Spain

Highlights The US government issued its first-ever water-shortage declaration for the Colorado River basin in August, due to historically low water levels at the major reservoirs fed by the river (Chart of the Week). The drought producing the water shortage was connected to climate change by US officials.1 Globally, climate-change remediation efforts – e.g., carbon taxes – likely will create exogenous shocks similar to the oil-price shock of the 1970s. Remedial efforts will compete with redressing chronic underfunding of infrastructure. The US water supply infrastructure, for example, faces an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging plants and equipment, based on an analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).  This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists. Fluctuating weather and the increasing prevalence of droughts and floods will increase volatility in markets such as agriculture which rely on stable climate and precipitation patterns.We are getting long the FIW ETF at tonight's close. The ETF tracks the performance of equities in the ISE Clean Edge Water Index, which covers firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment technologies and services. This is a strategic recommendation. Feature A decades-long drought in the US Southwest linked by US officials to climate change will result in further water rationing in the region. The drought has reduced total Colorado River system water-storage levels to 40% of capacity – vs. 49% at the same time last year. It has drawn attention to the impact of climate change on daily life, and the acute need for remediation efforts. The US Southwest is a desert. Droughts and low water availability are facts of life in the region. The current drought began in 2012, and is forcing federal, state, and local governments to take unprecedented conservation measures. The first-ever water-shortage declaration by the US Bureau of Reclamation sets in motion remedial measures that will reduce water availability in the Lower Colorado basin starting in October (Map 1). Chart 1Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Map 1Colorado River Basin Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply The two largest reservoirs in the US – Lake Powell and Lake Meade, part of the massive engineering projects along the Colorado – began in the 1930s and now supply water to 40mm people in the US Southwest. Half of those people get their water from Lake Powell. Emergency rationing began in August, primarily affecting Arizona, but will be extended to the region later in the year. Lake Powell is used to hold run-off from the upper basin of the Colorado River from Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Water from Powell is sent south to supply the lower-basin states of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Reduced snowpack due to weather shifts caused by climate change has reduced water levels in Powell, while falling soil-moisture levels and higher evaporation rates, contribute to the acceleration of droughts and their persistence down-river. Chart 2Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Steadily increasing demand for water from agriculture, energy production and human activity brought on by population growth and holiday-makers have made the current drought exceptional (Chart 2). Most of the Southwest has been "abnormally dry or even drier" during 2002-05 and from 2012-20, according to the US EPA. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of the US Southwest was also warmer than the 1981 – 2010 average temperature during July (Map 2). The Colorado River Compact of 1922 governing the water-sharing rights of the river expires in 2026. Negotiations on the new treaties already have begun, as the seven states in the Colorado basin sort out their rights alongside huge agricultural  interest, native American tribes, Mexico, and fast-growing urban centers like Las Vegas. Map 2Most Of The US Southwest Is Warmer Than Average Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Global Water Emergency States around the globe are dealing with water crises as a result of climate change. "From Yemen to India, and parts of Central America to the African Sahel, about a quarter of the world's people face extreme water shortages that are fueling conflict, social unrest and migration," according to the World Economic Forum. Droughts, and more generally, changing weather patterns will make agricultural markets more volatile. Food production shortages due to unpredictable weather are compounding lingering pandemic related supply chain disruptions, leading to higher food prices (Chart 3). This could also fuel social unrest and political uncertainty. Floods in China’s Henan province - a key agriculture and pork region - inundated farms. Drought and extreme heat in North America are destroying crops in parts of Canada and the US. While flooding in July damaged Europe’s crops, the continent’s main medium-term risk, will be water scarcity.2  Droughts and extreme weather in Brazil have deep implications for agricultural markets, given the variety and quantity of products it exports. Water scarcity and an unusual succession of polar air masses caused coffee prices to rise earlier this year (Chart 4). The country is suffering from what national government agencies consider the worst drought in nearly a century. According to data from the NASA Earth Observatory, many of the agricultural states in Brazil saw more water evaporate from the ground and plants’ leaves than during normal conditions (Map 3). Chart 3The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High Chart 4Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Map 3Brazil Is Suffering From Its Worst Drought In Nearly A Century Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Agriculture itself could be part of a longer-term and irreversible problem – i.e. desertification. Irrigation required for modern day farming drains aquifers and leads to soil erosion. According to the EU, nearly a quarter of Spain’s aquifers are exploited, with agricultural states, such as Andalusia consuming 80% of the state’s total water. Irrigation intensive farming, the possibility of higher global temperatures and the increased prevalence of droughts and forest fires are conducive to soil infertility and subsequent desertification. This is a global phenomenon, with the crisis graver still in north Africa, Mozambique and Palestinian regions. Changing weather patterns could also impact the production of non-agricultural goods and services. One such instance is semiconductors, which are used in machines and devices spanning cars to mobile phones. Taiwan, home to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company – the world’s largest contract chipmaker - suffered from a severe drought earlier this year (Chart 5). While the drought did not seriously disrupt chipmaking, in an already tight market, the event did bring the issue of the impact of water shortages on semiconductor manufacturing to the fore. According to Sustainalytics, a typical chipmaking plant uses 2 to 4 million gallons of water per day to clean semiconductors. While wet weather has returned to Taiwan, relying on rainfall and typhoons to satisfy the chipmaking sector’s water needs going forward could lead to volatility in these markets. Chart 5Taiwan Faced Its Worst Drought In History Earlier This Year Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Climate Change As A Macro Factor The scale of remediating existing environmental damage to the planet and the cost of investing in the technology required to sustain development and growth will be daunting. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of research looking into how much of a cost households, firms and governments will incur on these fronts. Estimates of the actual price of CO2 – the policy variable most governments and policymakers focus on – range from as little as $1.30/ton to as much as $13/ton, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.3 PIIE's Jean Pisani-Ferry estimates the true cost is around $10/ton presently, after accounting for a lack of full reporting on costs and subsidies that reduce carbon costs. The cost of carbon likely will have to increase by an order of magnitude – to $130/ton or more over the next decade – to incentivize the necessary investment in technology required to deal with climate change and to sufficiently induce, via prices, behavioral adaptations by consumers at all levels. The PIIE notes, "… the accelerated pace of climate change and the magnitude of the effort involved in decarbonizing the economy, while at the same time investing in adaptation, the transition to net zero is likely to involve, over a 30-year period, major shifts in growth patterns." These are early days for assessing the costs and global macro effects of decarbonization. However, PIIE notes, these costs can be expected to "include a significant negative supply shock, an investment surge sizable enough to affect the global equilibrium interest rate, large adverse consumer welfare effects, distributional shifts, and substantial pressure on public finances." Much of the investment required to address climate change will be concentrated on commodity markets. Underlying structural issues, such as lack of investment in expanding supplies of metals and hydrocarbons required during the transition to net-zero CO2 emissions, will impart an upward bias to base metals, oil and natural gas prices over the next decade. We remain bullish industrial commodities broadly, as a result. Investment Implications Massive investment in infrastructure will be needed to address emerging water crises around the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) projects an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging water infrastructure in the US alone. This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists.4 At tonight's close we will be getting long the FIW ETF, which is focused on US-based firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment services. This ETF provides direct investment exposure to water remediation efforts and needed infrastructure modernization in the US. We also remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – as a way to retain exposure to the higher commodity-price volatility that climate change will create in grain and food markets. This volatility will keep the balance of price risks to the upside.   