UK

Highlights US Treasuries: US Treasury yields are rising once again, in response to typical drivers – less dovish Fed commentary and upside growth surprises. The spread of the Delta variant in the US represents a potential near-term roadblock to additional yield increases, but the recent slowing of new cases in the UK and Europe is a positive sign that the US can see a similar result and avoid a major economic hit. Stay below-benchmark on US duration exposure. UK: The Bank of England is starting to prepare the markets for less accommodative monetary policy, with the UK economy holding up well as its Delta variant surge is losing momentum. UK Gilt yields are vulnerable to a hawkish repricing with only 48bps of rate hikes discounted by the end of 2024. Stay below-benchmark on UK duration exposure, and downgrade Gilts to underweight in global bond portfolios. A New Turning Point For Global Bond Yields? After seeing steady declines since the peak in late March that took the yield down to an intraday 2021 low of 1.13% last week, the 10-year US Treasury experienced a rebound back to 1.30% in a span of just three days. Yields in typically “high-beta” countries like Canada and Australia also saw significant increases. There were two main triggers for the pickup in US yields. Firstly, a speech from Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida was interpreted hawkishly, as he stated that he expects the conditions necessary for the Fed to begin lifting rates would be met by the end of 2022. Secondly, a better-than-expected July employment report confirmed the strength of the US labor market already evident in booming demand indicators like job openings. A third potential cause of the trough in yields can be found outside the US in the increasingly positive news on the spread of the Delta variant coming out of the UK. We would argue that the more relevant turning point for global bond yields in 2021 was not the late March peak in the US, but the mid-May peak in non-US developed market yields. The 10-year UK Gilt yield reached its 2021 apex on May 13, just as the spread of the Delta variant was starting to push UK COVID-19 case numbers sharply higher – despite the high vaccination rate in that country (Chart of the Week). This raised the fears that the “reopening boom” could stall, not only in the UK but other major economies, at a time when global growth momentum was already starting to cool off from the overheated pace in the first half of the year. Chart of the WeekThe "Delta Rally" In Bond Markets Is Fading The 'Delta Rally' In Bond Markets Is Fading The 'Delta Rally' In Bond Markets Is Fading The Delta variant wave continues to wash over the US, although primarily in regions with lower vaccination rates. There was little sign of any impact from the variant in the July US jobs data with just over one million new jobs added (including revisions to prior months) and the unemployment rate falling one-half of a percentage point to 5.4%, the lowest level since March 2020 (Chart 2). However, we will need to see more economic data from July and August to confirm that this latest wave is not having a material impact on the broad US economy beyond the regions with lower vaccination rates. New COVID-19 cases in the UK peaked in mid-July, and are rolling over in continental Europe, with relatively low hospitalization rates – a hopeful sign that the US Delta spread could also soon begin to lose momentum. We continue to believe that steady improvements in the US labor market will be the driver of higher US bond yields over at least the next 6-12 months, as falling unemployment will embolden the Fed to begin tapering asset purchases and, eventually, begin rate hikes towards the end of 2022. The technical backdrop for Treasuries has become less of a headwind to higher yields, with the 10-year yield falling back to its 200-day moving average and speculators closing a lot of short positioning in Treasury futures (Chart 3). If the US can follow the more positive news from across the Atlantic with regards to the spread of the Delta variant, this would remove another impediment to higher US bond yields. Chart 2Steady Progress Towards The Fed's Employment Goals Steady Progress Towards The Fed's Employment Goals Steady Progress Towards The Fed's Employment Goals Bottom Line: US Treasury yields are rising once again, in response to typical drivers – less dovish Fed commentary and upside growth surprises. Chart 3Technical Backdrop Less Of A Headwind To Higher US Yields Technical Backdrop Less Of A Headwind To Higher US Yields Technical Backdrop Less Of A Headwind To Higher US Yields The surge in Delta variant cases represents a potential near-term roadblock to additional yield increases, but the recent slowing of new cases in the UK and Europe may be a positive sign that the US will avoid a major economic hit. Stay below-benchmark on US duration exposure. A Gilt-Bearish Shift In Tone From The Bank Of England Chart 4Pressures Building On The BoE To Dial Back Stimulus Pressures Building On The BoE To Dial Back Stimulus Pressures Building On The BoE To Dial Back Stimulus BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy has had the UK on “downgrade watch” over the past few months. Improving growth momentum and recovering inflation have raised the risks of a more hawkish turn by the Bank of England (BoE), as evidenced by the elevated reading from our UK Central Bank Monitor (Chart 4). At the same time, the spread of the Delta variant injected a note of caution into an otherwise positive UK economic story. We now think it is time to move from “downgrade watch” to a full downgrade of our current neutral stance on UK Gilts. The BoE left its policy settings unchanged at last week’s policy meeting, but did provide strong indications that some removal of monetary accommodation would soon be necessary. The central bank noted that the UK economy was recovering from the pandemic shock at a faster-than-expected pace. In the August Monetary Policy Report (MPR) also released last week, the BoE maintained its 2021 real GDP growth forecast at 7.25% while slightly raising its 2022 growth estimate to 6%. UK GDP is now projected to fully recover to the pre-COVID level by the end of 2021. More importantly, the projections for the unemployment rate were lowered substantially. The central bank no longer expects much of an impact on unemployment when the UK government’s job-protecting furlough scheme expires in September. The BoE now expects unemployment to peak at 5.1% in Q3/2021 (Chart 5), a big change from the 6% projection in the May MPR, with the central bank noting that job vacancies are already back to pre-pandemic levels. The unemployment rate is projected to reach 4.25% in both 2022 and 2023. Chart 5Major Changes To The BoE's Forecasts Major Changes To The BoE's Forecasts Major Changes To The BoE's Forecasts The BoE baseline forecast now calls for UK headline CPI inflation to see a temporary surge to 4% in Q4/2021 – a significant change from the 2.5% peak in inflation projected in the May MPR - before returning back to close to 2% over the next two years. Yet the minutes of last week’s policy meeting noted that the medium-term risks surrounding inflation were “two-way”, a message that sounds a bit more concerning compared to the benign 2022/23 inflation projections. The BoE is now running the risk of underestimating how long the UK inflation uptrend can persist and force increases in interest rates – perhaps beginning as soon as mid-2022 – given the multiple factors that are pushing up inflation. A modest growth hit from the Delta variant The daily number of new cases has fallen by nearly one-half since the peak on July 20th, according to the Oxford University data (Chart 6). Hospitalizations are also rolling over at a peak that would be one-quarter the size of the January peak. If these trends continue, this latest wave of COVID will not have a lasting negative impact on the economy that would dampen inflation pressures. The modest dip in the UK manufacturing and services PMIs in June and July, when cases were rising, supports this conclusion. Accelerating wage growth UK job vacancies are now higher than the pre-pandemic peak, while the BoE’s Agents’ Survey of companies reports an increasing number of firms reporting recruitment difficulties across a broader range of industries (Chart 7). The job market frictions are similar to the dynamics currently at play in the US, where labor demand is booming but firms have struggled to fill openings because government pandemic support programs have dampened labor market participation. Chart 6The Biggest Threat To The Dovish BoE Stance The Biggest Threat To The Dovish BoE Stance The Biggest Threat To The Dovish BoE Stance Chart 7Good Help Is Hard To Find In The UK Good Help Is Hard To Find In The UK Good Help Is Hard To Find In The UK The BoE noted in the August MPR that its forecasts include the impact of labor market frictions that have temporarily raised the medium-term equilibrium rate of unemployment during the pandemic, resulting in a surge in wage growth. However, this effect is expected to fade as the economy normalizes and government support programs expire. For example, the BoE estimates that the UK government’s job retention “furlough” scheme, which pays a reduced wage to workers who cannot work because of COVID economic restrictions and which expires in September, has acted to dampen measured wage growth over the past year. At the same time, compositional effects, with pandemic job losses being skewed towards lower-paying roles, have had a far greater impact in lifting wage growth. The BoE estimates that the “underlying” pace of wage growth, excluding pandemic effects, is only 3.3% compared to the reported 7.2%, but is expected to rise towards 4.5% in Q3 as the labor market recovers. Yet if the employment frictions do not fade as rapidly as the BoE expects, perhaps due to persistent skills mismatches for existing job openings, then the inflationary pressures emanating from the UK jobs market may cause UK inflation to stay elevated for longer than the BoE is projecting. Continued recovery from the initial COVID shock Chart 8Recovering From The COVID Recession Recovering From The COVID Recession Recovering From The COVID Recession The BoE now expects UK real GDP to return to its pre-pandemic level in Q4 of