Those goods/commodities experienced periods of high price inflation during money/credit growth acceleration. For example, China’s credit/money growth impulse explains swings in commodities prices (Chart 16). Hence, the link between credit/money and certain goods/commodities prices has held up. Chart 15Goods Deflation Is Pervasive In China Goods Deflation Is Pervasive In China Goods Deflation Is Pervasive In China Chart 16Money Impulse Is Sending A Warning For Industrial Metals Money Impulse Is Sending A Warning For Industrial Metals Money Impulse Is Sending A Warning For Industrial Metals   Finally, the application of digital technologies in service sectors has kept a lid on service price inflation. Hence, China has benefited from productivity-enabled disinflation despite the ongoing money/credit boom. That said, there are also areas where there has been rampant inflation. These include land, housing and high-end services. On the whole, deflation in goods prices due to oversupply has overwhelmed the pockets of high inflation in services. Crucially, unit labor costs in both the industrial economy (secondary industry) and service sectors have been contained as strong wage growth has been offset by robust productivity gains (Chart 17). The following factors have enabled high productivity growth in China: Chinese people are genuinely entrepreneurial, hardworking and disciplined. Educational attainment has been rising and innovation has proliferated. China has closed the gap in all patents with the US (Chart 18, top panel). It has actually surpassed the US in the number of semiconductor patents (Chart 18, bottom panel). Chart 17Rising Wages But Stable Unit Labor Costs Rising Wages But Stable Unit Labor Costs Rising Wages But Stable Unit Labor Costs Chart 18China Has Become A Global Innovation Hub China Has Become A Global Innovation Hub China Has Become A Global Innovation Hub Chart 19China Is Pursuing Automation On A Large Scale China Is Pursuing Automation On A Large Scale China Is Pursuing Automation On A Large Scale Our report from June 24, 2020 has elucidated the nation’s innovation drive. Rising spending on research and development will ensure China’s continued ascent as a major global innovation hub. Consistent with rising productivity, China’s share in global trade continues to rise. China is aggressively implementing automation in many of its industries, replacing labor with robotics. Specifically, the number employees in the industrial sector has been falling while production of industrial robots - and presumably, demand for them - has surged (Chart 19). The outcome will be continued rapid productivity gains which will allow companies to keep a lid on costs and secure reasonable profit margins without resorting to price hikes. What could cause productivity growth to slow? The main risk is complacency associated with easy credit and recurring fiscal stimulus, i.e., “soft-budget constraints”. If zombie companies continue to enjoy easy access to financing and are not forced to restructure and become more efficient, the pace of productivity gains will decelerate with negative consequences for potential GDP growth and inflation. In such a case, the credit system’s forbearance towards enterprises that misallocate capital will continue channeling money to projects with low efficiency. The latter will increase the supply of goods and services that are not demanded. This will produce pockets of short-term deflation but will lay the foundation for higher inflation down the road.1  Bottom Line: China’s unique advantage has been its ability to avoid inflation despite the money/credit boom. Using a large share of credit to expand production capacity – rather than consumption – has been the key to maintaining low inflation. The latter has allowed policymakers to avoid material tightening policy and has kept the currency competitive.  In brief, the nation has been able to maintain reasonably high productivity gains, albeit slower relative to pre-2010. As long as productivity grows at a solid rate, the economy will over time absorb excesses with moderate pain/setbacks and will do well structurally. Investment Considerations Appreciating the long-term negative ramifications of “soft-budget” constraints, Chinese policymakers have embarked on another tightening campaign since last summer. This policy stance will continue, and the economy is now facing triple tightening: Monetary and fiscal tightening: The total social financing and our broad money (M3) impulses have already rolled over (Chart 16 above). Fiscal policy will also tighten relative to the unprecedented stimulus of last year. Regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial institutions: Authorities are planning to reinforce asset management regulation by the end of this year. This will limit how much these financial institutions can expand their balance sheets reinforcing a credit slowdown. Property market tightening: Restrictions on both property purchases and property developers’ leverage will lead to a notable slump in real estate construction. Chart 20Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks As China’s credit-sensitive sectors – construction and infrastructure spending – slow down this year, the risk-reward for industrial commodities and other China-plays worldwide is poor. Regarding Chinese stocks, Chinese A-shares will begin outperforming Chinese Investable stocks (Chart 20). We recommend the following strategy: long A shares / short China investable stocks. The primary reason is that the A-share index is heavy in value stocks while the MSCI China investable index has a large weight in expensive new economy stocks. The global investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus global growth stocks due to strong US growth and rising US bond yields. Also, there has been more rampant speculation in global stocks that affect Chinese investable stocks more than onshore equities. Notably, the Composite A-share large and A-share small cap indexes have not performed well since July while investable stocks had been surging until recently. As to the exchange rate, the RMB is overbought and will likely experience a setback as the US dollar rebounds. However, the yuan’s long-term outlook versus the US dollar depends on the relative productivity growth. As long as the productivity growth differential between China and the US does not narrow, the RMB will appreciate versus the dollar on a structural basis. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Deflation can turn into inflation when the economy produces goods/services that are not demanded (type A goods) and not producing the ones that are in demand (type B goods). As a result, prices of type A goods will deflate often overwhelming inflation type B goods keeping overall inflation very low. Consequently, production of type-A goods will halt because plunging prices will discourage output. As a result, deflation will abate in the economy. If the economy still cannot produce type-B goods – the ones in demand, inflation will become prevalent.

Highlights Strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. We illustrate why and how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Detecting productivity for macro strategists is akin to doctors diagnosing a patient – it entails more art than science. Inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. Feature By far, the most critical variable determining long-term economic growth is a country’s productivity. This report presents why productivity matters for investors and examines how to gauge productivity growth given it is practically impossible to measure accurately. We use the framework presented in this report to analyze long-term trends in individual EM economies. In a follow-up piece, we will present a practical application of this framework by ranking developing economies according to their productivity and long-term growth potential. This report does not discuss what is needed to boost productivity because the policy prescriptions are well known and are widely available in economic literature. That said, we have outlined some of these in Box 1. BOX 1 The Basic Formula For Long-Term Growth For any economy, the potential growth rate is what can be achieved and sustained in the very long run. It can be expressed as follows: Potential (real) growth rate = productivity growth + labor force growth Given that we can use demographic data to approximate the number of people entering and exiting the labor force for each year over the next 18 years, the labor force growth variable can be easily estimated. Hence, the key unknown in the above formula is productivity growth. In a developing economy, it is difficult to measure productivity accurately (Chart 1). That is why when analyzing the long-term outlook, we first assess whether the country has effectively implemented the structural reforms needed to achieve faster productivity growth – some of which are listed below. We combine these observations with symptoms associated with either strong or weak productivity growth in order to assess an economy’s potential growth trajectory. Chart 1Productivity Growth Estimates For EM/China Productivity Growth Estimates For EM/China Productivity Growth Estimates For EM/China Recommended policies to raise productivity growth typically include: building hard and soft infrastructure, improving education and training, investing in new technologies and equipment, promoting entrepreneurship and formation of new businesses, promoting competition, augmenting R&D spending, importing foreign “know how,” and fostering industry clusters that specialize in certain products or processes. Why Does Productivity Matter For Investors? Following are the investment implications of productivity growth: 1. Productivity is the sole driver of growing prosperity, which is reflected in rising per capita real incomes (Chart 2). Productivity = output per employee per hour  = (real GDP or output) / (number of employees x number of hours worked) Rising productivity creates more income that is shared between employees and shareholders. If productivity rises by 5% and hourly wages increase by 2.5% in a year, unit labor costs will drop by 2.5%. In such a case, the 5% increase in productivity is shared equally between shareholders and employees. A lack of productivity gains and resulting stagnant income for both employees and business owners might lead to rising socio-political tensions and ultimately to political instability. 2. Strong productivity gains allow an economy to grow faster without experiencing high inflation (Chart 3). The upshot is reduced cyclicality in economic activity, i.e., business cycles are characterized by longer expansions and shallow and less frequent downturns. Equity investors will thus likely pay higher equity multiples due to the reduced cyclicality of corporate profits. Chart 2Productivity Is Ultimately Reflected In Rising Real Income Per Capita Productivity Is Ultimately Reflected In Rising Real Income Per Capita Productivity Is Ultimately Reflected In Rising Real Income Per Capita Chart 3China: Strong Productivity Growth Has Kept A Lid On Inflation China: Strong Productivity Growth Has Kept A Lid On Inflation China: Strong Productivity Growth Has Kept A Lid On Inflation   The rationale is that robust productivity advances allow the economy to expand with low inflation with no need for monetary tightening. The relationship between productivity and inflation is discussed in detail below. A structurally low inflation environment allows policymakers to promptly deploy large monetary and fiscal stimulus when faced with economic downturns. In addition, low interest rates are also associated with higher equity valuations. On the contrary, a lack of productivity growth makes business cycles short-lived. Inflation will rise faster during a business cycle expansion in an economy with low productivity growth. In turn, interest rates will rise more rapidly in those economies, short-circuiting the expansion. Equity investors will be reluctant to pay high multiples for companies operating in such environments. 