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 Hurricane Ida shut in ~ 96% of total US Gulf of Mexico (GoM) oil production. Colonial Pipeline, a major refined product artery for the US South and East coast closed a few of its lines due to the hurricane but has restarted operations since then. Since the share of US crude oil from this region has fallen, WTI and RBOB gasoline prices have only marginally increased, despite virtually zero crude oil production from the GoM (Chart 6). Prices are, however, likely to remain volatile, as energy producers in the region check for damage to infrastructure. Power outages and a pause in refining activity in the region will also feed price volatility over the coming weeks. Despite raising the 2022 demand forecast and pressure from the US, OPEC 2.0 stuck to its 400k b/d per month production hike in its meeting on Wednesday.     Base Metals: Bullish A bill to increase the amount of royalties payable by copper miners in Chile was passed in the senate mining committee on Tuesday. As per the bill, taxes will be commensurate with the value of the red metal. If the bill is passed in its current format, it will disincentivize further private mining investments in the nation, warned Diego Hernandez, President of the National Society of Mining (SONAMI). Amid a prolonged drought in Chile during July, the government has outlined a plan for miners to cut water consumption from natural sources by 2050. Increased union bargaining power - due to higher copper prices -, a bill that will increase mining royalties, and environmental regulation, are putting pressure on miners in the world’s largest copper producing nation.   Precious Metals: Bullish Jay Powell’s dovish remarks at the Jackson Hole Symposium were bullish for gold prices. The chairman of the US Central Bank stated the possibility of tapering asset purchases before the end of 2021 but did not provide a timeline. Powell reiterated the absence of a mechanical relationship between tapering and an interest rate hike. Raising interest rates is contingent on factors, such as the prevalence of COVID, inflation and employment levels in the US. The fact that the US economy is not close to reaching the maximum employment level, according to Powell, could keep interest rates lower for longer, supporting gold prices (Chart 7). Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA crop Progress Report for the week ending August 29th reported 60% of the corn crop was good to excellent quality, marginally down by 2% vs comparable dates in 2020. Soybean crop quality on the other hand was down 11% from a year ago and was recorded at  56%. Chart 6 Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Chart 7 Weaker Real Rates Bullish For Gold Weaker Real Rates Bullish For Gold     Footnotes 1     Please see Reclamation announces 2022 operating conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead; Historic Drought Impacting Entire Colorado River Basin. Released by the US Bureau of Reclamation on August 16, 2021. 2     Please refer to Water stress is the main medium-term climate risk for Europe’s biggest economies, S&P Global, published on August 13, 2021. 3    Please see 21-20 Climate Policy is Macroeconomic Policy, and the Implications Will Be Significant by Jean Pisani-Ferry, which was published in August 2021.  4    Please see The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure, published by the ASCE and The Value of Water Campaign on August 26, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Portfolio Duration: The decline in US bond yields is overdone. We anticipate that strong US employment data will catalyze a jump in bond yields this fall and that the 10-year US Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% - 2.25% by the time that the Fed is ready to lift rates, likely by the end of 2022. Maintain below-benchmark duration in bond portfolios. US Yield Curve: Investors should position for a rebound in bond yields but not a reversal of recent US Treasury curve flattening. In fact, we advocate owning 2/10 flatteners on the US Treasury curve as we see ample room for further curve flattening as Fed rate hikes approach in late-2022. ECB: The ECB’s new forward interest rate guidance has moved it that much closer to the Fed’s ultra-accommodative stance. This reinforces the defensive nature of the European bond market. Investors should overweight European bonds within global fixed income portfolios with a particular emphasis on peripheral European bond markets like Italy and Spain. Feature Chart 1Can The Bond Rally Continue? Can The Bond Rally Continue? Can The Bond Rally Continue? The bond rally continues to rip. The selloff that started last August when Jay Powell officially announced the Federal Reserve’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target ended on March 31st 2021. Since then, the 10-year US Treasury yield has retraced from 1.74% to 1.29% and the Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury index has clawed back 285 bps of excess return versus cash, partially offsetting the 465 bps that were lost between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 1). The US Bond Strategy Weekly Report from two weeks ago and last week’s Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report both discuss the reasons for recent bond market strength.1 We won’t re-hash those arguments this week except to reiterate our conclusion that the decline in US bond yields is overdone. We anticipate that strong US employment data will catalyze a jump in bond yields this fall and that the 10-year US Treasury yield will reach a range of 2% - 2.25% by the time that the Fed is ready to lift rates, likely by the end of 2022. The first section of this week’s report looks at whether correlations between different asset classes have held up during the recent bond rally, with a focus on whether those relationships give us any information about the near-term direction for bond yields. The second section considers the outlook for the slope of the US Treasury curve and the third section discusses the recently released results of the European Central Bank’s strategy review. Cross-Market Correlations During The Bond Rally The bond rally has been just as intense as the prior sell-off. The US Treasury index has outperformed a position in cash by an annualized 9% since March 31st, matching the annualized losses of 9% seen between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 2). An important question to answer is whether this bond market performance is consistent with other asset classes. If it is, then it may suggest that the economy is experiencing a deflationary episode and that bond yields have further downside. If it isn’t, then it is more likely that the drop in bond yields will be temporary. Chart 2Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Credit And Equities Bonds Versus Equities And Corporate Credit Chart 3Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Equity Sector Performance Consistent With Yields Looking first at corporate bonds, we find that – consistent with stronger Treasury performance – excess US corporate bond returns have slowed since March 31st. Baa-rated corporates have been outperforming at an annualized rate of 3% since March 31st compared to an annualized rate of 12% between August 2020 and March 2021 (Chart 2, panel 2). Equities, on the other hand, have maintained their strong performance. The S&P 500 returned an annualized 30% between August 2020 and March 2021 and has returned an even greater 42% (annualized) since the end of March (Chart 2, panel 3). Extremely tight spreads are the most likely explanation for lower corporate bond excess returns. Meanwhile, the fact that equities continue to perform well is an indication that the drop in bond yields may be overdone. Interestingly, while overall equity returns haven’t dropped in line with bond yields, the relative performance of equity sectors has been totally consistent with the movement in yields (Chart 3). Cyclical equity sectors (Industrials, Energy and Materials) have underperformed defensive equity sectors (Healthcare, Telecoms, Consumer Staples and Utilities) and Banks have underperformed the overall index. The correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the relative performance of value and growth stocks has also held up, with growth stocks outperforming since the end of March (Chart 3, bottom panel). Bonds Versus Commodities Chart 4Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged Commodities And Bonds Have Diverged We see the biggest divergence in relative performance between bond yields and commodities. Historically, the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index and Gold is tightly correlated with the 10-year US Treasury yield. However, the CRB/Gold ratio has increased since the end of March while bond yields have fallen (Chart 4). In our view, this is the strongest piece of evidence suggesting that bond yields have overshot to the downside. Bonds Versus Currencies Chart 5Bonds Versus Currencies Bonds Versus Currencies Bonds Versus Currencies Finally, we observe that the US dollar has strengthened as bond yields have dropped. This is not that unusual. There are other periods when significant declines in US bond yields have coincided with dollar strength, 2019 and 2014/15 immediately come to mind (Chart 5). The common theme of those prior episodes is that the global economy was experiencing a deflationary shock. Commodity prices also fell during those periods and Emerging Market (EM) currencies depreciated versus the dollar. However, so far this year, EM currencies have held firm versus the dollar (Chart 5, bottom panel) and commodity prices continue to rise. On balance, financial markets don’t appear to be pricing-in a deflationary economic shock. In summary, since US Treasury yields peaked on March 31st, we have observed a sector rotation within US equities, but overall stock market performance has been strong. Corporate bonds continue to outperform Treasuries, though gains are limited by tight valuations. Commodity prices have held up and while the US dollar has firmed, dollar strength has not bled into EM currency weakness. All in all, we don’t view financial market performance as consistent with a deflationary economic episode. This suggests that bond yields are an outlier within the financial landscape and that the recent drop in yields won’t persist. A Quick Word On Sentiment And Positioning Chart 6A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment A Rebound In Yields May Require A Shift In Sentiment One possible reason why bond performance has been inconsistent with some other markets is that there had simply been too much consensus around the “bond-bearish trade”. It’s certainly true that portfolio managers have been running large net-short positions and that the MarketVane survey of bond bullish sentiment is much less bullish than it was last year (Chart 6). We suspect that we may need to see bond market positioning and sentiment get more bullish before yields move meaningfully higher. Chart 6 shows that major troughs in the 30-year US Treasury yield often occur when portfolio manager positioning is “net long” bonds and when bond bullish sentiment is significantly higher than current levels. For this reason, we don’t anticipate an immediate rebound in bond yields. Rather, we suspect that yields will remain near current levels for the next month or two before strong employment data in the fall sets off the next phase of bearish bond action.   