this year (Chart 8). Much of the recovery in activity seen so far has been in services as pandemic restrictions have been lifted. Looking forward, consumer spending will be boosted by improving growth momentum in employment and incomes, further underpinned by a high levels of household savings accumulated during the pandemic. Business investment is also expected recover, given the robust reading from the BoE Agents’ Survey of investment intentions (bottom panel). The twin engines of consumption and investment will be enough to keep the UK economy growing at an above-trend pace in 2022, even with a modest expected drag from fiscal policy, which should help maintain some of the current cyclical inflationary pressures. Rising house prices UK house prices are experiencing another sharp uptick, with the Nationwide index up 10.3% year-over-year in Q2 (Chart 9). Demand for homes has been boosted by the UK government’s holiday on stamp duty, or housing transaction taxes, which began last year as a form of pandemic economic support. Housing transactions spiked in June as demand surged ahead of the expiry of the stamp duty holiday last month, and some payback is likely in the near-term. Yet UK housing demand has also been supported by the same factors boosting house prices in most developed economies - low interest rates, high household savings available for down payments and the increased need for space for those choosing to work from home. UK house price inflation thus could remain higher for longer than the BoE expects. Chart 9Is This House Price Surge 'Transitory' Or Policy Driven? Is This House Price Surge 'Transitory' Or Policy Driven? Is This House Price Surge 'Transitory' Or Policy Driven? Supply Chain Bottlenecks The BoE noted in the August MPR that overall UK import prices have risen faster than expected, especially with the British pound higher on a year-over-year basis. UK firms have faced rising input costs because of disruption to global supply chains from the pandemic. For example, the annual growth rate of import prices for manufactured components rose by 12.1% in May, a sharp contrast to the -5.4% deflation of consumer goods prices (Chart 10). The BoE projects UK overall import price inflation to turn negative in 2022 and 2023, a big part of its slowing inflation forecast. Some decrease is inevitable as price momentum in oil and other commodities cools from overheated levels seen in 2021. However, supply chain disruptions are a global phenomenon already persisting for longer than expected in other countries and could linger into 2022 if global growth stays above trend - potentially causing UK import price inflation to once again exceed the BoE’s expectations. Summing it all up, the pressure is clearly building on the BoE to dial back the massive monetary easing put in place last year in response to the pandemic. Not only is the economy now recovering far more rapidly than the BoE had been projecting, with inflation set to peak at a higher level, but there are other indications that monetary conditions may now be too loose like accelerating house prices. There are numerous upside risks to the BoE’s benign post-2021 inflation forecasts, especially with the central bank also projecting the UK to have a positive output gap in 2022 and 2023 (Chart 11). Chart 10BoE Betting On Waning Global Supply Bottlenecks BoE Betting On Waning Global Supply Bottlenecks BoE Betting On Waning Global Supply Bottlenecks Markets are not expecting much from the BoE in terms of interest rate increases. While the UK overnight index swap (OIS) curve is now discounting an initial 25bp rate hike in August 2022, only one other 25bp increase is expected by the end of 2024 (Table 1). Chart 11Domestic Price Pressures On The Rise Domestic Price Pressures On The Rise Domestic Price Pressures On The Rise The BoE has not been a very active central bank since the 2008 financial crisis, never raising the Bank Rate above 0.75% over that time, thus the markets now seem conditioned to think that the BoE will continue to do very little in the future. Table 1Markets Expect The BoE To Hike Before The Fed The UK Leads The Way The UK Leads The Way Chart 12Markets Expect Persistent Negative UK Real Rates The UK Leads The Way The UK Leads The Way That is evident when you look at longer-dated OIS rates compared to forward inflation rates from the UK CPI swap curve. The combined message from those markets is that the BoE is expected to maintain deeply negative real interest rates for at least the next decade, a major reason why the UK has persistently negative real bond yields (Chart 12). A lower equilibrium real interest rate (i.e. “r-star”) is consistent with the declining trend in the OECD’s estimate of UK potential real GDP growth over the past 20 years (Chart 13). Yet it is a stretch to think that the neutral UK real interest rate is now negative, especially given how rapidly UK growth and inflation have snapped back from the 2020 COVID recession. UK interest rate markets are highly vulnerable to any hawkish shift by the BoE – and outcome that the current growth and inflation dynamics suggest is increasingly likely over the next 6-12 months. The BoE has already started to process of dialing back monetary accommodation by slowing the pace of asset purchases in its quantitative easing (QE) program (Chart 14). While no decision on additional tapering was made last week, the BoE did dedicate three pages of the August MPR to a detailed discussion on how the future size of the BoE’s balance sheet would likely be reduced if the BoE were to begin raising interest rates. There has also been some political pressure on the UK to dial back QE, with the Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee in the UK House of Lords saying that the BoE was “addicted” to QE last month. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has previously stated that he viewed QE as a regular part of a central banker’s toolkit, to be used opportunistically during periods of deep economic or financial market stress. That made sense in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, but is no longer the case now. Chart 13UK R-Star Is Still Positive UK R-Star Is Still Positive UK R-Star Is Still Positive We anticipate that the BoE will end the current QE program sometime in the next six months, with an initial 25bp rate hike occurring sometime in mid-2022. Chart 14UK QE: Expect More Tapering UK QE: Expect More Tapering UK QE: Expect More Tapering This would be a faster pace of tapering, with a quicker liftoff, than the Fed, although we expect the Fed to eventually raise rates by more than the BoE in the next interest rate cycle. Investment Conclusions Given our expectation that the BoE is starting to prepare the markets for an unwind of its pandemic policy settings, we come to the following fixed income and currency investment conclusions (Chart 15): Chart 15Summarizing Our UK Fixed Income Recommendations Summarizing Our UK Fixed Income Recommendations Summarizing Our UK Fixed Income Recommendations Chart 16A More Hawkish BoE Would Benefit The Pound A More Hawkish BoE Would Benefit The Pound A More Hawkish BoE Would Benefit The Pound Duration: Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated UK bond portfolios, with too few rate hikes discounted Country Allocation: Downgrade UK Gilts to underweight in global bond portfolios Yield Curve: On a tactical (0-6 months) basis, the UK Gilt curve may re-steepen as UK and global growth stays resilient, but a more hawkish BoE will eventually result in a flatter Gilt curve Inflation-Linked: Inflation breakevens on UK index-linked Gilts are already quite elevated and are overvalued on our fair value models, while real yields are at deeply negative levels that are conditioned on a continually dovish BoE – a combination that suggests an underweight stance on UK linkers is appropriate. Corporate Credit: Stay neutral on a tactical basis, as solid UK growth will offset the impact of a shift to a less dovish BoE. Currency: Our currency strategists are positive on the British pound - which is undervalued on their models (Chart 16) - over the medium-term, with the BoE seemingly on a path to begin tightening monetary policy sooner than the ECB and perhaps even the Fed.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The UK Leads The Way The UK Leads The Way Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The rapid spread of the COVID-19 delta variant in Asia will re-focus precious metals markets anew on the possibility of another round of lockdowns and the implications for demand, particularly in Greater China and India, which account for 33% and 12% of global physical demand for gold (Chart of the Week).1 Regulatory crackdowns across various sectors in China will continue to roil markets over coming months.  Policy uncertainty around these crackdowns is elevated in local financial markets, and could spill into global markets.  This will support the USD at the margin, which creates a headwind for gold and silver prices. Ambiguous and contradictory signaling from Fed officials following the July FOMC meeting re its $120-billion-per-month bond-buying program also adds uncertainty to precious-metals and general commodity forecasts. Despite this uncertainty, we remain bullish gold and silver.  More efficacious jabs will become available, which will support the global economic re-opening, particularly in EM economies.  In DM economies, vaccination uptake likely increases as risks become more apparent.  We continue to expect gold to trade to $2,000/oz and silver to trade to $30/oz this year. Feature Markets once again are focused on the possibility lockdowns will follow rising COVID-19 infections and deaths, as the delta variant – the most contagious variant to date – spreads through Asia and elsewhere. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Delta Variant Rampages Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Chart 2COVID-19 Infections, Deaths Rising Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Infection and death rates are moving higher globally (Chart 2). COVID-19 infections are still rising in 78 countries. Based on the latest 7-day-average data, the countries reporting the most new infections daily are the US, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Iran. The countries reporting the most deaths each day are Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, and Mexico. Globally, more than 42% of infections were in Asia and the Middle East, where ~ 1mm new infections are reported every 4 days. We expect more efficacious jabs will become available, which will support the global economic re-opening, particularly in EM economies. In DM economies, vaccination uptake likely increases as risks become more apparent. China's Regulatory Crackdown Markets also are contending with a regulatory crackdowns across multiple sectors in China, which is part of a years-long reform process initiated by the Politburo.2 Industries ranging from internet, property, education, healthcare to capital markets will have new rules imposed on them under China's 14th Five-Year Plan as part of this process. Our colleagues in BCA's China Investment Service note the pace of regulatory tightening will not moderate in the near term, as policymakers transition from an annual planning cycle focused on setting economic growth targets to a multi-year planning horizon. "This allows policymakers to have a higher tolerance for near-term distress in exchange for long-term benefits," according to our colleagues. The overarching goal of this reform process is to introduce more social equality in the society. Of immediate import for precious metals markets is the potential for spillover effects outside China arising from the policy uncertainty that already is emanating from that market. Uncertainty boosts the USD and gold. This makes its effect uncertain. In our most recent modeling of gold prices, we have found strong two-way feedback between US and Chinese policy uncertainty.3 We also find that broad real foreign exchange rates for the USD and RMB exert a negative influence on gold prices, while higher economic uncertainty pushes gold prices higher (Chart 3). In addition, across markets – Chinese and US economic policy uncertainty – have similar effects, suggesting economic uncertainty across these markets has a similar effect as domestic uncertainty at home (Chart 4).4 Chart 3Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Domestic Uncertainty, Real FX Rates Strongly Affect Gold Prices... Chart 4...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates ...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates ...As Do Cross-Border Uncertainty, Real FX Rates This is yet another reason to pay close attention to PBOC and Fed policy innovations and surprises: they affect each other in similar ways within and across borders. Fed Officials Add Uncertainty Following the FOMC meeting at that end of last month, various Fed officials expressed their views of Chair Jerome Powell's post-meeting remarks, or again resumed their campaigns to begin tapering the US central bank's bond-buying program. Chair Powell's remarks reinforced the data-dependency of the Fed in directing its bond buying and monetary accommodation. He emphasized the need to see solid improvement in the jobs picture in the US before considering any lift-off of rates. As to the Fed's bond-buying program, this, too, will depend on progress on reducing unemployment in the US. Powell also reiterated the Fed views the current inflation in the US as transitory, a point that was emphasised by Fed Governor Lael Brainard two days after Powell's presser. Some very important Fed officials, most notably Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida, are staking out an early position on what will get them to consider reducing the Fed's current accommodative policies, chiefly an "overshoot" of PCE inflation, the Fed's favored gauge, above 3%. Other Fed officials are urging strong action now: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard is adamant that tapering of the Fed's bond-buying program needed to begin in the Autumn and should be done early next year. Bullard is supported by Governor Christopher Waller. The Fed's bond-buying program is more than a year old. Beginning in July 2020, the Fed started buying $80 billion of Treasurys and $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities every month, or ~ $1.6 trillion so far. This lifted the Fed's balance sheet to ~ $8.3 trillion. Thinking about this as a commodity, that's a lot of asset supply removed from the Treasury and MBS market, which likely explains the high cost of the underlying debt instruments (i.e., their low interest rates). It is understandable why the gold market would get twitchy whenever Fed officials insist the winddown of this program must begin forthwith and be done in relatively short order. The loss of that steady stream of buying could send interest rates higher quickly, possibly raising nominal and real interest rates in the process, which, given the sensitivity of gold prices to US real rates would be bearish (Chart 5). While it is impossible to know when the tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program will end, these occasional choruses of its imminent inauguration add to uncertainty in the US, which also depresses precious metals prices, as Chart 5 indicates. A larger issue attends this topic: economic policy uncertainty is not contained within national borders. Above, we noted there is a two-way feedback between US and China economic policy uncertainty. There also is a long-term relationship in levels of economic policy uncertainty re China and Europe, which makes sense given the trading relationship between these states. Changes in the two measures of economic policy uncertainty exhibit strong co-movement (Chart 6). Chart 5Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Taper Talk Makes Precious Metals Markets Twitchy Chart 6Economic Policy Uncertainty Goes Across National Borders Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Investment Implications The increase in COVID-19 infection and re-infection rates, and death rates, is forcing commodity markets to reevaluate demand projections and the likelihood of continued monetary accommodation globally. This ultimately affects the prospects for commodity prices. Conflicting interpretations of the state of local and the global economies increases uncertainty across markets, especially precious metals, which are exquisitely sensitive to even a hint of a change in policy. This uncertainty is compounded when top officials at systematically important central banks provide sometimes-contradictory interpretations of the state of their economies. Despite this uncertainty we remain bullish gold and silver, expecting efficacious vaccines to become more widely available, which will allow the global recovery to regain its footing. We are less sanguine about the prospects for the winding down of the massive monetary accommodation globally, particularly that of the US, where data-dependent policymakers still feel compelled to provide almost-certain policy prescriptions in an increasingly uncertain world.This is a fundamental factor driving global uncertainty. We remain long gold expecting it to trade to $2,000/oz this year, and long silver, expecting it to hit $30/oz.   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 While US crude oil inventories rose 3.6mm barrels in the week ended 30 July 2021 gasoline stocks fell 5.3mm barrels, contributing to an overall decline in crude and product inventories in the US of 1.2mm barrels, according to the US EIA's latest tally (Chart 7). US crude and product stocks have been falling throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and now stand ~ 13% below year earlier levels at 1.7 billion barrels. Crude oil stocks, at 439mm barrels, are just over 15% below year-ago levels. This reflects the decline in US domestic production, which is down 7.1% y/y and now stands at 11.2mm b/d. US refined-product demand, however, is up close to 9% over the January-July period y/y, and stands at 21.2mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish Workers at the world's largest copper mine, Escondida in Chile, are in government-mediated talks with management that end on Saturday to see if they can avert a strike. There is a chance talks could be extended five days beyond that date, under Chilean law. The mine is majority owned by BHP. Workers at a Codelco-owned mine also voted to strike and will enter government-mediated talks as well. These potential strikes most likely explain why copper prices have been holding relatively steady as other commodities have come under pressure, as markets reassess the odds of a demand slowdown brought about by surging COVID-19 infections, which are hitting Asian markets particularly hard (Chart 8). Chart 7 Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Uncertainty Checks Gold's Recovery Chart 8 Copper Prices Recovering Copper Prices Recovering   Footnotes 1     We flagged this risk in our July 8, 2021 report entitled Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Pricing A Tighter Regulatory Grip published on August 4, 2021 by our China Investment Strategy.  It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    We measure this using Granger-Causality tests. 4    These broad real FX rates are handy explanatory variables, in that they combine two very important factors affecting gold prices – inflation and broad FX trade-weighted indexes.  Additional modelling also suggests these broad real FX rates for the USD and RMB coupled with US real 2- and 5-year rates also provide good explanatory models for gold prices. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, I am sending you a special report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge, chief strategist of our flagship The Bank Credit Analyst service. Jonathan argues that investors should see social media as a technological innovation that harms productivity. While Jonathan concedes that social media was not the main driver of policy uncertainty and political risk over the past decade, he makes a good case that it plays an aggravating role. He warns that social media and political polarization still pose risks to the macroeconomic outlook in the coming years, while also highlighting idiosyncratic risks threatening social media stocks. We trust that you will find this report insightful. We will resume regular publication next week. All very best, Matt Gertken   Vice President Geopolitical Strategy US Political Strategy BCA Research Highlights Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Feature Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts 1 and 2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart 3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart 4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart 1Facebook: Monthly Active Users The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart 4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart 5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. Chart 5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart 6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table 1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart 6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table 1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.1 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart 7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart 7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart 7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart 8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. Chart 8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart 9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart 10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Chart 9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart 10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart 11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart 12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart 11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart 13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Chart 13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart 14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart 14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart 15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart 15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart 15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. But Chart 16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Chart 16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart 17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. Chart 17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Chart 18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart 18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,2 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart 19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart 20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart 19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.3 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart 21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart 22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart 21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart 23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart 22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart 22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart 24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart 21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. Chart 24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,4 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.5 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart 25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart 25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart 25. Chart 25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?”,IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 4    Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5    “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights Recent progress on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions has been mixed. The share of vaccinated individuals continues to rise globally, and the number of confirmed UK cases has recently peaked. However, vaccine penetration remains comparatively low in the US, and there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination. Given the emergence of the delta variant as well as vaccine hesitancy in some countries, policymakers currently face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the Mundell-Fleming Impossible Trinity. The pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity suggests that policymakers cannot simultaneously prevent the reintroduction of pandemic control measures while maintaining a functioning medical system and the complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. Were they to occur, the imposition of renewed pandemic control measures or a dangerous rise in hospitalizations this fall would likely weigh on earnings expectations, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming 3-6 months. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. Feature Since we published our last report, progress made on the path to a post-pandemic state and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions have been mixed. Encouragingly, Chart I-1 highlights that the share of people who have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine continues to rise outside of Africa, which continues to be impacted by India’s ban on vaccine exports. By the end of September, at least a quarter of the world’s population will have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and many more will have received at least one dose. Pfizer’s plan to request emergency authorization for its vaccine for children aged 5-11 by October also stands to raise total vaccination rates in advanced economies even further by the end of the year. In addition, Chart I-2 presents further evidence that the relationship between new cases of COVID-19 and hospitalization has truly been altered. The chart shows that the number of patients in UK hospitals is much lower than what would be implied by the number of new cases, which itself now appears to have peaked at a lower level than that of January. Given that the strain on the medical system is the dominant constraint facing policymakers, a modest rise in hospitalizations implies a durable end to pandemic restrictions and a return to economic normality. Chart I-1Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Global Vaccination Progress Continues Chart I-2Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations Vaccines Have Truly Altered The Relationship Between Cases And Hospitalizations   However, the risk from the delta variant appears to be higher in the US than in the UK, due to a lower level of vaccine penetration. Only 56% of the US population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 67% in Israel, 69% in the UK, and 71% in Canada. And thus far, there has been no meaningful change in the pace of vaccination in the US in response to the threat from the delta variant, despite recent exhortations from politicians and media personalities from both sides of the political spectrum. The Impossible Trinity: Pandemic Edition Last year, most investors would have said that the existence of a safe and effective vaccine would likely be enough to durably end the pandemic. But given the development of more dangerous variants of the disease, and the existence of vaccine hesitancy in many countries, policymakers now face a trilemma that is conceptually similar to the concept of the “Impossible Trinity” as described by Mundell and Fleming. The upper portion of Chart I-3 illustrates the standard view of the Impossible Trinity, which posits that policymakers must choose one side of the triangle, while foregoing the opposite economic attribute. For example, most modern economies have chosen “B,” gaining the free flow of capital and independent monetary policy by giving up a fixed exchange rate regime (and allowing currency volatility). By contrast, Hong Kong has chosen side “A,” meaning that its monetary policy is driven by the Federal Reserve in exchange for a pegged currency and an open capital account. The lower portion of Chart I-3 presents the pandemic version of the trilemma, which sees policymakers having to choose two of these three outcomes: No economically-damaging pandemic control restrictions placed on society A functioning medical system The complete freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to be vaccinated Chart I-3Variants And Vaccine Hesitancy Have Created A Difficult Choice For Policymakers August 2021 August 2021 In reality, the pandemic version of the Impossible Trinity is likely to be resolved in a fashion similar to how China views the original trilemma,1 which is to distribute a 200% “adoption rate” among the three competing choices. In essence, this means that policymakers will likely partially adopt all three measures with a degree of intensity that will change over time in response to the prevailing circumstances. Chart I-4No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates No Sign Yet Of A Pickup In US Vaccination Rates But Chart I-4 is a clear example of the differences in approach adopted by the US in response to vaccine hesitancy compared to other. So far, attempts to convince vaccine-hesitant Americans to get their shot have relied mostly on “carrot” approaches in an attempt to preserve individual freedom of choice, i.e. side “B” in Chart I-3. As noted above, these measures, so far, have failed, as there has been no noticeable uptick in the pace of vaccine doses administered in the US over the past month. By contrast, France, like several other countries, has begun to use “stick” approaches that push it more toward side “A” of the trilemma. In mid-July, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that French citizens who want to visit cafes, bars or shopping centers must show proof of vaccination or a negative test result. The policy also mandated that French health care and nursing home workers must be vaccinated. The result was a sharp, and thus far sustained, uptick in the pace of doses administered. For equity investors, the risk is that the politically contentious nature of vaccine mandates in the US will cause policymakers to acquiesce to renewed pandemic control measures this fall if the delta variant continues to spread widely over the coming few months (as seems likely). Alternatively, policymakers may allow a dangerous increase in hospitalizations, but this would merely postpone the imposition of control measures – and they would be more severe once reintroduced. Thus, there is a legitimate risk that the spread of the delta variant in the