3. On a microeconomic level, high productivity gains are typically associated with higher profit margins and vice versa (Chart 4). Shareholders assign higher equity multiples to enterprises with higher profit margins and return on capital. Chart 4Faster Productivity Growth = Wider Corporate Profit Margins Faster Productivity Growth = Wider Corporate Profit Margins Faster Productivity Growth = Wider Corporate Profit Margins Besides, wider profit margins allow companies to tolerate higher real interest rates. High real interest rates attract foreign fixed-income capital supporting the nation’s exchange rate. Given that labor costs make up a large share of costs in many companies, unit labor costs are a critical determinant of corporate profitability. Meanwhile, selling prices, sales as well as input prices are often beyond management control. Therefore, raising productivity (output per hour of an employee) is one of the few ways to lift corporate profitability and, by extension, return on capital. Unit labor costs = (wage per person per hour) / productivity 4. Rapid productivity advances allow companies to become more competitive without currency depreciation (Chart 5and Chart 6). Exchange rates of countries that achieve faster productivity growth typically appreciate in the long run. Chart 5Switzerland: High Productivity Has Sustained Competitiveness/Export Volumes Despite Currency Appreciation Switzerland: High Productivity Has Sustained Competitiveness/Export Volumes Despite Currency Appreciation Switzerland: High Productivity Has Sustained Competitiveness/Export Volumes Despite Currency Appreciation Chart 6China and Vietnam: Rising Export Market Share Reflects Productivity Gains China and Vietnam: Rising Export Market Share Reflects Productivity Gains China and Vietnam: Rising Export Market Share Reflects Productivity Gains   Enterprises with higher productivity can drop their selling prices with limited impact on their profitability. By doing so, they can undercut their competitors and gain market share. Hence, solid productivity gains also entail a competitive currency, eliminating the need for central banks to hike interest rates in order to defend the exchange rate. 5. High indebtedness – in both public and private sectors – is easier to manage amid brisk productivity gains because the latter generate strong economic growth and relatively low nominal interest rates. Robust income gains among businesses and households, as well as for the government via taxation, enable indebted agents to service higher debt loads. Besides, nominal GDP growth above nominal interest rates arithmetically implies a drop in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. In brief, the economy could “grow into its debt” with robust productivity gains. In sum, strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. Rapid Productivity Gains Lead To A Virtuous Circle The following illustrates how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Fast productivity gains allow for either fast wage or rapid corporate profit growth or a combination of the two. As income per capita rises, consumer spending grows and capital owners are willing to invest. New investments create new jobs and income and could also boost future productivity if substantial capital misallocation is dodged. The economy expands at a rapid rate, but inflation and, thereby, interest rates remain capped because the economy’s productive capacity grows in line with demand. Strong income and profit growth as well as stable borrowing costs lead to more credit demand from both households and businesses. Bank and non-bank credit expand but rapid household income gains and healthy enterprise profitability as well as growing government tax revenues support the private or public sectors’ debt servicing capacity. Robust economic growth, elevated real interest rates and high profitability attract foreign capital and foreign inflows lead to currency appreciation. Yet, such currency appreciation should not undermine the competitiveness of local producers – both exporters and those competing with imported goods. As discussed above, sizable productivity gains could reduce unit labor costs and allow domestic companies to drop their prices, sustaining their market shares in both export markets and domestically. Consequently, the trade balance does not deteriorate structurally despite a rapid expansion in domestic demand. Healthy balance of payments support the currency, i.e., the central bank does not need to hike interest rates or draw down reserves to defend the exchange rate. Finally, rapid corporate profit and household income growth as well as reasonably low nominal interest rates sustain high asset (equity and property) valuations for longer. Such a virtuous circle can persist until something breaks or major excesses – for example, capital misallocation, credit or property bubbles – emerge and then unravel. Meager Productivity Gains Lead To A Vicious Circle The following demonstrates how stagnant productivity can set in motion a vicious self-reinforcing circle. With no productivity