Position For A Rebound In Bond Yields, But Don’t Expect Much Curve Steepening Chart 7The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target The 5-Year/5-Year Yield Remains Close To Target We see bond yields re-gaining their March 2021 highs, and then some, on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we don’t think this rebound in yields will coincide with a significant re-steepening of the US Treasury curve. For context, the 2/10 US Treasury slope peaked at 159 bps near the end of March. It is currently 51 bps lower, at 108 bps. We can categorize periods of yield curve steepening as falling into two categories. Bull-steepening: The curve steepens as yields fall. This tends to occur when the Fed is cutting interest rates. Bear-steepening: The curve steepens as yields rise. We can identify these periods as being when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rises from low levels toward its fair value range. Since 2012, we can identify a fair value range for the 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield using survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. At present, the fair value range from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is from 2.06% to 2.50%, with a median of 2.31%. The fair value range from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is from 1.75% to 2.50%, with a median of 2.00%. The 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield is currently 1.93% (Chart 7). We identify seven significant periods of 2/10 Treasury curve steepening since 2009 (Table 1). Six of those episodes were bear-steepening episodes that coincided with an increase in the 5-year/5-year yield, the other was a bull-steepening episode that coincided with Fed rate cuts in 2019/20. If we assume that our fair value ranges provide a reasonable target for how high the 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yield can rise during the next bear-steepening move, it means that – at most – we could see an increase of 57 bps in the 5-year/5-year yield as it moves all the way up to the 2.50% top-end of our target ranges. A linear regression of changes in the 2/10 slope versus changes in the 5-year/5-year forward yield during the six bear-steepening episodes we identified suggests that a 57 bps increase in the 5-year/5-year yield would lead to 12 bps of 2/10 curve steepening (Chart 8). In fact, we can see in both Table 1 and Chart 8 that it would take about 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year yield to bring the 2/10 slope back to its March highs. This is extremely unlikely. Table 1Periods Of US Treasury Curve Steepening In The Zero-Lower-Bound Era A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Chart 8Bear-Steepening Episodes Since 2009 A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery   In fact, if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield only rises back to the middle of its fair value range – somewhere between 2% and 2.31% - then our regression suggests that the yield curve slope will probably stay close to its current level. The bottom line is that while investors should position for a rebound in bond yields by keeping portfolio duration low, they should avoid US Treasury curve steepeners. In fact, we advocate owning 2/10 flatteners on the US Treasury curve as we see ample room for further curve flattening as Fed rate hikes approach in late-2022. The ECB’s New Guidance Solidifies The Defensive Nature Of European Bonds Last week, the European Central Bank (ECB) revised its forward rate guidance in light of its recently concluded Strategy Review.2 The ECB’s new rate guidance is as follows: In support of its symmetric two per cent inflation target and in line with its monetary policy strategy, the Governing Council expects the key ECB interest rates to remain at their present or lower levels until it sees inflation reaching two per cent well ahead of the end of its projection horizon and durably for the rest of the projection horizon, and it judges that realised progress in underlying inflation is sufficiently advanced to be consistent with inflation stabilising at two per cent over the medium term. This may also imply a transitory period in which inflation is moderately above target.3   This may sound familiar, and it should. Though not explicitly an Average Inflation Target, the ECB has moved a long way toward the Federal Reserve’s new dovish reaction function. Specifically, both the ECB and Federal Reserve now acknowledge that a temporary period of above-2% inflation will be tolerated, if not explicitly sought. Also, both central banks have linked the timing of the first rate increase to some form of outcome-based forward guidance. The Federal Reserve has explicitly said that it will not lift rates until inflation is above 2% and the economy has reached “maximum employment”. The ECB now claims that interest rates won’t rise until inflation is seen reaching 2% “well ahead of its projection horizon”, a criterion that Christine Lagarde described as having an element of outcome-based guidance.4 The ECB’s new forward guidance may not be as explicitly dovish as the Fed’s. The ECB has no “maximum employment” target and its inflation trigger for lifting rates still relies on the Governing Council’s forecasts. But for investors, the big signal is that the ECB has recognized that the risk of tightening policy prematurely is greater than the risk of remaining on hold for too long. This gives us even more confidence that there will be no ECB tightening on the horizon, and we should continue to view European bond markets as being highly defensive. This is hardly news. European bond markets performed relatively well during the bearish bond episode that lasted from August 2020 to March 2021, they have then gained less than cyclical bond markets (like US and Canada) since March (Table 2). The ECB’s new reaction function ensures that this relationship will remain place for many years to come. Table 27-10 Year Government Bond Returns (In USD, %) A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery The new reaction function is also a boon for peripheral European bond markets (like Italy and Spain) where yields trade at a spread above German bunds. The ECB’s commitment to staying dovish will only reinforce the downward pressure on peripheral European bond spreads versus Germany (Chart 9). Chart 9Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds Grab The Extra Spread In Spanish And Italian Bonds The bottom line is that investors should continue to overweight European bonds within global fixed income portfolios, with a particular emphasis on peripheral European bond markets like Italy and Spain. The defensive nature of European bonds will protect investors from losses during the next move higher in global yields. Italian and Spanish bond markets may not perform quite as well during the next bond bear market as they did between August 2020 and March 2021, as spreads have already compressed a lot. But ultra-accommodative ECB policy will limit the amount of spread widening that can occur, making any additional spread worth grabbing.  Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overreaction”, dated July 13, 2021 and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Message From Falling US Bond Yields”, dated July 21, 2021. 2 The results of the Strategy Review itself are discussed in Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place”, dated July 14, 2021. 3 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2021/html/ecb.mp210722~48dc3b436b.en.html 4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2021/html/ecb.is210722~13e7f5e795.en.html Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Treasury Index Returns A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery Spread Product Returns A Bump On The Road To Recovery A Bump On The Road To Recovery

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