US does weigh on earnings expectations, especially for consumer-oriented services companies, at a time when income support for households negatively impacted by the pandemic will be withdrawn. Bond Yields, Delta, And Slowing Growth Momentum Chart I-5Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Growth Momentum Has Slowed... Of course, many investors would point to the significant decline in US 10-year bond yields since mid-March as having already acted in response to waning growth momentum. For example, the peak in US bond yields coincided with the March peak in the ISM manufacturing PMI, as well as a meaningful shift lower in the US economic surprise index (Chart I-5). Without a soaring inflation surprise index, the overall economic surprise index for the US would likely already be negative. The takeaway for some investors has been that a decline in yields has been normal given that the economy has passed its point of maximum strength. But there are two aspects of this narrative that do not accord with the data. First, Chart I-6 highlights that growth is peaking from an extremely strong pace, making it difficult to justify the magnitude of the decline in long-term yields over the past few months. And second, Chart I-7 highlights that the decline in the US 10-year yield closely corresponds to delta variant developments in the US. The chart shows that the 10-year yield broke below 1.5% shortly after the effective US COVID-19 reproduction rate (“R0”) began to rise, and the significant decline in yields over the past month began once R0 rose above 1. Chart I-7 does suggest that yields have reacted in response to the growth outlook, but in a different way than the “maximum strength” narrative suggests. Chart I-6…But Growth Itself Remains Quite Strong August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-7The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta The Yield Decline Over The Past Month Seems Related To Delta Chart I-810-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed 10-Year Yields Are Too Low, Even If Variants Delay The Fed While we can identify the apparent trigger for the decline in bond yields since mid-March, we do not agree that the decline is fundamentally justified. The delta variant of COVID-19 is not vaccine-resistant, meaning that a delta-driven surge in hospitalizations this fall could delay – but not prevent – eventual asset purchase tapering and rate hikes from the Fed. For example, Chart I-8 highlights that the 10-year yield is now 60 basis points below its fair value level in a scenario in which the Fed only begins to raise interest rates in mid-2023, underscoring that the recent decline in yields is overdone. And, although it is also true that market-based measures of inflation compensation have eased from their May highs, we have noted in previous reports that the Fed’s reaction function is almost exclusively driven by progress in the labor market back toward “maximum employment” levels – not inflation. Chart I-9 highlights that US real output per worker has grown at a much faster pace since the onset of the pandemic than what occurred on average over the past four economic recoveries, reflecting the success that US fiscal policy has had in supporting aggregate demand as well as constraints on labor supply in services industries. These factors will wane in intensity over the coming year, suggesting that real output per worker is unlikely to rise meaningfully further over that time horizon. Based on consensus market expectations for growth as well as the Fed’s most recent forecasts, a flat trend in real output per worker over the coming year would imply that the employment gap will be closed by Q2 of next year. This would be consistent with the recent trend in high frequency mobility data, such as US air traveler throughput and public transportation use in New York City (Chart I-10), the epicenter of the negative impact on urban core services employment stemming from the pandemic “work from home” effect. Chart I-9Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Real Output Per Worker Unlikely To Rise Much Further Over The Coming Year Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022 High-Frequency Data Points To A Closed Jobs Gap By Mid-2022   A closed employment gap by the middle of next year would imply that the Fed will begin to raise rates sometime in 2H 2022. Even if this were delayed by several months due to delta, Chart I-8 illustrated that 10-year Treasury yields are still too low. No Help From China If the spread of the delta variant over the coming few months does temporarily weigh on developed market economic activity via renewed pandemic control measures, investors should note that the lack of a countervailing growth impulse from China may act as an aggravating factor. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s PMI remains persistently below its 12-month trend, as it has tended to do following a decline in China’s credit impulse. And while some investors were hoping that the PBOC’s recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio represented a pivot in Chinese monetary policy towards sustained easing, Chart I-12 highlights that the 3-month repo rate remains well off its low from last year – and is only modestly lower than it was on average during most of the 2018/2019 period. Chart I-11China Is Slowing, And Policy Has Not Yet Reversed Course August 2021 August 2021 Chart I-12The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift The Recent RRR Cut Was Not The Start Of A Dovish PBOC Shift   The recent (slight) tick higher in China’s credit impulse is perhaps a sign that the worst of the credit slowdown has already occurred, but we do not expect a rising trend without a genuine shift toward a looser monetary policy stance. As such, a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year, at least over the coming three to six months. Investment Conclusions Chart I-13Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term Assets That Benefit From Lower Yields May Remain Well-Bid In The Near Term The unprecedented nature of the pandemic, as well as the unclear impact the delta variant will have given prevailing rates of vaccination in advanced economies, has clouded the near-term economic outlook. It is unlikely that the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 will have a long-lasting impact on economic activity in advanced economies, but it does have the potential to cause the temporary reintroduction of some pandemic restrictions and, thus, modestly delay the transition to a post-pandemic state. While long-term government bond yields are set to rise on a 12-month time horizon, financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-term bond yields could remain well-bid over the next few months. Chart I-13 highlights that cyclical equity sectors have underperformed defensive equity sectors over the past month, 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. Global ex-US equities have also underperformed US stocks, and the dollar has modestly risen. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for a reversal of all these recent moves. However, for investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. This underscores that cyclical investment strategy will be even more data dependent than usual throughout the second half of the calendar year. The pace of nonfarm payrolls growth in the US remains the single most important data release driving US monetary policy, and investors should especially focus on whether jobs growth this fall is consistent with the Fed’s maximum employment objective, as the impact of the delta variant becomes clearer, as constraints to labor supply are removed, and as employees progressively return to work. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 29, 2021 Next Report: August 26, 2021 II. The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts II-1 and II-2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Chart II-1Facebook: Monthly Active Users August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide August 2021 August 2021   Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart II-3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart II-4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart II-3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart II-4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News August 2021 August 2021 As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart II-5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart II-6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table II-1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart II-6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table II-1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media August 2021 August 2021   And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.2 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart II-7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart II-7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart II-7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake Chart II-8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart II-9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart II-9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart II-10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Chart II-10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart II-11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart II-12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart II-11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism August 2021 August 2021 Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart II-13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart II-14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart II-15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart II-13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart II-14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings   Chart II-15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart II-15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. Chart II-16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty But Chart II-16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Chart II-17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart II-17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Chart II-18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart II-18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,3 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart II-19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart II-20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart II-19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth August 2021 August 2021   This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.4 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart II-21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart II-22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart II-21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years August 2021 August 2021 The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart II-23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart II-22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart II-22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart II-24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart II-21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,5 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.6 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Chart II-25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart II-25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart II-25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart II-25. Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. But investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar – depending heavily on the evolution of the medical situation in the US and the subsequent response from policymakers. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has fallen sharply since mid-March. This decline was initially caused by waning growth momentum, but has since morphed into concern about the impact of the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 and the implications for US monetary policy. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a mid-2023 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have normalized, whereas industrial metals have moved mostly sideways since late-April and agricultural prices remain 13% below their early-May high. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines in some commodity prices as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain very elevated, but are starting to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?” dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 5 Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 6 “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights Global oil demand will remain betwixt and between recovery and relapse through 3Q21, as stronger DM consumer spending and increasing mobility wrestles with persistent concerns over COVID-19-induced lockdowns in Latin America and Asia. These concerns will be allayed as vaccines become more widely distributed, and fears of renewed lockdowns – and their associated demand destruction – recede.  Going by US experience – which can be tracked on a weekly basis – as consumer spending rises in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions, fuel demand will follow suit (Chart of the Week). OPEC 2.0 likely will agree to return ~ 400k b/d monthly to the market over the course of the next year and a hal. For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl. These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, particularly re containment of COVID-19. Feature For every bit of good news related to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a cautionary note. Most prominently, reports of increasing demand for refined oil products like diesel fuel and gasoline in re-opening DM economies are almost immediately offset by fresh news of renewed lockdowns, re-infections in highly vaccinated populations, and fears a new mutant strain of the coronavirus will emerge (Chart 2).1 In this latter grouping, EM economies feature prominently, although Australia this week extended its lockdown following a flare-up in COVID-19 cases. Chart of the WeekUS Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens US Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens US Product Demand Revives As Economy Reopens Chart 2COVID-19 Infection And Death Rates Keep Markets On Edge Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Our expectation on the demand side is unchanged from last month – 2021 oil demand will grow ~ 5.4mm b/d vs. 2020 levels, while 2022 and 2023 consumption will grow 4.1 and 1.6mm b/d, respectively (Chart 3). These estimates reflect the slowing of global GDP growth over the 2021-23 interval, which can be seen in the IMF's and World Bank's GDP estimates, which we use to drive our demand forecasts.2 Weekly data from the US seen in the Chart of the Week provide a hint of what can be expected as DM and EM economies re-open in the wake of relaxed restrictions on once-routine social interactions. Demand for refined products – e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel – will recover, but at uneven rates over the next 2-3 years. The US EIA notes the recovery in diesel demand, which is included in "Distillates" in the chart above, has been faster and stronger than that of gasoline and jet fuel. This is largely because it reflects the lesser damage done to freight movement and activities like mining and manufacturing. The EIA expects 4Q21 US distillate demand to come in 100k b/d above 4Q19 levels at 4.2mm b/d, and to hit an all-time record of 4.3mm b/d next year. US gasoline demand is not expected to surpass 2019 levels this year or next, in the EIA's forecast. This is partly due to improved fuel efficiencies in automobiles – vehicle-miles travelled are expected to rise to ~ 9mm miles/day in the US, which will be slightly higher than 2019's level. Jet fuel demand in the US is expected to return to 2019 levels next year, coming in at 1.7mm b/d. Chart 3Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Quantifying Demand Risks We use the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases as the backdrop for modelling demand-destruction scenarios in this month’s oil balances (Chart 2). We consider different scenarios of potential demand destruction caused by the resurgence in the pandemic (Table 1). Last year, demand fell by 9% on average, which we take to be the extreme down move over an entire year. In our simulations, we do not expect demand to fall as drastically this time. Table 1Demand-Destruction Scenario Outcomes Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations We modelled two scenarios – a 5% drop in demand (our low-demand-destruction scenario) and an 8% drop in demand (our high-demand-destruction scenario). A demand drop of a maximum of 2% made nearly no difference to prices, and so, we did not include it in our analysis. In both cases, demand starts to fall by September and reaches its lowest point in October 2021. We adjusted changes to demand in the same proportion as changes in demand in 2020, before making estimates converge to our base-case by end-2022. The estimates of price series are noticeably distinct during the period of the simulation (Chart 4). Starting in 2023, the low-demand-destruction prices and base-case prices nearly converge, as do their inventory levels. Prices and inventory levels in the high-demand-destruction case remain lower than the base-case during the rest of the forecast sample. OPEC 2.0 and world oil supply were kept constant in these scenarios. World oil supply is calculated as the sum of OPEC 2.0 and Non-OPEC 2.0 supply. Non-OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into the US, and Non-OPEC 2.0, Ex-US countries. Examples of these suppliers are the UK, Canada, China, and Brazil. OPEC 2.0 can be broken down into Core-OPEC 2.0 and the cohort we call "The Other Guys," which cannot increase production. Core-OPEC 2.0 includes suppliers we believe have excess spare capacity and can inexpensively increase supply quickly. Chart 4Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers COVID-19 Demand Destruction Scenarios OPEC 2.0 Remains In Control We continue to expect the OPEC 2.0 producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to maintain its so-far-successful production policy, which has kept the level of supply below demand through most of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 5). This allowed OECD inventories to fall below their pre-COVID range, despite a 9% loss of global demand last year (Chart 6). We expect this discipline to continue and for OPEC 2.0 to continue restoring its market share (Table 2). Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand Chart 6...And Drove OECD Inventories Down ...And Drove OECD Inventories Down ...And Drove OECD Inventories Down Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Our expectation last week the KSA-UAE production-baseline impasse will be short-lived remains intact. We expect supply to be increased after this month at a rate of 400k b/d a month into 2022, per the deal most members of the coalition signed on to prior to the disagreement between the longtime GCC allies. This would, as the IEA notes, largely restore OPEC 2.0's spare capacity accumulated via production cutbacks during the pandemic of ~ 6-7mm b/d by the end of 2022 (Chart 7). It should be remembered that most of OPEC 2.0's spare capacity is held by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which includes the UAE. The UAE's official baseline production number (i.e., its October 2018 production level) likely will be increased to 3.65mm b/d from 3.2mm b/d, and its output in 2H21 and 2022 likely will be adjusted upwards. As one of the few OPEC 2.0 members that actually has invested in higher production and can increase output meaningfully, it would, like KSA, benefit from providing barrels out of this spare capacity.3 Chart 7OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Return Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations Demand Dictates Oil Price Expectations As we noted last week, we do not think this impasse was a harbinger of a breakdown in OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production-management strategy. In our view, this impasse was a preview of how negotiations among states with the capacity to raise production will agree to allocate supply in a