gains, a business cycle recovery will likely lead to higher inflation sooner than later. The latter will short circuit the economic expansion as the central bank is forced to hike interest rates. If the central bank does not hike interest rates despite rising inflation, real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates will fall and could become negative. Low real rates are bearish for the currency. Either the central bank will be forced eventually to hike interest rates substantially or the exchange rate will continue depreciating. There are two reasons why low real interest rates are negative for the exchange rate: (1) low real borrowing costs will encourage more borrowing, spending, and investment. Such very strong domestic demand in the context of limited domestic productive capacity will lead to a ballooning trade deficit; and/or (2) low real interest rates will discourage foreign fixed-income capital inflows and weigh on the currency. With no productivity gains, any increase in wages will lead to rising unit labor costs and shrinking profit margins; corporate profitability and return on capital will plunge. The sole way to protect profitability amid rising unit labor costs is to raise selling prices. The latter could spur a wage-inflation spiral. Rising unit labor costs and resulting shrinking corporate profit margins leave domestic producers no room to reduce their selling prices to compete in export markets and with imports. The result is less exports, less import substitution and a deteriorating trade balance. In such a case, the only way to restore the competitiveness of domestic producers is to devalue the exchange rate. Declining or low returns on capital will discourage business investment, in general, and foreign direct investment (FDI) in particular with negative ramifications for future productivity. A worsening trade balance as well as diminishing foreign equity and FDI inflows also entail currency depreciation. This feeds into inflation and leads inevitably to monetary policy tightening. Such tightening prompts weaker growth, lower profitability and more foreign capital outflows. This vicious circle can persist until a major regime shift occurs: a dramatically devalued currency that stays very cheap or corporate restructuring and structural reforms that lead to higher productivity. Commodity Prices And Productivity A critical question to address regarding productivity in commodity producing countries is the issue of rising and falling commodity prices. Higher commodity prices lead to improved prosperity and vice versa. Does this mean that high commodity prices should be treated as productivity improvements? There is some ambiguity in regard to this but our preference is not to treat fluctuations in commodity prices as changes in the nation’s structural productivity. Let us consider the examples of Nigeria, which produces and exports oil, and Vietnam, which manufactures and ships smartphones in large quantities. Let us assume that smartphone exports are as important to Vietnam in generating income per capita as oil exports are to Nigeria. A doubling in oil prices amid flat oil export volumes would generate windfall oil revenues which would lift Nigeria’s income per capita. If smartphone prices remain constant but smartphone production and shipments (volumes) double, income per capita in Vietnam would rise as much as in Nigeria.1   The difference between these two scenarios in Nigeria and Vietnam is as follows: Nigeria would be made richer due to the price increases: it would be producing and exporting the same number of barrels of oil but a doubling in crude prices would augment income per capita in Nigeria. The problem is that Nigeria does not control oil prices. If oil prices decline, the nation’s income per capita would also drop substantially. Hence, there would have been no genuine (structural) productivity gains and Nigeria’s prosperity would be at the mercy of the global oil market. In the case of Vietnam, its productivity will have risen as it has succeeded in producing twice as many smartphones as it did last year. The country has built capacity, acquired technology and developed human skills to double smartphone production. This increased capacity, technology acquisition and skills cannot be taken away from Vietnam. This is a case of genuine productivity advancement. In fact, Vietnam could build on these skills and start producing other, more value-added goods. What if Nigeria doubled its oil output and export volume due to more investment and new technologies (as the US succeeded in doing with shale oil)? This scenario would qualify as genuine productivity gains. At any oil price scenario, Nigeria’s oil export revenues would double. The sole caveat is that the new oil production should have reasonably low breakevens, i.e., oil production should be viable even if oil prices decline. The same caveat is applicable to Vietnam. The difference between Nigeria (oil) and Vietnam (smartphones) is that commodities prices are much more volatile than manufactured goods prices. Bottom Line: In commodity producing countries, rising commodities prices have the same effect on income per capita as productivity gains. However, per capita income gains originating from higher commodities prices are reversable, i.e., not sustainable in the very long run. Consequently, higher commodity prices should not be treated as structural productivity gains. By contrast, productivity advancements – like Vietnam doubling its capacity to produce smartphones or Nigeria doubling its oil production volume – are non-reversable, i.e., they cannot be taken away. Hence, these constitute genuine productivity gains. Detecting Productivity Is Akin To Doctors Diagnosing A Patient Even in advanced countries, productivity is hard to measure accurately. Hence, any measure of productivity in developing economies should be used with a grain of salt.  