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights GameStop & Bond Yields: The reflationary conditions that helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Remain overweight the latter versus the former. Italy: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year. Feature Dear Client, The next Global Fixed Income Strategy publication will be a Special Report on Canada, jointly published with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, February 12. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, February 16. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Chart of the WeekExpect More Bubbles & GameStop-Like Silliness Expect More Bubbles & GameStop-Like Silliness Expect More Bubbles & GameStop-Like Silliness The “Reddit Retail Revolution” has exposed the dangers of staying too long in crowded short positions for equities like GameStop, but bond markets were unfazed by the wild moves in stocks last week. US Treasury yields actually crept upwards as the mother of all short squeezes became the top news story in America. Corporate credit spreads worldwide were essentially unchanged, despite the pickup in US equity volatility measures like the VIX. Bond investors recognize that, while the sideshow of rebel traders taking on mighty hedge funds makes for great theater, the underlying reflationary global policy backdrop remains the main driver of global bond yields and credit risk premia (Chart of the Week). Global fiscal policy risks are increasingly tilted towards more stimulus than currently projected, even as the pace of new COVID-19 cases is starting to slow in the US and much of Europe. Vaccine rollouts in many countries are going far slower than expected, which has forced global central banks to commit to maintaining highly accommodative policies - zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE) and cheap bank funding – for longer. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted in his press conference following last week’s FOMC meeting, “There’s nothing more important to the economy now than people getting vaccinated.” Chart 2Vaccine Rollout Critical For Fed/ECB/BoE Policy The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized On that front, the largest economies on both sides of the Atlantic continue to perform poorly. According to data from the Duke Global Health Innovation Center, vaccination coverage (defined as actual vaccination doses acquired on a per person basis) in the US, UK and European Union remains low relative to the intensity of COVID-19 cases within the population (Chart 2) – especially compared to the experience of other major Western countries.1 As we discussed in last week’s report, it is far too soon for investors to fear a hawkish move by global central banks towards tapering asset purchases and signaling future interest rate hikes.2 The GameStop episode may cause some policymakers to worry about the financial stability risks resulting from cheap money policies, but not before the greater risks to global growth from the COVID-19 pandemic are contained. Until vaccination rates rise to levels where there is the potential for herd immunity to be reached, central banks will have little choice by to maintain 0% (or lower) policy rates for longer with continued expansion of their balance sheets (Chart 3). Policy makers will even likely respond with more QE in the event of broad financial market turmoil occurring before inflation expectations return to central bank targets (Chart 4). Chart 3Expect More Global QE ... The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized Chart 4...To Moderate Reflationary Pressure On Bond Yields ...To Moderate Reflationary Pressure On Bond Yields ...To Moderate Reflationary Pressure On Bond Yields We continue to recommend the following medium-term positioning for reflation-based themes in global fixed income markets: below-benchmark overall duration exposure, favoring lower-quality corporate bonds versus government debt, and underweighting US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The reflationary conditions that have helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Italy: ECB Policy Trumps Political Uncertainty One of our highest conviction fixed income investment recommendations over the past year has been to overweight Italian government bonds (BTPs). We have maintained that bullish stance with an expectation that Italian bond yields (and spreads over German debt) would converge to the levels of Spain, restoring a relationship last seen sustainably in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5A Small Response To Italian Political Uncertainty A Small Response To Italian Political Uncertainty A Small Response To Italian Political Uncertainty The recent collapse of the coalition government of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would, in a more “normal” time, represent a serious threat to the stability of the Italian bond market and our bullish view. Yet the response so far has been muted, with the spread between 10-year BTPs and German Bunds up only 11bps from the mid-January lows. The current political drama stemmed from a disagreement within the ruling coalition over how the government was planning to use Italy’s share of the €750bn EU Recovery Fund. As we go to press, the survival of the current government hangs in the balance, with President Sergio Mattarella testing whether the political parties can form a government with a majority. The initial announcement of that Recovery Fund was considered to be a major reason for a reduced risk premium on Italian government bonds, as it represented a potential step towards greater fiscal integration within Europe. Unfortunately, it took the COVID-19 crisis to get the rest of Europe to offer help to the more economically fragile countries like Italy. The country suffered one of the world’s worst initial waves of the virus and the late-2020 surge has also hit hard – although, more recently, Italy has fared far better than Southern European neighbors Spain and Portugal with a slower pace of new cases and hospitalizations (Chart 6). Italy’s economy has struggled under the weight of some of the most stringent restrictions on activity within Europe to stop the spread of the virus, according to the Oxford COVID-19 database (Chart 7). Domestic spending on retail and recreation activities is estimated to be down nearly 50% from the start of the pandemic, a hit to the economy made worse by the collapse of tourism revenue that will take years to fully recover. In other words, Italy desperately needs the money from the EU Recovery Fund. Chart 6Italy's COVID-19 Situation Is Slowly Improving Italy's COVID-19 Situation Is Slowly Improving Italy's COVID-19 Situation Is Slowly Improving Chart 7A Big Economic Hit To Italy From COVID-19 A Big Economic Hit To Italy From COVID-19 A Big Economic Hit To Italy From COVID-19 Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and his Italia Viva party precipitated the crisis by withdrawing their support from Conte’s coalition, but are in a weak position electorally. They claim that the funds should be handled by parliament, rather than a technocratic council overseen by Conte, and devoted to long-term structural reform rather than short-term fixes. Renzi’s withdrawal from the ruling coalition, however, is not grounded in substantial disagreements over fiscal spending: First, the EU recovery fund requires all member states to use 30% of the funds on climate change initiatives and 25% on digitizing the economy, and none of the major parties oppose this use of the €209 billion coming their way. Second, Prime Minister Conte adjusted his spending plans, nearly doubling the allocations for health, education, and culture, in response to Renzi’s criticisms that not enough spending focused on structural needs. Third, Renzi wants to tap €36 billion from the European Stability Mechanism in addition to taking recovery funds, but this would come with austerity measures attached (which is self-defeating) and would be opposed by the left-wing populist Five Star Movement, a linchpin in the ruling coalition. Even if the immediate political turmoil passes, there will still be an elevated risk of an early election as the various parties jockey for power in the wake of the cataclysmic pandemic, and as they eye control of the presidency, which is up for grabs in 2022. The only real change on the fiscal front would come if the populist League and Brothers of Italy ended up winning a majority and control of government in the eventual elections, as they favor much greater fiscal largesse. It is possible that Conte will survive as his personal support has increased throughout the crisis. Otherwise, former ECB President Mario Draghi could replace him, although he is now less popular than Conte. President Mattarella is not eager to dissolve parliament given that the combined strength of right-wing anti-establishment parties is greater than that of the centrist and left-wing parties in the ruling coalition judging by public opinion polls (Chart 8). Yet sooner rather than later, a new election looms. The country already completed an electoral reform via a referendum in September 2020 that cleared the way for a new election to be held. Chart 8Unstable Coalition Wants To Delay Election As Populist Right Slightly Ahead Unstable Coalition Wants To Delay Election As Populist Right Slightly Ahead Unstable Coalition Wants To Delay Election As Populist Right Slightly Ahead Chart 9Waning Immigration Undercuts Italian Populists (For Now) The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized The current crisis is different than past bouts of Italian political uncertainty as there is less of a question over Italy’s commitment to the euro - which in the past has resulted in higher Italian bond yields and wider BTP-Bund spreads as markets had to price in euro breakup risk. The current coalition, and any new coalition cobbled out of the current morass to prevent a snap election, are united in their opposition to the populist League and the Brothers of Italy. They will strive to remain in power to distribute the EU recovery funds and secure the Italian presidency for an establishment political elite – one, like Mattarella, who will act as a check on the power of any future populist government and its cabinet choices, just as Mattarella himself hobbled the League’s most radical proposals from 2018-19. Chart 10Italian Support For EU & The Euro Sufficient But Not Ironclad The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized While the right-wing “sovereigntist” parties lead in the opinion polls, the League has lost support since its leader Matteo Salvini’s failed bid to trigger an election in August 2019 and especially since the COVID-19 outbreak has boosted the establishment parties and coalition members. Anti-immigration sentiment, a key support of this faction, has subsided as the EU has cut down the influx of immigrants (Chart 9). Salvini and his supporters have also compromised their euroskepticism to appeal to a broader audience as 60% of the populace still approves of the euro – although this support is falling again and bears monitoring (Chart 10). Another economic shock or a new wave of immigration could put the right-wing populists into power. Moreover, an unstable ruling coalition will lose support over time in what will be a difficult post-pandemic environment. Thus, the risk of euroskepticism and fiscal populism will persist over the coming two years, even though they are most likely contained at the moment. Has The ECB Removed The Tail Risk Of BTPs? The ECB has shown they are willing to use their balance sheet via QE and cheap bank funding tools like TLTROs to support the euro area’s weakest link – Italy. Thus, any upward pressure on Italian bond yields/spreads from the current political fracas will almost certainly