market starved for capital in the future. This is particularly relevant as US shale producers continue to focus on providing competitive returns to their shareholders, which will limit supply growth to that which can be done profitably. We see the "price-taking cohort" – i.e., those producers outside OPEC 2.0 exemplified by the US shale-oil producers – remaining focused on maintaining competitive margins and shareholder priorities. This means maintaining and growing dividends, and returning capital to shareholders will have priority as the world transitions to a low-carbon business model (Chart 8).4 For 2021, we raised our average forecast to $70/bbl on the back of higher prices lifting the year-to-date average so far, and our 2H21 expectation to $74/bbl. For 2022 and 2023, we expect Brent to average $75 and $78/bbl (Chart 9). These estimates are highly sensitive to demand expectations, which, in turn, depend on the global success in containing and minimizing COVID-19 demand destruction, as we have shown above. Chart 8US Shale Producers Focus On Margins US Shale Producers Focus On Margins US Shale Producers Focus On Margins Chart 9Raising Our Forecast Slightly Raising Our Forecast Slightly Raising Our Forecast Slightly Investment Implications In our assessment of the risks to our views in last week's report, we noted one of the unintended consequences of the unplanned and uncoordinated rush to a so-called net-zero future will be an improvement in the competitive position of oil and gas. This is somewhat counterintuitive, but the logic goes like this: The accelerated phase-out of conventional hydrocarbon energy sources brought about policy, regulatory and legal imperatives already is reducing oil and gas capex allocations within the price-taking cohort exemplified by US shale-oil producers. This also will restrict capital flows to EM states with heavy resource endowments and little capital to develop them. Our strong-conviction call on oil, gas and base metals is premised on our view that renewables and their supporting grids cannot be developed and deployed quickly enough to make up for the energy that will be foregone as a result of these policies. Capex for the metals miners has been parsimonious, and brownfield projects continue to dominate. Greenfield projects can take more than a decade to develop, and there are few in the pipeline now as the world heads into its all-out renewables push. In a world where conventional energy production is being forced lower via legislation, regulation, shareholder and legal decisions, higher prices will ensue even if demand stays flat or falls: If supply is falling, market forces will lift oil and gas prices – and the equities of the firms producing them – higher. As for metals like copper and their producers, if supply is unable to keep up with demand, prices of the commodities and the equities of the firms producing them will be forced to go higher.5 This call underpins our long S&P GSCI and COMT ETF commodity recommendations, and our long MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) recommendation. We will look for opportunities to get long oil and gas producer exposure via ETFs as well, given our view on oil and metals spans the next 5-10 years.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US EIA expects growth in large-scale solar capacity will exceed the increase in wind generation for the first time ever in 2021-22. The EIA forecasts 33 GW of solar PV capacity will be added to the US grid this year and next, with small-scale solar PV increasing ~ 5 GW/yr. The EIA expects wind generation to increase 23 GW in 2021-22. The EIA attributed the slow-down in wind development to the expiration of a $0.025/kWH production tax credit at the end of 2020. Taken together, solar and wind generation will account for 15% of total US electricity output by the end of 2022, according to the EIA. Nuclear power will account for slightly less than 20% of US generation in 2021-22, while hydro will fall to less than 7% owing to severe drought in the western US. At the other end of the generation spectrum, coal will account for ~ 24% of generation this year, as it takes back incremental market share from natural gas, and ~ 22% of generation in 2022. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to trade above $215/MT in China, even as demand is expected to slow in 2H21. Supply additions from Brazil, which ships higher quality 65% Fe ore, have been slower than expected, which is supporting prices (Chart 10). Separately, the Chinese government's auction of refined copper earlier this month cleared the market at $10,500/MT, or ~ $4.76/lb. Spot copper has been trading on either side of $4.30/lb this month, which indicates the Chinese market remains well bid. Precious Metals: Bullish The 13-year record jump in the US Consumer Price Index reported this week for the month of June is bullish for gold, as it produced weaker real rates and sparked demand for inflation hedges. Fed Chair Powell continued to stick to the view that the recent rise in inflation is transitory. The Fed’s dovish outlook will support gold prices and likely will lead to a weaker US dollar, as it reduces the possibility that US interest rates will rise soon. A falling USD will further bolster gold prices (Chart 11). Chart 10 BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING BENCHMARK IRON ORE 62% FE, CFR CHINA (TSI)RECOVERING Chart 11 Gold Prices Going Down Gold Prices Going Down     Footnotes 1     We highlighted this risk in last week's report, Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Two events – in the Seychelles and Chile, where the majority of the populations were inoculated – highlight re-infection risk. Re-infections in Indonesia along with lockdowns following the spread of the so-called COVID-19 Delta variant also are drawing attention. Please see Euro 2020 final in UK stokes fears of spread of Delta variant, published by The Straits Times on July 11, 2021. The news service notes that in addition to the threats super-spreader sporting events in Europe present, "The rapid spread of the Delta variant across Asia, Africa and Latin America is exposing crucial vaccine supply shortages for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations. Those two factors are also threatening the global economic recovery from the pandemic, Group of 20 finance ministers warned on Saturday." 2     Please see the recently published IMF World Economic Outlook Reports and the World Bank Global Economic Prospects. 3    If, as we suspect, KSA and the UAE are playing a long game – i.e., a 20-30-year game – this spare capacity will become more valuable as investment capex into oil production globally slows. Please see The $200 billion annual value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the global economy published by kapsarc.org on July 17, 2018. 4    Please see Bloomberg's interview with bp's CEO Bernard Looney at Banks Need ‘Radical Transparency,’ Citi Exec Says: Summit Update, which aired on July 13, 2021. In addition to focusing on margins and returns, the company – like its peers among the majors – also is aiming to reduce oil production by 20% by 2025 and 40% by 2030. 5    This turn of events is being dramatically played out in the coal markets, where the supply of metallurgical coals is falling as demand increases. Please see Coal Prices Hit Decade High Despite Efforts to Wean the World Off Carbon published by wsj.com on June 25, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

This week, we present the third 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. The data from lending surveys during the first quarter of 2021 point towards easing standards in developed markets (Chart 1). Credit standards for business loans eased outright in most regions except for the euro area and New Zealand where the pace of tightening slowed significantly. On the whole, banks expected the easing trend to continue into Q2. Chart 1Credit Standards Moving Towards Or Deeper Into Easy Territory Credit Standards Moving Towards Or Deeper Into Easy Territory Credit Standards Moving Towards Or Deeper Into Easy Territory With credit spreads at historical tights, banks across the board cited increased competition from other lenders as a reason behind easing standards, confirming that easy financial conditions are not limited solely to booming financial markets. This will help maintain a market-friendly economic growth backdrop as developed economies put pandemic restrictions behind them. At the same time, an absence of tightening lending standards by commercial banks puts incremental pressure on central banks to move towards bond-bearish tightenings of monetary policy. An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions 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 loan officers have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, they are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of 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, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q1/2021 (Chart 3). Nearly 20% of respondents cited an improving or less uncertain economic outlook as a very important factor behind the decision to ease standards, while roughly one-third cited increased competition from other lenders. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Chart 4High-yield Borrowers Are Exposed To A Widening In Spreads High-yield Borrowers Are Exposed To A Widening In Spreads High-yield Borrowers Are Exposed To A Widening In Spreads Although it did not strengthen on net, C&I loan demand did weaken at a much slower pace in Q1. The factors driving loan demand suggest a buoyant economic backdrop—about a quarter of banks reporting increased demand cited merger and acquisition needs and increased investment as very important reasons. Meanwhile, weaker loan demand was attributed to less precautionary demand for cash and an increase in internally generated funds among customers. On the consumer side, loan demand improved slightly on the whole, driven largely by a significant improvement in auto loan demand. While consumer loan demand has historically correlated well with the year-over-year growth in personal consumption expenditures, those two series diverged remarkably in Q1, with spending growth far outpacing loan growth. This divergence reflects the tremendous impact of pandemic-related transfer payments and benefits. We expect a continued recovery in consumer lending demand as unemployment benefits are withdrawn and consumers once again have to borrow to finance spending. As part of the special ad-hoc questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about how lending standards had changed compared to the pre-pandemic period by borrower risk rating. Interestingly, large banks actually eased their standards for investment grade borrowers, reflecting the impact of Fed’s massive liquidity injections (Chart 4). However, despite spreads on high-yield having tightened to post-GFC lows, credit standards for below-investment grade borrowers remain much tighter than before the pandemic. So far, lower-quality borrowers have been able to go to public debt markets for financing, but this highlights a downside risk—if there is an event which causes corporate bond spreads to widen, high-yield borrowers may be starved of cheap financing options with banks still holding purse strings taut. Euro Area In the euro area, banks continued to tighten standards to enterprises, albeit at a much-reduced pace, in Q1/2021 (Chart 5). The tightening, however, was lower than expected in the previous quarter, possibly reflecting prolonged policy support and improving risk sentiment. Deteriorating risk perceptions related to the general economic and firm-specific situation were the primary contributing factor to tightening. But this was partly offset by increased competition from other lenders. The reduced pace of tightening does confirm the signal from the high-yield default rate, which is rolling over. Going forward, banks expect the pace of tightening to slow very slightly going into Q2. 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 continued to weaken at a faster pace in Q1, marking three consecutive quarters of deterioration. Weak fixed investment continued to be the biggest drag on demand, while the previous positive contribution from inventory and working capital needs has disappeared entirely. As we highlighted in the last edition of this chartbook, the continued drag on demand for investment reflects a lingering uncertainty regarding the pandemic which could possibly lower potential long-term growth in the euro area.2 As in the US, however, the reduction in demand also reflected already built-up liquidity buffers and the availability of internal and market-based financing. In Q2, banks expect a strong rebound in enterprise loan demand, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Consumer credit demand continued to decline at a stronger pace in Q1, reflecting the continued pandemic-related restrictions in Europe over the quarter. The key drivers were lower durable goods spending and weakening consumer confidence. Banks also reported increased use of internally-generated funds, which is consistent with accumulated savings and pent-up demand during the lockdown. Assuming that the emerging Delta variant does not sidetrack the European return to normalcy, we will likely see the expected consumer credit demand rebound come to fruition. This would be consistent with recent strong consumer confidence prints out of the region. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, credit standards for enterprises tightened in Germany, Italy, and Spain but were unchanged in France (Chart 6). In countries where standards tightened, worsening risk perceptions were the primary factor. In France, increased competition from other lenders contributed to easing on the margin. Going into Q2, standards are expected to tighten very modestly in the two core European economies while diverging in peripheral Europe—Spanish banks expect an increased pace of tightening while Italian ones expect standards to remain unchanged. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards, measured as an average of standards for medium and large non-financial firms, eased slightly in Q1/2021 (Chart 7A). This increase in credit availability was driven primarily by an improving economic outlook and sector-specific risk picture. As in the US and euro area, competition from capital markets also played a role and is expected to contribute to the further easing expected in Q2. Chart 7AUK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions Chart 7BInvestment And Inventory Financing Expected To Pick Up In The UK GFIS Credit Conditions Chartbook Q2/2021: Easing Up GFIS Credit Conditions Chartbook Q2/2021: Easing Up Meanwhile, corporate loan demand is picking up at a pace not seen since Brexit, excluding the 2020 spike driven by emergency funding needs, signaling a buoyant picture. In particular, the surge in demand was driven by large non-financial firms which are also expected to drive the demand pick-up in Q2. Household loan demand fell slightly in the first quarter but is expected to rebound. Consumer confidence, which had initially lagged behind loan demand, appears to have caught up as the UK’s “Freedom Day” from pandemic restrictions approaches in July. Lenders are also expected to ease availability for unsecured household loans, primarily on the back of market share objectives. This should create the ideal backdrop for a consumption boom if the Delta variant does not further limit the UK government’s ability to deliver on its promise of a full reopening. Delving into the factors behind booming corporate loan demand, there are promising signs for the broader UK economy (Chart 7B). In a Special Report published earlier this year, we argued that UK real interest rates were depressed because the country suffered from a series of rolling economic and political shocks, the effects of which were now expected to fade.3 There are already some signs of this in the credit data, with capital investment and inventory financing demand expected to rebound in Q2. Despite work-from-home effects dampening the need for office space, on the margin, UK commercial real estate demand is strong and expected to further strengthen. Japan Chart 8Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions In Japan, credit standards to firms and households eased at a slower pace in Q1/2021 (Chart 8). The vast majority of respondents indicated that standards were basically unchanged, with none of the firms reporting any tightening, and a small number reporting some degree of easing. The most important factors driving easing were aggressive competition from other bank and non-bank lenders, as well as strengthened efforts to grow the business. Going into Q2, the pace of easing is expected to continue to slow. Business loan demand, which behaves somewhat counter-cyclically in Japan, increased over Q1. The entirety of this pickup can be attributed to small firms; large and medium-sized firms on the whole decreased their loan demand. Counter to trends in other regions, firms in Japan actually saw a decrease in internally-generated funds, which was the most important factor contributing to increased loan demand. Consumer loan demand fell slightly on balance but was mostly unchanged from the previous quarter. Respondents reporting weaker demand saw a decrease in household consumption as the most important factor. Sentiment remains subdued and has lagged the recovery in loan demand seen last year. Our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy are eyeing a recovery for the Japanese economy as the government turns around its vaccination campaign and the Olympics jumpstart consumption.4 On that basis, the very modest recovery in loan demand expected by Japanese banks appears too pessimistic. Canada And New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a faster pace in Q1/2021, coinciding with rebounding business confidence which is now back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 9). This is in line with a remarkable vaccine rollout—68% of the population has already received its first dose and the pace of daily vaccinations is showing no signs of rolling over. Chart 9Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 10New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions However, housing is a major concern for Canadian policymakers. In a recent Special Report, co-authored with our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst, we highlighted both Canada and New Zealand as “higher risk” countries more exposed to ballooning house prices.5 In addition to low rates, mortgage lending standards, which have been easing since Q3/2020, have undoubtedly contributed to this issue. However, the Bank of Canada (BoC), with its hawkish messaging, has signaled that it will not idly stand by; there is also popular support behind raising rates to tamp down house prices. Expect mortgage standards to tighten and a pick-up in mortgage rates as the BoC nears liftoff, most likely in 2022. Credit standards in New Zealand were mostly unchanged in Q1/2021, reversing the tightening trend of previous quarters (Chart 10). Over the next six months, standards are expected to ease considerably. Business loan demand was unchanged on net, with corporates decreasing and SMEs increasing demand. SMEs are also expected to increase demand slightly over the next six months. Tepid loan demand is consistent with business confidence hovering around the neutral zero line. As in Canada, soaring house prices are a major issue for the New Zealand economy. Data on household lending is alarming on that front. Although consumer loan demand continued to weaken, demand for residential mortgages spiked to an all-time high in Q1. While demand is expected to normalize going forward, the Q1 datapoint indicates froth in the market. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is considering a variety of macroprudential measures but will have to raise rates sooner rather than later to effectively cool down the housing market. 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/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q1 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   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com 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, "GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery", dated February 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "The Case For Japan", dated June 11, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 28, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.