How do we carry out long-term analysis of developing economies when the key variable – productivity growth – is hard to measure? How do we make projections about productivity growth going forward? We see structural macro analysis as analogous to the work of doctors. When diagnosing a patient, doctors cannot necessarily observe what is happening in the patient’s body. Doctors conduct various tests and then analyze those results in the context of the symptoms. Putting it all together, they make a diagnosis and prescribe the necessary treatment. Similar to the manner in which doctors rely on symptoms and medical tests to determine where there is sufficient evidence of a disease, macro strategists do not see what is really occurring in their “patient’s” body, i.e., economies. Data for macro strategists is akin to medical tests for doctors. In developing countries, the quantity of economic data available to macro strategists is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, observing symptoms of economies under consideration and interpreting them correctly is crucial to the job of macro strategists for emerging economies. As they can count less on hard data and instead rely more on symptoms, their analysis is more of an art than a science. Symptoms Associated With Productivity: How To Detect Productivity At a country level, robust productivity gains are ceteris paribus typically associated with: A structurally improving real trade balance (exports minus import volumes), which is not due to a cheapened currency or a relapse in domestic demand but is due to domestic producers achieving the following: Becoming more competitive and gaining market share in global trade Succeeding in import substitution (imported products are crowded out by locally produced ones) Low inflation during an extended period of business cycle expansion Corporate profit margins expanding simultaneously with higher wages amid low inflation. A lack of productivity gains are ceteris paribus normally attendant with: A structurally deteriorating real trade balance as: Domestic producers lose market share in global exports Domestic producers lose market share to importers in local markets Rising inflation amid a moderate recovery in domestic demand Lingering downward pressure on corporate profit margins i.e., a modest rise in wage growth leads to a drop in corporate profit margins. On the whole, inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. A widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflationary pressure and a sign of lackluster productivity growth. The rationale is as follows: In a closed economy, when expanding demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, i.e., productivity gains do not keep up with thriving domestic demand, inflation will rise considerably. In short, rising inflation will be a symptom of paltry productivity gains. In an open economy, when domestic demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, inflation might not rise as demand could be satisfied by imports of foreign goods and services. In such a scenario, even though the trade balance will deteriorate, the currency might stay firm for a while because of foreign capital inflows or rising export (commodities) prices. As a result, inflation will stay low for some time. Eventually, when tailwinds from foreign capital inflows or high export prices cease, the currency will nosedive. Importers will have to raise prices in local currency causing a spike in inflation. Why would foreign capital inflows halt? Lackluster productivity gains amidst solid wage increases would cause a corporate profit margin squeeze and profitability will plummet. As a result, both FDI and equity inflows will dry up and the currency will depreciate. The latter will push up inflation considerably. In a nutshell, in an open economy poor productivity growth might not necessarily lead to high inflation where domestic demand can be satisfied by imports. In these cases, we can say that a widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflation. The only exception is when the real trade balance deteriorates due to imports of capital goods and/or new technologies that will be used to build new productive capacity. In such a case, a ballooning trade deficit should not be viewed as a form of hidden inflation and poor productivity growth. If consumer goods dominate imports, this would signify low chances of sizable productivity gains in a given country. If capital goods dominate imports, there are higher odds of future productivity gains. If these imported equipment and technologies are properly utilized, they will make the nation productive and competitive in the coming years. Higher productivity stemming from imports of these capital goods/new technologies, i.e., enlarged capacity to produce goods and services at lower costs, will cap inflation as well as expand exports and result in significant import substitution. A Checklist For Detecting Productivity Diagram 1 presents macro signposts that can be used to diagnose whether an economy is experiencing strong or weak productivity growth (these do not include traditional metrices such as education, R&D spending, strong governance, soft- and hard-infrastructure, etc.): Diagram 1A Checklist For Detecting Productivity A Primer On Productivity A Primer On Productivity Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  We assume here that all inputs for smartphones are produced domestically, in Vietnam. This is not a realistic assumption, but we use it only to illustrate a macro point about productivity.

Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. Chart II-3 The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). Chart II-7 Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity   The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-9 Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years.   The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector. Chart II-13 Chart II-14     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II- Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Chart II-16 Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. Chart II-17 In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? Chart II-20 Chart II-   The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22). Chart II-21 Chart II-22     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 2       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 3       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 4       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 5     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 6     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 7     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 8    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 9     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 10     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 11     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12     Productivity can be written as: Image 13     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018.

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report, which includes the Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Feature Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business." 1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart 2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart 1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 2Amazon Dominates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. 1. E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table 1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table 1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Table 2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table 2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. 2. Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table 3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table 3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? 3. The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. 4. E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart 3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. 5. Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart 4). Chart 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Chart 4Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy 5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart 5Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart 5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. 6. Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. 7. Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart 6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart 6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart 7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart 6Online Price Index Online Price Index Online Price Index Chart 7Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart 8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart 8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016) 4 "US Daily: The Internet and Inflation: How Big is the Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame the Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online and Offline Prices Similar? Evidence from Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Asia over the next ten days, so we are sending you this week's report a bit ahead of schedule. In addition, at the end of this report, we are including the recommendations from our tactical asset allocation model. Going forward, we will be updating these recommendations on our website at the end of every month. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Feature Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart 1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. Chart 1 If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart 2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart 3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart 2The Great Recession Hit##BR##Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation Chart 3The Shift Towards Software Has##BR##Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart 6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart 4 Chart 5 Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart 7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart 6 Chart 7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart 8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart 9). Chart 8 Chart 9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s##BR##While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Chart 10The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude##BR##Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart 10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart 11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart 12). Chart 11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First,##BR##Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Chart 12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated,##BR##Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart 13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart 14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart 15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart 13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart 14 Chart 15Aging Will Reduce##BR##Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart 16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart 17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart 18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart 16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been##BR##Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains Chart 17 Chart 18Savings Heavily Skewed##BR##Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart 19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart 20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart 21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart 19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Chart 20 Chart 21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of##BR##Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. Chart 22Output Gap Has Narrowed##BR##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart 22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. APPENDIX: Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis and intuition, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. Compared to last month, our tactical (3-month) model is recommending an upgrade to global equities at the expense of government bonds. Global equities have consolidated their gains, removing some of the overbought conditions that prevailed earlier in May. Bullish equity sentiment has also waned somewhat, while net speculative positioning in U.S. stocks has moved from being net long to net short. In contrast, speculative positioning in Treasurys has jumped into net long territory (Chart A1). Our models say that government bonds in most economies remain overbought. Image Regionally, we continue to favor higher-beta developed equity markets such as Europe and Japan. Canada, Australia, and most emerging markets have also received an upgrade, owing to a more favorable near-term outlook for commodity prices. Within the bond universe, U.S. Treasurys are most vulnerable to a selloff, given that the market is pricing in only two rate hikes over the next 12 months. Image Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. Chart II-1 If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation The Great Recession Hit Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains The Shift Towards Software Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-4 Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-8 Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-14 Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains U.S.: Real Wages Have Been Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-17 Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have ##br##Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Chart II-20 As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked The Low-Hanging Fruits Of Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.