be met by a more aggressive ECB response (more QE for longer, new TLTROs), limiting the damage to the Italian bond market. Chart 11What Would Italian Loan Growth Be WITHOUT ECB Support? What Would Italian Loan Growth Be WITHOUT ECB Support? What Would Italian Loan Growth Be WITHOUT ECB Support? The ECB’s TLTROs appear to have been helpful for Italy, whose LTRO allotments represent 14.7% of total bank lending (Chart 11). Yet Spanish banks have relied on cheap ECB funding to a similar degree, while the growth of bank lending in Italy has substantially lagged that of Spain since the start of the pandemic in 2020 – even with Italy having less restrictive lending standards according to the ECB’s Bank Lending Survey. The ECB has also helped Italy by being more flexible with its purchases of Italian government bonds within both the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) that began in response to COVID-19. ECB data show that, after the worst days of the COVID-19 market rout last spring when the 10-year Italian bond yield soared from 1% to 2.4% over just three weeks, the ECB increased the Italy share of its bond buying to levels well above the Capital Key weighting scheme that “officially” governs the bond purchases. This was true within both the PSPP (Chart 12) and the PSPP (Chart 13). Chart 12ECB Paying Less Attention To The Capital Key In The PSPP ... The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized Chart 13… And The PEPP The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized Chart 14Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds The ECB’s actions helped stabilize Italian bond yields, sowing the seeds of the major decline in yields that took place between April and September. Once Italian bond yields fell back to pre-pandemic levels, the ECB slowed the pace of its purchases of Italian bonds to levels at or below the Capital Key weights. Thus, the ECB was willing to deviate from its own self-imposed rules for its bond purchase schemes in order to ease financial conditions in Italy during a pandemic. There is no reason to believe that would not occur again if yields rise because of a growing political risk premium while the pandemic was still raging. A prolonged period of political uncertainty in Italy, especially one that ends with fresh elections, could even force the ECB to maintain or extend its full current mix of policies and not just QE. For example, a new TLTRO could be initiated later this year, or the subsidized cost of banks borrowing from existing TLTROs could be reduced further, all in an effort to help boost Italian lending activity. More likely, the PEPP could be expanded in size or extended beyond the current March 2022 expiration, or the PSPP could be upsized to allow for more purchases of Italian debt (Chart 14). From an investment strategy perspective, there is still a strong case for overweighting Italian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios, even with the current political uncertainty. The weight of ECB policy actions removes much of the usual upside risk to BTP yields. However, investors will likely be more reluctant to drive Italian yields (and spreads versus Germany) to fresh lows if there is a risk of early elections, as we expect. Italian bonds are now more of a pure carry with yields trapped between politics and QE, but that still justifies an overweight stance - especially given the puny levels of alternative sovereign bond yields available elsewhere in the euro area. Bottom Line: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Duke Global Health Innovation Center data on COVID-19 can be found here: https://launchandscalefaster.org/COVID-19. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Pause, Not A Peak, In Global Bond Yields", dated January 26, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Revolution Will Be Monetized The Revolution Will Be Monetized Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. The pending deal being discussed between US congressional negotiators is not perfect, but it is likely to be a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). The surprisingly strong euro area flash services PMI in December likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that may soon need to be reimposed. European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China’s credit impulse has likely peaked, but economic activity will continue to accelerate in the first half of 2021 and will positively contribute to global growth. Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will not lead to a meaningful drag on global growth in the second half of next year, but the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand has meaningfully reduced the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year. Extreme technical conditions suggest that a moderate correction in stocks is possible in the first quarter, but the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought rather than sold. Investors should position in favor of risky assets over a 6-12 month horizon. Feature Our recently published 2021 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations. In this month’s report we briefly discuss the nearer-term outlook for growth through the lens of fiscal policy. Still Some Way To Go Chart I-1Slowing Economic Activity In Developed Economies Slowing Economic Activity In Developed Economies Slowing Economic Activity In Developed Economies Over the very near term, growth will remain unavoidably linked to the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second/third wave of infections that began in September has forced the re-imposition of restrictions in most European countries, as well as in some US states. High-frequency economic indicators clearly show that the European economy contracted in Q4 (Chart I-1), whereas in the US the slowdown has so far been less pronounced. The US economy continued to expand in the fourth quarter with the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model projecting 11% annualized growth, driven heavily by a sizeable change in private inventories (Chart I-2).   Chart I-2US Q4 Growth Is Set To Be Large, But Driven Mostly By Inventories January 2021 January 2021 The relationship between the pandemic and the economy has shifted since the spring. Back then, the rapid spread of the disease and the mostly unknown nature of the virus triggered a forceful response from policymakers. Widespread restrictions on movement and economic activity were imposed to stem the spread. However, those measures came at a high economic and social cost. With economic activity still running far below pre-pandemic levels and an increasingly weary and resistant public, policymakers have become highly reluctant to re-impose aggressive measures. As a driver of policy, the key consideration is the extent of pressure on medical systems. Chart I-3 highlights the situation in Europe. Daily ICU occupancy exploded in several European countries in October, which led to the new restrictions at the end of that month. In the US, COVID-19 hospitalizations are now nearly twice as high as they were in April and July, and for now many new state-level restrictions are not mandatory. But New York City’s mayor noted earlier this week that a “full shutdown” was likely following Christmas, highlighting that many parts of the US may be facing meaningfully tighter restrictions in the weeks ahead if the pace of new infections does not level off. Chart I-4 presents an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction value (“R-naught”) in the US and in advanced economies outside the US, which highlights that it is too soon to confidently project a peak. Even outside the US, where restrictions have recently been tighter and progress has been made at reducing the number of intensive care patients, the reproduction number has crept back above one after some restrictions were loosened. Chart I-3Europe Reintroduced Lockdowns Because Of Pressure On The Medical System Europe Reintroduced Lockdowns Because Of Pressure On The Medical System Europe Reintroduced Lockdowns Because Of Pressure On The Medical System Chart I-4Too Soon To Project A Peak In Cases Too Soon To Project A Peak In Cases Too Soon To Project A Peak In Cases   A Credible Extension Of The US Reflationary Bridge The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. Currently, health experts project that this is unlikely to occur before late spring or mid-year. Earlier this year, fiscal authorities around the world built a massive reflationary bridge to support household income while stay-at-home orders were in place. However, the effect of that stimulus has waned – at least for some income groups. In the US, Chart I-5 highlights that unemployment insurance payments have fallen by more than suggested by the decline in continuing jobless claims. Post-election surveys have suggested that a vast majority of Americans felt another economic assistance package was needed, with most reporting that it should occur before inauguration.1 Overall income remains higher than its pre-pandemic baseline (Chart I-6), but aggregate figures mask white collar/blue collar divergences. Many white-collar employees saw a substantial increase in their savings this year as their spending declined and income held up (due to their ability to work from home), whereas blue-collar and low-wage service workers found themselves dependent on government assistance. While the deployment of white-collar savings is likely to eventually support blue-collar and low-wage worker income, it is unlikely that this will occur while significant pandemic restrictions remain in place. Chart I-5The Stimulative Effect Of The CARES Act Has Waned The Stimulative Effect Of The CARES Act Has Waned The Stimulative Effect Of The CARES Act Has Waned Chart I-6Overall Income Is ''Normal'', But This Masks Large Differences Across The Income Spectrum Overall Income Is ''Normal'', But This Masks Large Differences Across The Income Spectrum Overall Income Is ''Normal'', But This Masks Large Differences Across The Income Spectrum   That reality motivated the COVID relief deal that is reportedly under discussion between US congressional negotiators. The deal – as described in the financial media as we go to press – likely excludes state & local support, but it also likely includes a new round of stimulus checks, some funding for unemployment insurance recipients, and cash for small businesses, health-care providers, and schools. The deal, which we expect to be passed over the course of the next week, is not perfect but it is a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). Chart I-7State & Local Government Support Is Needed In The New Year State & Local Government Support Is Needed In The New Year State & Local Government Support Is Needed In The New Year The issue of state & local funding will be important to return to in the new year following Joe Biden’s inauguration. Persistent state & local government austerity following the global financial crisis acted as a significant drag on US economic growth (Chart I-7). Nonetheless, one-month delay to state & local government fiscal assistance is less problematic than a delay in extending unemployment insurance payments, given the pending expiry of the remaining CARES act unemployment programs on Dec. 26. Europe’s Bridge Is Shakier In Europe, the need for additional fiscal support is higher than in the US, given that activity contracted this quarter. While the December flash euro area services PMI showed surprising strength, this likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that we noted may soon need to be reimposed. European economies responded very forcefully this year to the pandemic when all response measures are considered, but less so in many important economies when focusing only above-the-line measures – i.e., new spending and foregone government revenue – to the exclusion of equity injections, loans, and guarantees. Based on this metric, Chart I-8 shows that the UK and Germany have provided a response that is in line with the advanced economy average, whereas most other European countries have lagged. Chart I-9 highlights that this year’s economic rebound in Spain and Italy has been aided by Germany’s stronger fiscal response, as evidenced by intra-euro area trade balances. Chart I-8The Fiscal Response Of Many European Countries Has Lagged January 2021 January 2021 Chart I-9Germany's Fiscal Stimulus Supported The Euro Area's Recovery Germany's Fiscal Stimulus Supported The Euro Area's Recovery Germany's Fiscal Stimulus Supported The Euro Area's Recovery Funds from the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (“RRF”) have yet to be deployed and they will eventually act to support euro area economic activity. However, outlays from the fund next year are expected to be small. Given that this month’s ECB actions were aimed at simply maintaining easy financial conditions,2 European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China: Adding To Global Growth, For Now Chart I-10China Will Boost Euro Area Economic Activity Next Year China Will Boost Euro Area Economic Activity Next Year China Will Boost Euro Area Economic Activity Next Year Fortunately for Europe (and advanced economies more generally), the external demand outlook is bright – for now. Euro area exports to China are strongly predicted by China’s credit impulse lagged by 9 months, and are set to rise materially (Chart I-10). China’s aggressive – and comparatively early – response to the pandemic will thus contribute meaningfully to global growth in the first half of 2021, and could obviate the need for further European fiscal stimulus if restrictions there are not reinstituted. China is likely to provide a significantly smaller boost to global growth in the second half of next year, as policymakers have already begun to mop up excess liquidity. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private-sector leveraging. The chart suggests that an inflection point in this cycle’s upswing has been reached, which is consistent with the view of BCA’s China strategists that the credit cycle has peaked. A peak in China’s credit impulse does not mean that China’s contribution to global growth is about to slow. Global industrial production continued to accelerate following a peak in China’s credit impulse for at least six months in the lead-up to the last two global economic slowdowns (Chart I-12). But the chart also shows that a slowdown in global activity did occur following China’s impulse peak in both cases, especially when the impulse fell below its average of 28½% of GDP. Chart I-11China's Credit Cycle Has Peaked, Right On Schedule China's Credit Cycle Has Peaked, Right On Schedule China's Credit Cycle Has Peaked, Right On Schedule Chart I-12DM Economies Continue To Grow Following A Peak In China's Credit Cycle DM Economies Continue To Grow Following A Peak In China's Credit Cycle DM Economies Continue To Grow Following A Peak In China's Credit Cycle   Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will bring the impulse down to approximately 30% of GDP in 2021, which is still above its average of the past decade. This suggests that China will not contribute as much to global demand in the second half of the year, but will not be an actual drag. Still, the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risk of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. Investors should closely watch for signs of increased hawkishness emanating from China’s National People’s Congress in March. Conclusions And Portfolio Recommendations Cyclically, as we highlighted in our 2021 Outlook, developed market (DM) economies are likely to experience above-trend growth, low inflation, and accommodative monetary policy next year. China’s economic cycle is running ahead of the DM world and Chinese growth will eventually moderate, but is still set to accelerate in the first half of the year. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand meaningfully reduces the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year, in the sense that consumers, businesses, and investors are much more likely to view any near-term lockdown-driven impacts on growth as necessarily temporary. This de-risks the path to a post-pandemic economy and increases our conviction in a cyclically-bullish stance towards risk assets. We continue to recommend that in 2021 global investors should: Favor stocks versus bonds; Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration; Position for corporate bond spread tightening; Favor commodities; and Expect a continued decline in the US dollar. Chart I-13US Equities Are Vulnerable To A Moderate Correction US Equities Are Vulnerable To A Moderate Correction US Equities Are Vulnerable To A Moderate Correction Over the very near-term, Chart I-13 shows that US equities are potentially vulnerable to a moderate tactical correction. US stocks are very richly valued, and investors may use signs of modest delays in the immunization campaign, a failure of the US Congress to provide support for state & local governments, or inadequate fiscal support in Europe as an excuse to sell. A moderate correction, on the order of 5-7%, is possible in the first quarter. The question for investors is whether the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought or sold. Given the ongoing impact of very easy monetary policy on equity multiples and the high likelihood of a significant earnings recovery, we are strongly inclined towards the former, barring any substantial shift in the timeline to mass vaccination. Equity returns will be lower in 2021 than in 2020, but are very likely to be positive and beat those offered by government securities. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 18, 2020 Next Report: January 28, 2021   II. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.3” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,4 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework5 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak January 2021 January 2021 Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy January 2021 January 2021   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used ...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used ...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets ...Across Almost All Income Brackets ...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.6 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary January 2021 January 2021   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields January 2021 January 2021 Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.7 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,8 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods January 2021 January 2021 The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.9 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts Among BCA’s equity indicators, the monetary indicator continues to fall but it remains very elevated relative to its history. This underscores that monetary policy remains extremely accommodative and will continue to support stock prices. By contrast, our technical, valuation, and speculative indicators have become quite elevated. This would normally be a very concerning profile, but an improvement in sentiment is warranted in response to the positive vaccine news over the past month. Valuation remains a source of concern, but value is not an effective market timing tool. Extended valuation ratios point more to low average returns over a multi-year time horizon than a major equity market selloff next year. Equity earnings are likely to improve meaningfully in 2021, but much of this improvement is already priced in. Over the coming 12 months, bottom-up analysts expect S&P 500 EPS to grow 20% to a point that modestly surpasses their pre-pandemic peak. Earnings growth that is merely in line with these expectations is likely to produce mid-single digit returns from stocks. Globally, the most significant regional equity trend is that the US is beginning to underperform the rest of the world. The relative performance of US versus global stocks has broken below its 200-day moving average, and sector weights suggest that euro area stocks are likely to be the biggest beneficiary within global ex-US if the trend in growth versus value follows that of the US versus global. Within the currency space, the US dollar remains quite oversold. But USD is a reliably counter-cyclical currency, and it has only modestly undershot what would be implied by the rally in global stock prices this year. The euro and commodity currencies have been especially strong versus the dollar over the past month, and may be due for a consolidation. Our composite technical indicator for commodities is the most overbought that it has been since 2011. Industrial metals and lumber appear to be at the greatest risk of a technical selloff, as gold’s correction may have already run its course. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. US labor market momentum is waning, although payroll growth remained positive in November. A massive rise in the savings rate means that savings will eventually support spending, but this is unlikely to significantly occur while pandemic restrictions remain in place. Given this, fiscal and monetary policymakers need to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system and allows a return to more normal economic conditions. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Daily Insights "Americans Want Another Deal, Pronto!" dated November 30, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Daily Insights "The ECB: Looser For Longer," dated December 10, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 3 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 4 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 5 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 6 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Butterflies & Yield Curve Models: With bond market volatility now back to the subdued levels seen prior to the COVID-19 market turbulence earlier in 2020, it is a good time to update our global yield curve valuation models to look for attractive butterfly trade ideas. Valuations: The models generally indicate that flattener trades offer better value across all countries. Our medium-term strategic bias, however, is towards steeper yield curves with policy rates on hold and depressed global inflation expectations likely to continue drifting higher over the latter half of the year. Yield Curve Trades: We are initiating the first set of yield curve trades within our rebooted Tactical Trade Overlay: going long a 7-year bullet vs. a 5-year/10-year barbell in the US; long a 2-year/30-year barbell vs. a 5-year bullet in France; long a 5-year/30-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in Italy; and long a 3-year/20-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in the UK. Feature In a Special Report published back in February of this year, we dusted off our model-based framework to find value in trades focused on the shape of government bond yield curves.1 By comparing the market-implied short-term interest rate expectations extracted from our curve models to our own macro views, we are able to come up with actionable buy or sell signals across the yield curve in nine developed markets: the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Table 1Most Attractive Butterfly Trades Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Given the extreme market turbulence around the time we published that report, as the full scope of the COVID-19 pandemic was becoming evident, we chose not to recommend any curve trades from our models until global volatility subsided to acceptable levels. The vigorous action from central banks to manipulate bond yields since then - quantitative easing, aggressive forward guidance, outright yield curve control in Japan and Australia, and other unconventional monetary policy measures - introduced another layer of difficulty in implementing successful curve trades using models estimated in more normal times. With global bond market volatility now back down to pre-COVID levels, we feel that the time is right to use our curve models to help identify opportunities. Specifically, we are implementing new recommended yield curve trades in the US, France, Italy, and the UK. Table 1 shows the most attractive butterfly trades across all the markets covered in this analysis. Note that three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade, the reasoning for which we outline later in this report. Three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade. Before delving into our analysis proper, a quick note: in the interest of brevity, we will limit ourselves to a simple explanation of butterfly strategies and our yield curve models in this report. For those interested in a deeper explanation of the curve modeling framework, please refer to our February 25, 2020 Special Report. A Recap On Butterflies And An Update On Our Yield Curve Models A butterfly fixed income strategy involves two main components: a barbell (a weighted combination of long-term and short-term bonds) and a bullet (a medium-term bond that sits within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell). To implement a butterfly strategy, a bond investor would go long (short) the barbell while simultaneously going short (long) the bullet. By weighting the combination of the long- and short-term bonds in the butterfly such that the weighted sum of their duration equals the duration of the medium-term bond in the bullet, we achieve immunization to parallel shifts in the yield curve. At the same time, due to the relatively higher duration of the longer-term component of the butterfly, we get exposure to specific changes in the slope of the yield curve. In general, the barbell will outperform the bullet in a flattening yield curve environment, and vice-versa. Chart of the WeekButterfly Spreads & Yield Curves Butterfly Spreads & Yield Curves Butterfly Spreads & Yield Curves To actually decide how, and on which parts of the yield curve, to implement our butterfly strategies, we make use of our yield curve models. These models rely on the positive relationship typically observed between the butterfly spread and the slope of the yield curve. When the curve steepens, the butterfly spread widens, and vice-versa (Chart of the Week). This has to do with mean reversion: as the curve steepens, it increases the odds that the curve will flatten in the future since it cannot steepen indefinitely. Consequently, investors will ask for greater compensation to enter a curve steepener trade when the curve is already steepening. As a result, we can create simplified models of the yield curve by regressing any butterfly spread on its corresponding curve slope. Deviations from these fair value models indicate which butterfly strategies are cheap or expensive. However, the model output does not by itself constitute a buy or sell signal and must be integrated with our macro view on the slope of the curve. For example, a butterfly strategy with an expensive bullet implies that there is already a certain amount of steepening discounted in the yield curve. If the yield curve flattens, or even steepens by an amount smaller than what is discounted in the yield curve over the investment horizon, the barbell will outperform, as expected. However, if we see more steepening than is discounted in the yield curve, the bullet will outperform, even though it was already at relatively expensive levels. Therefore, it is crucial to integrate our macro view on how much the curve will steepen or flatten over the investment horizon into our curve trade selection framework. In recent reports, we have emphasized our high-conviction view that global inflation expectations will drift higher in the coming months, driven by reflationary fiscal and monetary policy and a continued rebound in global commodity prices (most notably, oil).2 However, a rise in inflation expectations does not necessarily translate to a “one-to-one” rise in nominal yields if it is offset by a compression in real bond yields. To disentangle this, we look at the 3-year rolling betas of nominal 10-year government bond yields to the corresponding 10-year breakeven inflation rates using inflation-linked bonds (Chart 2). The data suggest a currently weaker relationship between inflation expectations and nominal yields, with all betas well below their post-crisis maxima. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia where it is more likely that a rise in inflation expectations will translate to higher nominal yields. Conversely, we are less hesitant to enter flatteners in the lower-beta regions such as the UK, France, Italy, and Japan. Chart 2The Link Between Nominal Yields And Inflation Expectations Has Weakened Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies When we said earlier this year that we were “dusting off” our yield curve models, that was not just a figure of speech. The models date back originally to 2002, meaning that they are old enough to vote—perhaps even for a popular rapper. Even though we have been refining and updating it along the way, one of our concerns was that this model was estimated for a pre-crisis sample period before near-zero rates became ubiquitous in developed markets. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia. To test that the curve relationships within our models are maintained when global central banks are pinning policy rates near 0%, we have re-estimated all the regressions for the post-financial crisis period from 2009 to 2017 when most central banks kept rates near the zero bound. Chart 3 shows the results for the representative 2-year, 5-year and 10-year portions of the yield curve. On the whole, the coefficients are weaker but still positive with the exception of Japan, where many years of zero rates and quantitative easing have caused the 2-year/5-year/10-year butterfly spread to become largely unmoored from the 2-year/10-year slope. Chart 3Looking For Structural Shifts In Our Yield Curve Models Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Therefore, we still see value in our curve modeling approach, even in the current environment where central banks are likely to be on hold for a period measured in years, not months. Bottom Line: Butterfly strategies are an effective way to position for changes in the slope of the yield curve without exposure to shifts in the curve. Our current strategic bias is to expect steepening of developed market yield curves through rising longer-term inflation expectations, but our global yield curve models indicate better value in most flattening trades. Thus, we need to be extremely selective in recommending trades based on the results of our yield curve models. Yield Curve Models And Trades By Region In the remaining pages of this report, we present the current read-outs from of our yield curve models for each of the major developed markets. More specifically, we provide the deviations from fair value for different combinations of bullets and barbells and highlight the most attractive butterfly strategy. The deviations from fair value shown in Tables 2-10 are standardized to facilitate comparisons between the different butterfly combinations. In addition, for each country we provide a quick assessment of the performance of these butterfly strategies over time by applying a simple mechanical trading rule. Every month, we enter the most attractive butterfly strategy, i.e. the one with the highest absolute standardized deviation from its model fair value. The overall message from the models is that barbells appear attractive relative to bullets across all the countries shown. However, we will only initiate trades in cases where the model output and our macro outlook complement each other. US Looking solely at our model output, US Treasury curve flatteners appear most attractive, with the long 3-year/30-year barbell vs. 5-year bullet trade displaying the greatest deviation from fair value with a residual of -1.55 (Table 2). However, we are inclined to agree with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy on how to interpret Treasury curve valuation in the current environment. They argue that even though steepeners in the US are currently expensive, valuations can become even more overstretched with the Fed signaling no rate increases for at least the next two years and the market priced for an extended period of near-zero rates.3 Table 2US: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Our fundamental bias is towards US Treasury curve steepening, with the Fed locking down the front end of the curve and rising inflation expectations putting upward pressure on longer-term yields. Thus, we are entering into the long 7-year bullet vs. 5/10 barbell trade which has a small but positive model residual of +0.17. That represents a better valuation starting point than the other US butterfly spreads, and is therefore a more efficient and profitable way to position for steepeners becoming even more expensive going forward. As highlighted earlier, nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener.  The 7-year bullet appears just 1bp cheap according to our model and would only underperform its counterpart given a flattening in the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope greater than 22bps, which we believe is unlikely given the reasons outlined above (Chart 4A). Chart 4AUS 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 4BUS Butterfly Strategy Performance US Butterfly Strategy Performance US Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has delivered steady returns with only a few periods of negative year-over-year returns (Chart 4B). Germany The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the German yield curve is going long the 1-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet, which is almost one standard deviation above its model-implied fair value, with a standardized residual of -0.97 (Table 3). Table 3Germany: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 5-year bullet appears 29bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 1-year/30-year German curve slope greater than 50bps (Chart 5A). Chart 5AGermany 1/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Germany 1/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Germany 1/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 5BGermany Butterfly Strategy Performance Germany Butterfly Strategy Performance Germany Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has been quite profitable, delivering consistently positive year-over-year returns for all but the initial period of our sample (Chart 5B). France The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the French OAT yield curve is going long the 2-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet (Table 4). This combination is a little less than one standard deviation over its model-implied fair value with a standardized residual of -0.84. Nominal yields in France are also relatively less correlated with inflation expectations, which makes this a prime candidate for a flattener trade. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 4France: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 5-year bullet appears 21bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/30-year French curve slope greater than 48bps (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFrance 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6BFrance Butterfly Strategy Performance France Butterfly Strategy Performance France Butterfly Strategy Performance As with Germany, following the mechanical trading rule in the French OAT market has also been profitable, with only three periods of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 6B). Italy And Spain In Italy, the most attractively valued butterfly combination is going long the 5-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet – a combination with a standardized residual of -0.79 (Table 5). In Spain, going long the 3-year/30-year barbell and short the 5-year bullet seems most attractive with a standardized residual of -0.83 (Table 6). Of the two peripheral euro area countries, we are choosing to put on a trade in the relatively larger and more liquid Italian government bond market. As with France, Italian nominal yields also display a relatively low beta to inflation breakevens. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 5Italy: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Table 6Spain: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies In Italy, the 10-year bullet appears 22bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Italian curve slope greater than 153bps (Chart 7A). Following the mechanical trading rule in Italy has yielded strong excess returns, with only one very short period of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 7B).  As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis. Chart 7AItaly 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 7BItaly Butterfly Strategy Performance Italy Butterfly Strategy Performance Italy Butterfly Strategy Performance In Spain, the 5-year bullet appears 14bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/30-year Spanish curve slope greater than 47bps (Chart 8A). As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis (Chart 8B). Chart 8ASpain 3/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Spain 3/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Spain 3/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8BSpain Butterfly Strategy Performance Spain Butterfly Strategy Performance Spain Butterfly Strategy Performance UK On the UK Gilt yield curve, the most attractive butterfly combination is holding a 3-year/20-year barbell versus a 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.08 (Table 7). As with France and Italy, not only is this flattener trade attractively valued, the UK is also one of the countries where inflation breakevens are relatively less correlated with nominal yields, making this another excellent candidate for our Tactical Trade Overlay. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27. Table 7UK: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 10-year bullet appears 13bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/20-year Gilt curve slope greater than 52bps (Chart 9A). Chart 9AUK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 9BUK Butterfly Strategy Performance UK Butterfly Strategy Performance UK Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in the UK has produced consistent returns on a year-over-year basis (Chart 9B). Canada The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Canadian yield curve is favoring the 5-year/30-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.41 (Table 8). Table 8Canada: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 7-year bullet appears 7bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Canadian curve slope greater than 42bps (Chart 10A). Chart 10ACanada 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Canada 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Canada 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 10BCanada Butterfly Strategy Performance Canada Butterfly Strategy Performance Canada Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in Canada has historically been a good strategy, but we do note two periods of minor losses in 2013 and 2019 (Chart 10B). Japan The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the JGB yield curve is the 5-year/20-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently has a standardized residual of -1.03 (Table 9). As we noted earlier, however, valuations in the JGB market are likely distorted due to the Bank of Japan’s long-running programs of quantitative easing, zero policy rates and Yield Curve Control that aims to keep the 10-year JGB yield around 0%. Table 9Japan: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 7-year bullet appears 6bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/20-year Japan curve slope greater than 23bps (Chart 11A). Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns. Chart 11AJapan 5/7/20 Spread Fair Value Model Japan 5/7/20 Spread Fair Value Model Japan 5/7/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 11BJapan Butterfly Strategy Performance Japan Butterfly Strategy Performance Japan Butterfly Strategy Performance Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns (Chart 11B). Australia The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Australian yield curve is going long the 2-year/10-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, displaying a standardized residual of -1.73 (Table 10). Table 10Australia: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies The 7-year bullet appears 15bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/10-year Australian curve slope greater than 101bps (Chart 12A). Chart 12AAustralia 2/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Australia 2/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Australia 2/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 12BAustralia Butterfly Strategy Performance Australia Butterfly Strategy Performance Australia Butterfly Strategy Performance Compared to the other markets in our analysis, following the mechanical trading rule in Australia has not produced stellar returns (Chart 12B). However, excess returns on a year-over-year basis have been positive barring two periods.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies", dated February 25, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds", dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns