United States

Listen to a short summary of this report.         Executive Summary US Financial Conditions Have Tightened Significantly This Year US Financial Conditions Have Tightened Significantly This Year US Financial Conditions Have Tightened Significantly This Year US financial conditions have tightened by enough that the Fed no longer needs to talk up interest rate expectations. If inflation decelerates faster than anticipated over the coming months, as we expect will be the case, the Fed’s messaging will soften further. Bond yields in the US and abroad are likely to fall over the next 6-to-12 months, even if they do rise over a longer-term horizon. Stay overweight stocks, favoring non-US equities over their US peers. We are closing our short 10-year Gilts trade, initiated at a yield of 0.85%, for a gain of 7.5%. We are also opening a new trade going long Canadian short-term interest rate futures versus their US counterparts. Investors expect Canadian rates to exceed US rates in 2024, which seems unlikely to us given that the Canadian housing market is much more sensitive to higher rates than the US market. Bottom Line: After having tightened significantly over the past seven months, financial conditions should loosen modestly during the remainder of the year. This should benefit risk assets. Fed Focused on Financial Conditions Chart 1Tighter Financial Conditions Will Hurt Growth Tighter Financial Conditions Will Hurt Growth Tighter Financial Conditions Will Hurt Growth Like many central banks, the Fed sees financial conditions as a key driver of the real economy. While there are many financial conditions indices (FCIs), most include bond yields, credit spreads, equity prices, and the exchange rate as inputs. Higher bond yields, wider credit spreads, lower equity prices, and a strong currency all lead to tighter financial conditions and a weaker economy, and vice versa. Goldman’s US FCI is especially popular among market participants. It is calibrated so that 100 bps in tightening corresponds, all things equal, to a 100 basis-point decline in US real GDP growth over the subsequent four quarters. The Goldman FCI has tightened by 212 bps since the start of the year and by 225 points from its loosest level in November 2021. If the historic relationship between the FCI and the economy holds, the tightening in financial conditions would be enough to push US growth to a below-trend pace by the second quarter of 2023. In fact, the tightening in the Goldman FCI over the past 12 months already suggests that the manufacturing ISM will fall below 50 (Chart 1).  Along the same lines, the Chicago Fed’s Adjusted National FCI, which measures financial conditions relative to current economic conditions, has moved slightly into restrictive territory. Aside from a brief period at the outset of the pandemic, the index has been consistently in expansionary territory since early 2013 (Chart 2). Chart 2The Chicago Fed Financial Conditions Index Has Moved Into Slightly Restrictive Territory Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Other data are consistent with the message from the FCIs. Most notably, growth estimates for the US and for other major economies have come down over the past few months (Chart 3). Economic surprise indices have also fallen, especially in the US.   Chart 3AGrowth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (I) Growth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (I) Growth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (I) Chart 3BGrowth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (II) Growth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (II) Growth Forecasts Have Softened As Economic Data Have Surprised To The Downside (II) Mission Accomplished? Chart 4The Fed Expects To Lift Rates Above Its Estimate Of Neutral The Fed Expects To Lift Rates Above Its Estimate Of Neutral The Fed Expects To Lift Rates Above Its Estimate Of Neutral Given the recent tightening in financial conditions and weaker growth expectations, the Fed is likely to soften its tone. Already this week, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic suggested that the Fed could pause raising rates in September in order to assess the impact of the Fed’s tightening campaign. The Fed minutes also conveyed a sense of flexibility and data-dependence about the timing and magnitude of future hikes once rates reach 2%. It’s worth stressing that the Fed expects rates to rise in 2023 to about 40 bps above its estimate of the terminal rate (Chart 4). Jawboning rate expectations higher would potentially undermine the Fed’s goal of achieving a soft landing for the economy. Inflation Will Dictate How Much Easing Lies Ahead There is a big difference between not wanting financial conditions to tighten further and wanting them to loosen. The Fed would only want to see an easing in financial conditions if inflation were to fall faster than expected. Chart 5 shows how the year-over-year change in the core PCE deflator would evolve over the remainder of the year depending on different assumptions about the month-over-month change in the deflator. The Fed would be able to reach its expectation of year-over-year core PCE inflation of 4.1% for end-2022 if the month-over-month change averages 0.33%. Monthly core PCE inflation averaged 0.3% in February and March and is expected to clock in at around the same level for April once the data is released tomorrow. Chart 5AUS Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (I) US Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (I) US Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (I) Chart 5BUS Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (II) US Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (II) US Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.3% (II) Regardless of tomorrow’s data print, as we discussed last week, we expect the monthly inflation rate to average less than 0.3 in the back half of the year. If that happens, inflation will surprise to the downside relative to the Fed’s expectations. Consistent with the observation above, market-based inflation expectations have already declined. The 5-year TIPS inflation breakeven has fallen from 3.64% in March to 2.98% at present. The widely watched 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rate is back down to 2.29%, at the bottom of the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 6).1 The Citi US Inflation Surprise Index has also rolled over (Chart 7). Chart 6Market-Based Inflation Expectations Have Come Down Of Late Market-Based Inflation Expectations Have Come Down Of Late Market-Based Inflation Expectations Have Come Down Of Late Chart 7The US Inflation Surprise Index Has Rolled Over The US Inflation Surprise Index Has Rolled Over The US Inflation Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Financial Conditions  Abroad Financial conditions indices in the other major developed economies have tightened somewhat less than in the US because equities represent a smaller share of household net worth abroad and also because most currencies have weakened against the US dollar (Chart 8). Nevertheless, with growth momentum having already deteriorated sharply, central banks are signaling a more balanced approach towards policy normalization. Chart 8Financial Conditions Have Tightened More In The US Than Elsewhere This Year Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? ECB: Wait and See? In a blog post published on Monday, Christine Lagarde observed that inflation expectations have risen from pre-pandemic levels, implying that real policy rates are currently lower than they were two years ago. In her mind, this warrants ending net purchases under the Asset Purchase Programme early in the third quarter. It also warrants raising the deposit rate by 25 bps at both the July and September meetings, bringing it back to zero from -0.5% at present. Beyond then, Lagarde was circumspect about what should be done, stressing the need for “gradualism, optionality and flexibility.” She noted that “The euro area is clearly not facing a typical situation of excess aggregate demand or economic overheating … Both consumption and investment remain below their pre-crisis levels, and even further below their pre-crisis trends.” She then added: “The outlook is now being clouded by the negative supply shocks hitting the economy … households’ expectations of their future financial situation dropped to their second-lowest level on record in March and remained close to that level in April.” The market expects the ECB to raise rates by 170 bps over the next 12 months, bringing the deposit rate to 1.2% by mid-2023 (Chart 9). BCA’s Global Fixed Income team, led by Rob Robis, foresees only 50 bps of tightening over the next 12 months. Chart 9Markets Expect Rates To Rise The Most In The Anglo-Saxon World Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? The UK, Canada, and Australia: Frothy Housing Markets Will Limit Rate Hikes The Bank of England (BoE) hiked rates by 90 bps over the past 12 months. The UK OIS curve is priced for another 140 bps of rate hikes over the next year. According to the BoE’s forecasting models, this would raise the unemployment rate by two percentage points while lowering inflation to below 2% within the next two-to-three years. In our opinion, that is more tightening than the BoE would like to see. BCA’s strategists expect the BoE to deliver only another 75 bps of hikes over the next year. Chart 10Buildup In Leverage And Frothy Housing Markets Pose A Challenge To Monetary Policy In Some Developed Market Countries Buildup In Leverage And Frothy Housing Markets Pose A Challenge To Monetary Policy In Some Developed Market Countries Buildup In Leverage And Frothy Housing Markets Pose A Challenge To Monetary Policy In Some Developed Market Countries The Canadian economy has been quite strong, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.2% in April, the lowest since 1974. The Canadian OIS curve is discounting 195 bps of interest rate hikes over the next 12 months, substantially more than the 150 bps of tightening our fixed income team foresees. By mid-2024, investors expect Canadian policy rates to be about 25 bps above US rates. This seems unreasonable to us, and as of this week, we are expressing this view by going long the June 2024 3-month Canadian Bankers’ Acceptance (BAX) futures contract (BAM4) versus the corresponding 3-month US SOFR futures contract (SFRM4). A more liquid option is to simply go long the 10-year Canadian government bond versus the 10-year US Treasury note. At present, Canadian 10-year government bonds are yielding  5 bps more than their US counterparts. Unlike in the US, where household debt has fallen over the past 14 years, debt in Canada has risen, fueled by a massive housing boom (Chart 10). High indebtedness and the prevalence of variable rate/short-term fixed-rate mortgages will limit the ability of the BoC to raise rates. The Australian OIS curve is currently discounting 262 bps of rate hikes over the next year which, if realized, would take the cash rate to 3.3% – a level last seen in 2013 when the neutral rate in Australia was much higher by the RBA’s own reckoning. BCA’s fixed income strategists expect only 150 bps of tightening over the next 12 months. Japan: Yield Curve Control Will Continue Chart 11Japan: Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Far Lower Than In The Rest Of The World Japan: Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Far Lower Than In The Rest Of The World Japan: Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Far Lower Than In The Rest Of The World The Bank of Japan expects inflation excluding fresh food prices to remain at about 2% in the second half of 2022, but then to slow to 1.1% in the fiscal year starting April 2023. The Japan OIS curve is discounting almost no tightening over the next 12 months. Long-term inflation expectations are far lower in Japan than in any other major economy, which makes ultra-low rates a necessity for the foreseeable future (Chart 11). China: Outright Easing Chart 12Covid Restrictions Have Eased Only Modestly In China Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? China faces a trifecta of problems: A weakening housing market; slowing external demand for manufactured goods; and the ongoing threat of Covid-related lockdowns. Despite a steep drop in the number of new Covid cases over the past month, China’s lockdown index has only eased modestly, as the authorities continue to fret about the next outbreak (Chart 12). The leadership in Beijing has responded with policy easing. The PBoC lowered the 5-year loan prime rate by 15 bps last week, the largest such cut since 2019. This followed a cut in the floor rate for first-home mortgages that was announced on May 15. BCA’s China strategists believe these measures will arrest the deep contraction in the property market but will not spark a full-blown recovery due to the ongoing commitment of the government to the “three red lines” policy.2  In normal times, a Chinese real estate slump would be a cause of grave concern for global investors. These are not normal times, however. Public enemy number one these days is inflation. A weaker Chinese property market would curb commodity demand, thus helping to cool inflation. That would be a welcome development for global investors. Investment Conclusions Global financial conditions have tightened to the point that betting on ever-higher rates, at least for the next 12 months, no longer makes sense. If global inflation decelerates faster than anticipated during the remainder of the year, as we expect will be the case, central banks will dial back the hawkish rhetoric.  We took partial profits on our short 10-year Treasury trade earlier this month (initiated at a yield of 1.45%). As of this week, consistent with the earlier decision of BCA’s fixed income strategists to upgrade UK Gilts, we are closing our short 10-year Gilt position (initiated at a yield of 0.85%) for a gain of 7.5%. The coming Goldilocks environment of falling inflation and supply-side led growth will buttress equities. We expect global stocks to rise 15%-to-20% over the next 12 months, with non-US markets outperforming the US. Looking further out, the fate of Goldilocks will rest on where the neutral rate of interest resides. If the neutral rate in the US turns out to be substantially lower than 2.5%, then any growth recovery will falter as the lagged effects of restrictive monetary policy work their way through the economy. Conversely, if the neutral rate turns out to be substantially higher than 2.5%, then inflation will reaccelerate as the economy overheats. Given the choice, we would wager on the latter outcome. Thus, while we expect global bond yields to decline over a 12-month horizon, we foresee them rising over a 2-to-5-year time frame. Similarly, while stocks will strengthen over the next 12 months, they are likely to encounter another bout of turbulence starting late next year or in 2024 as central banks initiate a second round of rate hikes.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on           LinkedIn Twitter     Footnotes 1     The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2      The People’s Bank of China and the housing ministry issued a deleveraging framework for property developers in August 2020, consisting of a 70% ceiling on liabilities-to-assets, a net debt-to-equity ratio capped at 100%, and a limit on short-term borrowing that cannot exceed cash reserves. Developers breaching these “red lines” run the risk of being cut off from access to new loans from banks, while those who respect them can only increase their interest-bearing borrowing by 15% at most. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough? Are Financial Conditions Tight Enough?

Highlights The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused a sharp increase in US interest rates. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. In addition to a severe contraction in real home improvement spending, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. The growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, the breadth of house prices and building permits, consumer surveys, housing equity sector relative performance, and the fact that mortgage rates have likely peaked for the year point to a more optimistic outlook for housing. At a minimum, they do not yet suggest that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is recessionary. Structural factors are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. The opposite is true: the US and several other developed market economies have underbuilt homes over the past decade. This should limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Feature Chart II-1The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused US interest rates to rise at an extremely rapid pace. Panel 1 of Chart II-1 highlights that the spread between the US 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield reached a 20-year high in early April of this year. Panel 2 shows that the two-year change in the 30-year mortgage rate will reach the highest level since the early 1980s by the end of this year if mortgage rates remain at their current level. Over the longer run, it is the level of interest rates that matters more than their change. However, changes in interest rates and other key financial market variables are also important drivers of economic activity, especially when they happen very rapidly. Given the speed of the recent adjustment in US interest rates, and the fact that the Fed funds rate will have likely reached the Fed’s neutral rate forecast by the end of this year, investors have understandably become concerned about the potential for a recession in the US. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. We conclude that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, several signs suggest that this slowdown is not recessionary. Investors should remain laser-focused on the pace of housing-related activity over the coming 6-12 months, but for now our assessment of the housing market is consistent with a modest overweight stance towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. A Brief Review Of The Housing Sector’s Contribution To Growth Table II-1 highlights the importance of the housing sector as a driver/predictor of US recessions. This table highlights that real residential investment is not a particularly important contributor to real GDP growth during nonrecessionary quarters, but it is the only main expenditure component exhibiting negative growth on average in the year prior to a recession.1 Table II-1Real Residential Investment Tends To Contract In The Year Prior To A Recession June 2022 June 2022 When examining the contribution to economic growth from the housing sector, investors and housing market analysts often fully equate real residential investment with housing construction. In fact, while direct construction of housing units accounts for a sizeable portion of the contribution to growth from housing, it is just one of four components. This is an important point, as one of the often-overlooked elements of real residential investment has strongly leading properties and is currently providing a very negative signal about the housing sector. Chart II-2 breaks down what we consider as aggregate real “housing-related activity”, and Chart II-3 presents the contributions to annualized quarterly growth in housing activity from the four components. For the sake of completeness, we include personal consumption expenditures on furnishings and household equipment as part of housing-related activity, alongside the two main components of real residential investment: permanent site construction (including single and multi-family properties), and “other structures.” In reality, “other structures” is not predominantly accounted for by the construction of different types of residential properties; it is almost entirely composed of spending on home improvements and brokerage commissions on the sale of existing residential properties. Chart II-2Housing Construction Is An Important Part Of Residential Investment, But There Are Other Contributing Factors June 2022 June 2022 Chart II-3Home Improvement Spending And Brokerage Commissions Also Drive Residential Investment June 2022 June 2022     Aside from the link between existing home sales and the general demand for newly-built homes, the prominence of brokerage commissions in other residential structures investment helps explain why existing home sales are strongly correlated with real residential investment (Chart II-4, panel 1). Given that a distributed lag of monthly housing starts maps closely to permanent site construction (panel 2), starts and existing home sales explain a good portion of the contribution to growth from housing-related activity. Of the two remaining components of housing-related activity, Chart II-5 highlights that personal consumption expenditures on furniture and household equipment generally coincide with the pace of housing construction and new home sales. We take this to mean that the consumption component of housing-related activity is typically a derivative of the decision to build a new home or sell an existing one. Chart II-4Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Chart II-5The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying   What is not coincident with construction and existing home sales is residential home improvement: Panel 2 of Chart II-5 highlights that it has strongly leading properties, and is currently contracting at its worst rate since the 2008 recession. Data on real home improvement spending is only available quarterly from 2002, so the ability to compare the current situation to previous housing market cycles is limited. But the pace of contraction is worrying and underscores that investors should be on the lookout for corroborating signs of a major contraction in the housing market. Is The Housing Data Sending A Recessionary Signal? In addition to the severe contraction in real home improvement spending shown in Chart II-5, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. In particular, Chart II-6 highlights that both the growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, that housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and that the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, there are also several signs pointing to a more optimistic outlook for housing, or at least indicating that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is not recessionary. We review these more optimistic indicators below. The Breadth Of House Prices And Building Permits In sharp contrast to previous periods of serious housing market weakness and/or recessionary periods, there is no sign yet of a major slowdown in US house price appreciation including cities with the weakest gains. In fact, Chart II-7 highlights that house prices have recently been reaccelerating on a very broad basis after having slowed in the second half of last year, which hardly bodes poorly for new home construction. Chart II-6A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway Chart II-7No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices   It is true that US house price data is somewhat lagging, so it is quite likely that price weakness is forthcoming. However, there has been no sign of a major slowdown in prices through to March 2022, by which point 30-year mortgage rates had already risen 200 basis points from their 2021 low. More importantly, Chart II-8 highlights that a state-by-state diffusion index of authorized housing permits has done a very good job at leading the growth in permits nationwide, and is currently not pointing to a contraction in activity. Chart II-9 presents explanatory models for the growth in US housing starts and total home sales based on our state permits diffusion index, pending home sales, the change in mortgage rates, and housing affordability. The chart underscores that a contraction in housing activity is not what these variables would predict, even though starts and sales should be growing at a much more modest pace than what has prevailed on average over the past two years. Chart II-8Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Chart II-9Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome     Consumer Surveys The University of Michigan consumer survey shows that consumers feel it is the worst time to buy a home since the early-1980s (Chart II-10), which seems like a clearly negative sign for the housing market and an indication of the likely impact of tighter policy on housing-related activity. And yet, panel 2 highlights that this is the result of the fact that house prices in the US have surged during the pandemic, not that mortgage rates have risen too high. It is true that the number of survey respondents citing “interest rates are too high” is rising sharply, but this factor as a share of all “bad time to buy” reasons given is not meaningfully higher than it was in 2018, 2011, or 2006. It is clear that high prices are also the culprit for why consumers report that it is a bad time to buy large household durables and not that large household durables are unaffordable or that interest rates are too high (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Chart II-11Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables   It may seem counterintuitive for investors to see Charts II-10 and II-11 as in any way positive for the housing market. But, to us, the notion that elevated house prices are the main source of poor affordability supports the idea that a normalization of the housing market will occur through a combination of marginally lower demand, a slower pace of house price appreciation, and a sustained pace of housing market construction. This implies that existing home sales may be weaker than housing construction over the coming year, but the latter will help to support the contribution to overall economic growth from housing-related activity. Housing Sector Relative Performance Despite the significant slowdown in real home improvement spending and the recent decline in the NAHB’s housing market index, Chart II-12 highlights that home improvement retail and homebuilding stocks have not exhibited significantly negative abnormal returns over the past year – as they did in 1994/1995 and in the lead up to the global financial crisis. The chart, which presents a rolling 1-year “Jensen’s alpha” measure for both industries, attempts to capture the risk-adjusted performance of the industry versus the S&P 500. While the chart shows that both industries have generated negative alpha over the past year, the magnitude does not appear to be consistent with a recession. In the case of homebuilder stocks in particular, negative abnormal returns over the past year should have been meaningfully worse given the year-over-year change in mortgage rates. Chart II-13 highlights that homebuilder performance has not been cushioned by a deep valuation discount in advance of the rise in mortgage rates. Chart II-12Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Chart II-13Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked   In short, the important takeaway for investors is that the relative performance of housing-related stocks is not yet consistent with a housing-led US recession. Mortgage Rates Are Not Restrictive, And Have Likely Peaked As we highlighted in Chart II-1, the two-year change in the US 30-year conventional mortgage rate will be the largest in history by the end of this year, save the Volcker era, if the mortgage rate remains at its current level. However, it is not just the change in interest rates that matters for economic activity, but rather also the level. Encouragingly, Chart II-14 highlights that the level of mortgage rates has not yet risen into restrictive territory relative to the economy’s underlying potential rate of growth. In addition, it appears that mortgage rates have overreacted to the expected pace of monetary tightening – and thus have likely peaked for this year. Two points support this view: First, panel 2 of Chart II-14 highlights that the 30-year mortgage rate is one standard deviation too high relative to the 10-year Treasury yield, underscoring that the former has overshot. And second, Chart II-15 highlights that the mortgage rate is still too high even after controlling for business cycle expectations, current coupon MBS yields, and bond & equity market volatility. Chart II-14Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Chart II-15No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched   Structural Factors Supporting Housing Construction Chart II-16The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Our analysis above points to a scenario in which the housing market slows in a nonrecessionary fashion, supported by relatively buoyant construction activity. Structural factors, which are mostly a legacy of the global financial crisis, are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US and other developed market economies. We presented Chart II-16 in our June 2021 Special Report, which shows the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies: the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1) and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or a flat trend (panel 2). The US, along with the euro area, the UK, and Japan, all belong to the first group, with commodity-producing and Scandinavian countries belonging to the second group. The point of the chart is that the US and most other major DM economies have seemingly experienced a chronic undersupply of homes in the wake of the global financial crisis, which should continue to support housing construction activity even if demand for housing is slowing because of a sharp increase in mortgage rates. Given that the trend in real residential investment to GDP is a somewhat crude metric of housing supply, Chart II-17 presents a more precise measure for the US. It shows the standardized trend in permanent site residential structures investment (both single- and multi-family) relative to both the US population and the number of households. The chart makes it clear that the US vastly overbuilt homes from the late-1990s to 2007, but also vastly underbuilt since 2008. Relative to the number of households, real permanent site residential structures investment is still half of a standard deviation below its long-term average – even after the surge in construction that occurred in 2020. Chart II-18 highlights a similar message: it shows that the US homeowner vacancy rate (the proportion of the housing stock that is vacant and for sale) was at a 66-year low at the end of the first quarter. Chart II-19 shows that the monthly supply of existing one-family homes on the market is also at a multi-decade low, but that the supply of new homes for sale spiked in April. Chart II-17More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses Chart II-18The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low     At first blush, this spike in the monthly supply of new homes relative to sales is quite concerning, as it has risen back to levels that prevailed in 2007. One point to note is that the increase in new home inventory relates to homes still under construction; the inventory of completed homes for sale remains quite low. In addition, from the perspective of a homebuilder, a rise in the monthly supply of new homes relative to home sales is only concerning if it translates into a significant increase in the amount of time to sell a completed home, as has historically been the case (Chart II-20). Chart II-19Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Chart II-20...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes   Chart II-20 highlights that a fairly significant divergence between these two series has emerged over the past decade. Despite roughly five-six months’ supply of new home inventory on average since 2012, the median number of months required to sell a new home rarely exceeded four. In early-2019 the monthly supply of new homes also spiked, and a relatively modest and nonrecessionary slowdown in housing starts was sufficient to prevent any meaningful rise in the amount of time required to sell a newly completed home. Notably, the models that we presented in Chart II-9 led the slowdown in total home sales and starts in late-2018/early-2019, and they are not pointing to a major contraction today. The key point for investors is that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. In fact, the opposite is true: despite a surge in construction during the pandemic, it remains below its historical average relative to the population and especially the number of households. This should act to limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and therefore reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Investment Implications We noted in our May report that the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set a recessionary tone to any weakness in US macroeconomic data, and that a recession scare was likely. Recent negative housing market data surprises underscore that a slowdown in the US housing market is clearly underway, and that this will likely feed recessionary concerns for a time. Investors should continue to be highly focused on the evolution of US macro data when making asset allocation decisions over the coming 6-12 months, as the current economic and financial market environment remains highly uncertain. This should include a strong focus on the housing market, as consumer surveys highlight that the overall impact of falling real wages and high house prices could cause a more pronounced slowdown in housing-related activity than we expect – and that the change and level of interest rates would imply. Nevertheless, our analysis of the historical predictors of housing construction and sales points to the conclusion that the ongoing housing market slowdown is not likely to be recessionary in nature. This, in conjunction with the factors that we noted in Section 1 of our report, support maintaining a modest overweight towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     This is aside from the contribution to growth from imports, which mechanically subtract from consumption and investment when calculating GDP.

Highlights The economic and financial market developments that have occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risks that we identified in our recent reports. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Still, several factors continue to suggest that this is indeed a scare, and not an actual recession. Section 2 of this month’s report reviews the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, we do not yet see signs that this slowdown is recessionary. It remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports in response to a seemingly imminent European embargo on Russian oil, and whether Russia will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy has failed to contain the disease, and it is now clear that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Our base case view is that additional fiscal & monetary support is forthcoming if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. Our profit margin warning indicators have deteriorated over the past month, and it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 margins is likely. Still, a major decline should be avoided, and we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year. We continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months, along with a neutral regional equity stance, a modestly overweight stance towards value over growth, an overweight stance towards small caps, a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, and short US dollar positions. Not Out Of The Woods Yet Chart I-1In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory In May, Global Stocks Nearly Fell Into Bear Market Territory May was a painful month for the equity market. Globally, stocks fell more than 4% in US$ terms, led by the US. May’s selloff pushed global stocks close to bear market territory relative to their early-January high (Chart I-1), a threshold that was breached in intra-day terms in the US last week. We warned in our April report that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and recommended that investors maintain, at most, a very modest overweight toward stocks in a global multi-asset portfolio. In our view, the economic and financial market developments that occurred over the past month are consistent with several of the risk we identified in our recent reports. We continue to recommend that investors remain minimally overweight risky assets. Our view that investors should not be underweight risky assets hinges on three expectations: the avoidance of a US recession over the coming year, a continuation of Russian natural gas exports to key gas-reliant European countries, and the announcement from Chinese policymakers of either significant additional stimulus in its traditional form or income-support policies of the type that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Confirmation of these expectations is likely to push us to upgrade our recommended stance toward risky assets, especially if equities continue to sell off in response to growth fears. Conversely, we are likely to recommend downgrading risky assets to neutral or underweight if evidence mounts that our expectations are unlikely to materialize. A US Recession Scare Is Underway We noted in last month’s report that the US economy would likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but that a recession scare was quite likely. We emphasized a probable slowdown in the housing market as the locus of investors’ recessionary concern, and the US housing market data is indeed now surprising significantly to the downside (Chart I-2). We see the performance of the equity market over the past month as reflecting the beginning of the recession scare that we warned was coming. Chart I-3 highlights that the composition of the US equity selloff since the beginning of the year has looked quite unlike the growth-driven selloffs that occurred over the past decade, in that real bond yields have been a strong driver of the decline in stocks. By contrast, May’s decline has looked more like a typical growth scare, with real bond yields somewhat cushioning the impact of a significant rise in the equity risk premium. Chart I-2The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing The US Housing Market Is Clearly Slowing Chart I-3May’s Selloff Was Driven By Growth Fears, Not Rising Interest Rates June 2022 June 2022   Chart I-4 highlights that it is not just the housing market that is worrying investors. The chart shows that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator (LEI) is slowing quite sharply, in line with previous episodes of a major growth scare. And while the weakest components of the LEI modestly improved on average in April, Chart I-5 highlights that the collapse in real wage growth alongside the recently severe underperformance of consumer stocks has fed concerns that high inflation has eroded household purchasing power – and that a contraction in real spending is imminent. Chart I-4A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway A Serious US Growth Scare Is Underway Chart I-5The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks The Decline In Real US Wage Growth Has Caused A Major Selloff In Consumer Stocks     In Section 2 of this month’s report we provide further analysis supporting the view that the US housing market will not drive the US economy into recession. But we do continue to believe that a slowdown in housing activity is likely, and that concerns about a housing-driven recession will linger. Still, several factors continue to suggest that the US is experiencing a recession scare, and not an actual recession: The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is currently predicting US real GDP growth that is only modestly below trend in Q2, and the overall estimate continues to be dragged significantly lower by a sizably negative contribution from the change in inventories (Chart I-6). Without this negative inventories effect, the Atlanta Fed’s model would be forecasting real annualized growth of over 3%. After having decelerated significantly in the second half of last year because of a broadening in consumer price inflation, Chart I-7 highlights that real personal consumption expenditures reaccelerated and real personal income ex-transfers stabilized in Q1. Chart I-6No Sign Of A Major Decline In Q2 Consumer Spending June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-7Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating Real Income Growth Is Stabilizing, And Real Consumer Spending Is Accelerating     US manufacturing industrial production surged in April, led by motor vehicle production (Chart I-8, panel 1). It is true that industrial production is a coincident indicator and thus does not necessarily argue against the idea that a recession is imminent. A pickup in vehicle production is encouraging, however, as it suggests that the 15% surge in the level of new car prices over the past year that contributed to the erosion in household real incomes may be set to reverse (panel 2). Chart I-8A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power A Pickup In Auto Production Should Help Lower Car Prices And Improve Consumer Purchasing Power Services spending is likely to improve, as deliveries of Pfizer’s Paxlovid antiviral drug continue to ramp up and vaccines are eventually approved for children under the age of six. Charts I-9A and I-9B highlight several real services spending categories that remain below their pre-pandemic levels, which in our view have been clearly linked to the pandemic and are not likely to be permanently lower. Americans have not likely stopped going to the gym, amusement parks, movies, live concerts, or the dentist, nor have their stopped needing to put elderly relatives in nursing care homes. They are also highly unlikely to stop traveling. There is some internal debate at BCA about the impact that working-from-home trends will have on the level of services spending, but we would note that essentially all of the spending categories shown in Charts I-9A and I-9B have exhibited uptrends that only appear to have been affected by consumer responses to the Delta and Omicron waves of the pandemic. Widely-available treatment options that reduce the fatality rate of the disease close to that of the flu are likely to be perceived by the public as an effective end of the pandemic, boosting spending on lagging categories of services spending. Chart I-9AAn Eventual End To The Pandemic… June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-9B…Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending ...Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending ...Will Cause A Further Improvement In Services Spending     Based on high-frequency data from OpenTable, the number of seated diners in US restaurants is not exhibiting any major warning signs for US consumer spending (Chart I-10). Real spending in restaurants has been strongly correlated with overall real personal consumption expenditures over the past two decades, and thus Chart I-10 is not suggesting that a collapse in overall spending is imminent. Chart I-10High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending High-Frequency Data Does Not Yet Show A Major Pullback In US Consumer Spending As a final point concerning the risk of recession in the US, investors should note that the recent behavior of inflation expectations is encouraging and points to a potentially imminent peak in Fed hawkishness. Over the past few months, we have expressed our concern about the pace of increase in long-dated household inflation expectations. We highlighted last month that long-term market-based inflation expectations were also exhibiting some potential signs of becoming unanchored. However, Chart I-11 highlights that the momentum of long-dated household inflation expectations is now starting to flag, and that long-term market-based inflation expectations recently decreased in response to escalating growth fears. Chart I-12 clearly shows a slowing pace of core consumer prices, which will act to restrain further significant increases in long-dated inflation expectations. Chart I-11Long-Dated Inflation Expectations Point To A Potentially Imminent Peak In Fed Hawkishness June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-12Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing Core Inflation Momentum Is Clearly Slowing     Chart I-13 highlights that investors expect the Fed to raise the policy rate by the end of the year to a level even higher than what Jerome Powell implied during the Fed’s May press conference: a target range for the Fed funds rate of 2.5-2.75%, corresponding to two more 50 basis point hikes and three 25 basis point hikes during the FOMC’s September, November, and December meetings. Chart I-13Expectations For Fed Rate Hikes This Year Are Likely To Come Down If Inflation Continues To Moderate June 2022 June 2022 It is likely that the market’s expectation for rate hikes this year will fall over the coming few months if the monthly pace of core inflation continues to slow. The Fed itself may soon signal a less intense pace of tightening than Powell recently implied – a perspective that we feel is supported by the minutes of the May FOMC meeting. That would allow the US economy to “digest” the recent adjustment in interest rates with less uncertainty about the economic outlook, which would lower the odds that a “mid-cycle slowdown” morphs into a full-blown recession. A Debilitating Energy-Driven Recession In Europe Is Not In The Cards, For Now The key issue pertaining to the European economic outlook remains the question of whether Europe’s imports of Russian natural gas will be interrupted. A European embargo of Russian oil now seems likely, which would likely cause Russian oil production to decline. Our Commodity & Energy strategy service now expects Brent oil to trade at $120/bbl on average for the remainder of the year, $5/bbl higher than current levels (Chart I-14). We agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s updated oil price forecast, but we have a different view about the odds that Russia will respond to a European oil embargo by cutting its natural gas exports to the EU. We still think this is a risk, not yet a likely event, although it may still occur later in the year. A full and immediate cutoff of natural gas exports to gas-dependent European countries such as Germany and Italy would not only destabilize the Russian economy by substantially reducing its current account surplus, it would also cause a severe recession in Europe through a combination of gas rationing to industries by government decree and surging energy prices (Chart I-15). Chart I-14A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl A European Embargo Of Russian Oil Will Cause Brent To Rise To $120/bbl Chart I-15A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession A Full Cutoff Of Russian Natural Gas Would Cause A Severe European Recession   That could erode European voters’ willingness to provide military support for Ukraine, but it could instead backfire and galvanize European public opinion against Russia – and remove leverage that may be potentially used to secure a ceasefire agreement that will preserve its military gains in eastern Ukraine. Chart I-16Europe Is Replenishing Its Gas Storage, But It Cannot Yet Withstand A Full Cutoff June 2022 June 2022 Russia may respond to an oil embargo by throttling the amount of natural gas exported to key European countries in a fashion that raises natural gas prices and prevents European countries from building up sufficient storage for the upcoming winter – a process that is underway but is far from complete (Chart I-16). But it remains an open question how forcefully Russia is willing to weaponize its natural gas exports, and whether it will deploy this strategy now or later. For now, our base case view is that the euro area economy will slow and will probably contract in Q2, but it will avoid a debilitating energy-driven recession. China: The Only Way Out Is Through Among the three pillars of the global economy – the US, China, and Europe – the last is arguably the least important. Today, the US and China are the core drivers of global demand, and we are therefore more concerned about the economic impact of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy than we are about a slowdown or mild recession in Europe. Given how contagious the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has shown itself to be, and given how widespread recent outbreaks have been, it is now clear that China’s zero-tolerance policy has failed to contain the disease and that more and more outbreaks will occur across the country over the coming months. Despite public statements to the contrary, we suspect that Chinese policymakers are well aware of this situation, but are constrained by the consequences of removing the zero-tolerance policy. Recent studies suggest that China could face intensive care demand that is sixteen times existing capacity and upwards of 1.5 million deaths by removing the policy,1 roughly 1.5 times the cumulative amount of deaths that have occurred in the US during the pandemic. But the economic consequences of maintaining the zero-tolerance policy will also be severe, and therefore also likely represent a constraint on policymakers. Charts I-17 and I-18 show that China’s labor market and industrial sector have already slowed sharply over the past few months, at a pace and magnitude that is unlikely to be politically sustainable for much longer. In addition, Chart I-19 shows that China’s credit impulse fell meaningfully in April. Chart I-17China’s Labor Market Is Cratering… China's Labor Market Is Cratering... China's Labor Market Is Cratering... Chart I-18…As Is Its Manufacturing Sector ... As Is Its Manufacturing Sector ... As Is Its Manufacturing Sector       Chart I-19More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread More Fiscal & Monetary Support Will Be Needed In China Soon, If COVID-19 Cases Continue To Spread This would be tolerable if the decline in activity was likely to be short-lived as it was at the very beginning of the pandemic, but we no longer see this as a probable outcome. We acknowledge that reported cases of COVID-19 have steadily declined in cities in the Yangtze River region, and we agree that the Shanghai lockdown may soon end for a time. But we doubt that this will mark the end of outbreaks in the region, or prevent major outbreaks from occurring in other parts of the country. If China cannot relax its zero-tolerance policy or tolerate the degree of economic weakness entailed by its continued application, then additional fiscal and monetary support is likely. While China’s leadership has stepped up its pro-growth policy measures, as evidenced by the recent cut in the 5-year loan prime rate, we strongly suspect that more support will be needed. This support may take the form of traditional stimulus via local government spending, or it may involve the introduction of income-support policies of the kind that prevailed in developed economies in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chart I-20The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies The Chinese Housing Market Is Slowing Significantly, Lowering The Risk Of Speculation From Income Support Policies Chinese policymakers who are eager to prevent another significant releveraging of the economy and who want to avoid another major deterioration in housing affordability may perhaps be forgiven for seeing the developed economy experience with these programs as a poor roadmap to follow. House prices have exploded in most advanced economies during the pandemic, which has significantly contributed to a major decline in affordability. However, with the benefit of hindsight, Chinese policymakers would likely be able to recalibrate any income support program to avoid some of the excesses that occurred in DM countries, such as policies that caused aggregate disposable income to increase in the US and Canada during the pandemic. In addition, Chart I-20 highlights that the starting point for the Chinese property market is one in which house prices are seemingly poised to contract at the worst pace since late 2014 / early 2015. The latter suggests that Chinese policymakers have more ability to support household income without causing an explosion in house prices and speculative activity than DM policymakers did in 2020. Regardless of its form, it is the view of the Bank Credit Analyst service that China cannot avoid the provision of significant additional fiscal/monetary support if it maintains its zero-tolerance COVID policy for the remainder of the year given our assumption that potentially major outbreaks will continue. It is our base case view that additional support is forthcoming over the coming weeks and months if the spread of the disease progresses as we expect. We are likely to downgrade our outlook for global economic activity as well as our recommended allocation to risky assets if it does not materialize. US Corporate Profits In A Nonrecessionary Slowdown Scenario Chart I-21US Forward Earnings Very Rarely Fall While The Economy Continues To Expand June 2022 June 2022 Chart I-3 highlighted that the US equity market selloff in May shifted from one that was strongly driven by rising real government bond yields to one in which a rising equity risk premium was the dominant driver. And yet, the chart showed that there has been no negative contribution to US stock prices from falling earnings expectations, with expected earnings having continued to rise since the beginning of the year. While it may seem counterintuitive to investors that forward earnings expectations are not falling in the middle of a major growth scare, Chart I-21 highlights that this is not abnormal. The chart highlights that forward earnings expectations rarely decline outside of the context of a recession, because actual earnings typically do not decline when the economy is expanding. This means that the potential for earnings to decline shows up as a rise in the equity risk premium during growth scares, which is what has generally occurred since the beginning of the year (excluding energy, forward EPS estimates have fallen slightly this year). In last month’s Section 2, we noted that nonrecessionary earnings declines almost always occur because of contractions in profit margins. We argued that risks to US equity margins might rise later this year. In fact, since we published our report last month, some of these risks have already materialized: our new profit margin warning indicator has jumped significantly (Chart I-22), and our sector profit margin diffusion index has fallen below the boom/bust line (Chart I-23). As such, it is now our view that a contraction in S&P 500 profit margins is likely over the coming year, which contrasts with analyst EPS growth expectations of 9.5% and sales per share growth expectations of 8% (meaning that analysts are currently forecasting a margin expansion). Chart I-22A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... A Contraction In S&P 500 Profit Margins... Chart I-23...Now Looks Likely ...Now Looks Likely ...Now Looks Likely     Will a likely contraction in profit margins cause an outright decline in earnings over the coming year? Investors should acknowledge that this is a risk, but for now our answer is no. Chart I-24For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable For Now, A Severe Contraction In Margins Does Not Seem Probable Taken at face value, our sector diffusion index shown in Chart I-23 suggests that profit margins are set to decline by 2 percentage points over the coming year, which would indeed imply a 7-8% contraction in earnings per share assuming 8% revenue growth. However, the index is much better at predicting inflection points in profit margins than the magnitude of the change; in several cases over the past three decades the model correctly predicted a decline in profit margins, but implied a much larger change in margins than what actually occurred. In addition, our model shown in Chart I-22 has yet to cross above the 50% mark into probable territory, and Chart I-24 highlights that net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are falling but have not yet reached levels that would be consistent with a major margin decline. In sum, we expect that S&P 500 earnings will grow at a low, single-digit rate over the coming year given our expectation of a nonrecessionary slowdown scenario. This implies that US equity returns will be uninspiring over the coming year, but they will be likely be positive and will likely beat the returns offered from bonds. Investment Strategy Recommendations Considerable uncertainty remains about the global economic and financial market outlook, and there are several identifiable risks that would warrant an underweight stance towards risky assets were they to materialize. We agree that an aggressively overweight stance is not justified. Chart I-25Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline Without A Recession, The US Equity Risk Premium Is Very Likely To Decline However, the fact that corporate profits do not usually fall while the economy is expanding underscores why investors should be reluctant to significantly cut their risky asset exposure unless a recession appears likely. Without a recession, the US equity risk premium is very likely to decline (Chart I-25), meaning that 10-year Treasury yields closer to 4% or a significant contraction in profit margins would be required for US stocks to post negative returns over the coming 6-12 months. We would not rule out either of these outcomes, but we also do not think that they are probable. To conclude, it is fair to say that global investors are not out of the woods yet, but we continue to recommend a marginally overweight stance towards risky assets on the basis that the US will avoid a recession over the coming year, Russia is not yet likely to push Europe into a debilitating recession, and China will further ease fiscal & monetary policy to support growth. In addition to a modest overweight towards stocks in a multi-asset portfolio, we continue to recommend the following: A neutral regional equity stance, with global ex-US equities on upgrade watch in response to an improvement in the European economic outlook and further fiscal & monetary support in China. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. As such, ex-US stocks have outperformed for the wrong reasons, and investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. A modestly overweight stance towards value over growth stocks on the basis of better valuation. However, most of the pandemic-related outperformance of growth stocks has already reversed (Chart I-26), suggesting that the outperformance of value is getting late. An overweight stance toward global small-cap stocks over their large-cap peers, as they are now unequivocally inexpensive and have remained resilient as global growth fears have intensified (Chart I-27). Chart I-26Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Modestly Favor Value Stocks Due To Better Valuation, But The COVID Effects On Equity Style Have Mostly Reversed Chart I-27Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap Small Cap Stocks Have Recently Proven Resilient, And Are Extremely Cheap   A modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Short US dollar positions, as the dollar is clearly benefiting from growth fears that will wane. In addition, the US dollar is very expensive, and extremely overbought. Concerning our recommended duration stance, we acknowledge that a slower pace of rate hikes than what investors currently expect and a slowing pace of inflation would normally argue for a long duration stance. But we do not expect the Fed to stop raising interest rates unless a recession seems likely, and a slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This, in turn, increases the odds that the Fed funds rate will peak at a higher level than investors currently expect, which should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. On balance, this suggests that investors should be modestly short duration, even if long-maturity bond yields move temporarily lower over the coming few months. Long-duration positions are perhaps reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon, but over a 6-12 month time horizon we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 26, 2022 Next Report: June 30, 2022 II.  Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession? The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused a sharp increase in US interest rates. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. In addition to a severe contraction in real home improvement spending, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. The growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, the breadth of house prices and building permits, consumer surveys, housing equity sector relative performance, and the fact that mortgage rates have likely peaked for the year point to a more optimistic outlook for housing. At a minimum, they do not yet suggest that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is recessionary. Structural factors are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US. While a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. The opposite is true: the US and several other developed market economies have underbuilt homes over the past decade. This should limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Chart II-1The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed's Hawkish Shift Has Caused An Extremely Sharp Rise In Interest Rates The Fed’s hawkish shift over the past six months has caused US interest rates to rise at an extremely rapid pace. Panel 1 of Chart II-1 highlights that the spread between the US 2-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield reached a 20-year high in early April of this year. Panel 2 shows that the two-year change in the 30-year mortgage rate will reach the highest level since the early 1980s by the end of this year if mortgage rates remain at their current level. Over the longer run, it is the level of interest rates that matters more than their change. However, changes in interest rates and other key financial market variables are also important drivers of economic activity, especially when they happen very rapidly. Given the speed of the recent adjustment in US interest rates, and the fact that the Fed funds rate will have likely reached the Fed’s neutral rate forecast by the end of this year, investors have understandably become concerned about the potential for a recession in the US. In this report we examine the US housing market for signs of an imminent recession, given the housing sector’s strong interest rate sensitivity. We conclude that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, several signs suggest that this slowdown is not recessionary. Investors should remain laser-focused on the pace of housing-related activity over the coming 6-12 months, but for now our assessment of the housing market is consistent with a modest overweight stance towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. A Brief Review Of The Housing Sector’s Contribution To Growth Table II-1 highlights the importance of the housing sector as a driver/predictor of US recessions. This table highlights that real residential investment is not a particularly important contributor to real GDP growth during nonrecessionary quarters, but it is the only main expenditure component exhibiting negative growth on average in the year prior to a recession.2 Table II-1Real Residential Investment Tends To Contract In The Year Prior To A Recession June 2022 June 2022 When examining the contribution to economic growth from the housing sector, investors and housing market analysts often fully equate real residential investment with housing construction. In fact, while direct construction of housing units accounts for a sizeable portion of the contribution to growth from housing, it is just one of four components. This is an important point, as one of the often-overlooked elements of real residential investment has strongly leading properties and is currently providing a very negative signal about the housing sector. Chart II-2 breaks down what we consider as aggregate real “housing-related activity”, and Chart II-3 presents the contributions to annualized quarterly growth in housing activity from the four components. For the sake of completeness, we include personal consumption expenditures on furnishings and household equipment as part of housing-related activity, alongside the two main components of real residential investment: permanent site construction (including single and multi-family properties), and “other structures.” In reality, “other structures” is not predominantly accounted for by the construction of different types of residential properties; it is almost entirely composed of spending on home improvements and brokerage commissions on the sale of existing residential properties. Chart II-2Housing Construction Is An Important Part Of Residential Investment, But There Are Other Contributing Factors June 2022 June 2022 Chart II-3Home Improvement Spending And Brokerage Commissions Also Drive Residential Investment June 2022 June 2022     Aside from the link between existing home sales and the general demand for newly-built homes, the prominence of brokerage commissions in other residential structures investment helps explain why existing home sales are strongly correlated with real residential investment (Chart II-4, panel 1). Given that a distributed lag of monthly housing starts maps closely to permanent site construction (panel 2), starts and existing home sales explain a good portion of the contribution to growth from housing-related activity. Of the two remaining components of housing-related activity, Chart II-5 highlights that personal consumption expenditures on furniture and household equipment generally coincide with the pace of housing construction and new home sales. We take this to mean that the consumption component of housing-related activity is typically a derivative of the decision to build a new home or sell an existing one. Chart II-4Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Existing Home Sales Explain Commissions, And Housing Starts Explain Permanent Site Construction Chart II-5The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying The Pace Of Contraction In Home Improvement Spending Is Worrying   What is not coincident with construction and existing home sales is residential home improvement: Panel 2 of Chart II-5 highlights that it has strongly leading properties, and is currently contracting at its worst rate since the 2008 recession. Data on real home improvement spending is only available quarterly from 2002, so the ability to compare the current situation to previous housing market cycles is limited. But the pace of contraction is worrying and underscores that investors should be on the lookout for corroborating signs of a major contraction in the housing market. Is The Housing Data Sending A Recessionary Signal? In addition to the severe contraction in real home improvement spending shown in Chart II-5, there are several other housing-related indicators that are ostensibly pointing in a bearish direction. In particular, Chart II-6 highlights that both the growth in total home sales and the MBA mortgage application purchase index are already in negative territory, that housing affordability has deteriorated meaningfully, and that the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) housing market index is falling sharply. However, there are also several signs pointing to a more optimistic outlook for housing, or at least indicating that the current slowdown in housing-related activity is not recessionary. We review these more optimistic indicators below. The Breadth Of House Prices And Building Permits In sharp contrast to previous periods of serious housing market weakness and/or recessionary periods, there is no sign yet of a major slowdown in US house price appreciation including cities with the weakest gains. In fact, Chart II-7 highlights that house prices have recently been reaccelerating on a very broad basis after having slowed in the second half of last year, which hardly bodes poorly for new home construction. Chart II-6A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway A US Housing Sector Slowdown Is Certainly Underway Chart II-7No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices No Sign Yet Of A Major Deceleration In House Prices   It is true that US house price data is somewhat lagging, so it is quite likely that price weakness is forthcoming. However, there has been no sign of a major slowdown in prices through to March 2022, by which point 30-year mortgage rates had already risen 200 basis points from their 2021 low. More importantly, Chart II-8 highlights that a state-by-state diffusion index of authorized housing permits has done a very good job at leading the growth in permits nationwide, and is currently not pointing to a contraction in activity. Chart II-9 presents explanatory models for the growth in US housing starts and total home sales based on our state permits diffusion index, pending home sales, the change in mortgage rates, and housing affordability. The chart underscores that a contraction in housing activity is not what these variables would predict, even though starts and sales should be growing at a much more modest pace than what has prevailed on average over the past two years. Chart II-8Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Our Building Permits Diffusion Index Leads Housing Construction Activity, And Is Not Pointing To A Major Slowdown Chart II-9Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome Reliably Leading Indicators Of Construction And Home Sales Do Not Point To A Recessionary Outcome     Consumer Surveys The University of Michigan consumer survey shows that consumers feel it is the worst time to buy a home since the early-1980s (Chart II-10), which seems like a clearly negative sign for the housing market and an indication of the likely impact of tighter policy on housing-related activity. And yet, panel 2 highlights that this is the result of the fact that house prices in the US have surged during the pandemic, not that mortgage rates have risen too high. It is true that the number of survey respondents citing “interest rates are too high” is rising sharply, but this factor as a share of all “bad time to buy” reasons given is not meaningfully higher than it was in 2018, 2011, or 2006. It is clear that high prices are also the culprit for why consumers report that it is a bad time to buy large household durables and not that large household durables are unaffordable or that interest rates are too high (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Nearly The Worst Time To Buy A Home, Mostly Due To Prices (Not Interest Rates) Chart II-11Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables Same Story For Large Household Durables   It may seem counterintuitive for investors to see Charts II-10 and II-11 as in any way positive for the housing market. But, to us, the notion that elevated house prices are the main source of poor affordability supports the idea that a normalization of the housing market will occur through a combination of marginally lower demand, a slower pace of house price appreciation, and a sustained pace of housing market construction. This implies that existing home sales may be weaker than housing construction over the coming year, but the latter will help to support the contribution to overall economic growth from housing-related activity. Housing Sector Relative Performance Despite the significant slowdown in real home improvement spending and the recent decline in the NAHB’s housing market index, Chart II-12 highlights that home improvement retail and homebuilding stocks have not exhibited significantly negative abnormal returns over the past year – as they did in 1994/1995 and in the lead up to the global financial crisis. The chart, which presents a rolling 1-year “Jensen’s alpha” measure for both industries, attempts to capture the risk-adjusted performance of the industry versus the S&P 500. While the chart shows that both industries have generated negative alpha over the past year, the magnitude does not appear to be consistent with a recession. In the case of homebuilder stocks in particular, negative abnormal returns over the past year should have been meaningfully worse given the year-over-year change in mortgage rates. Chart II-13 highlights that homebuilder performance has not been cushioned by a deep valuation discount in advance of the rise in mortgage rates. Chart II-12Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Housing-Related Equity Sectors Are Not Warning Of A Housing-Driven Recession Chart II-13Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked Homebuilders Were Not Excessively Cheap Before Mortgage Rates Spiked   In short, the important takeaway for investors is that the relative performance of housing-related stocks is not yet consistent with a housing-led US recession. Mortgage Rates Are Not Restrictive, And Have Likely Peaked As we highlighted in Chart II-1, the two-year change in the US 30-year conventional mortgage rate will be the largest in history by the end of this year, save the Volcker era, if the mortgage rate remains at its current level. However, it is not just the change in interest rates that matters for economic activity, but rather also the level. Encouragingly, Chart II-14 highlights that the level of mortgage rates has not yet risen into restrictive territory relative to the economy’s underlying potential rate of growth. In addition, it appears that mortgage rates have overreacted to the expected pace of monetary tightening – and thus have likely peaked for this year. Two points support this view: First, panel 2 of Chart II-14 highlights that the 30-year mortgage rate is one standard deviation too high relative to the 10-year Treasury yield, underscoring that the former has overshot. And second, Chart II-15 highlights that the mortgage rate is still too high even after controlling for business cycle expectations, current coupon MBS yields, and bond & equity market volatility. Chart II-14Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Mortgage Rates Are Not Yet Restrictive, But Have Likely Peaked For The Year Chart II-15No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched No Matter How You Slice It, US Mortgage Rates Are Stretched   Structural Factors Supporting Housing Construction Chart II-16The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis The US And Several Other DM Countries Have Underbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Our analysis above points to a scenario in which the housing market slows in a nonrecessionary fashion, supported by relatively buoyant construction activity. Structural factors, which are mostly a legacy of the global financial crisis, are also supportive of the pace of housing construction in the US and other developed market economies. We presented Chart II-16 in our June 2021 Special Report, which shows the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies: the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1) and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or a flat trend (panel 2). The US, along with the euro area, the UK, and Japan, all belong to the first group, with commodity-producing and Scandinavian countries belonging to the second group. The point of the chart is that the US and most other major DM economies have seemingly experienced a chronic undersupply of homes in the wake of the global financial crisis, which should continue to support housing construction activity even if demand for housing is slowing because of a sharp increase in mortgage rates. Given that the trend in real residential investment to GDP is a somewhat crude metric of housing supply, Chart II-17 presents a more precise measure for the US. It shows the standardized trend in permanent site residential structures investment (both single- and multi-family) relative to both the US population and the number of households. The chart makes it clear that the US vastly overbuilt homes from the late-1990s to 2007, but also vastly underbuilt since 2008. Relative to the number of households, real permanent site residential structures investment is still half of a standard deviation below its long-term average – even after the surge in construction that occurred in 2020. Chart II-18 highlights a similar message: it shows that the US homeowner vacancy rate (the proportion of the housing stock that is vacant and for sale) was at a 66-year low at the end of the first quarter. Chart II-19 shows that the monthly supply of existing one-family homes on the market is also at a multi-decade low, but that the supply of new homes for sale spiked in April. Chart II-17More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses More Precise Home Supply Measures Underscore That The US Needs To Build More Houses Chart II-18The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Extremely Low     At first blush, this spike in the monthly supply of new homes relative to sales is quite concerning, as it has risen back to levels that prevailed in 2007. One point to note is that the increase in new home inventory relates to homes still under construction; the inventory of completed homes for sale remains quite low. In addition, from the perspective of a homebuilder, a rise in the monthly supply of new homes relative to home sales is only concerning if it translates into a significant increase in the amount of time to sell a completed home, as has historically been the case (Chart II-20). Chart II-19Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Existing Home Inventories Remain Low Relative To Sales... Chart II-20...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes ...And Higher New Home Inventories Are Not Affecting Time-To-Sale Of Completed Homes   Chart II-20 highlights that a fairly significant divergence between these two series has emerged over the past decade. Despite roughly five-six months’ supply of new home inventory on average since 2012, the median number of months required to sell a new home rarely exceeded four. In early-2019 the monthly supply of new homes also spiked, and a relatively modest and nonrecessionary slowdown in housing starts was sufficient to prevent any meaningful rise in the amount of time required to sell a newly completed home. Notably, the models that we presented in Chart II-9 led the slowdown in total home sales and starts in late-2018/early-2019, and they are not pointing to a major contraction today. The key point for investors is that while a slowdown in the housing market is clearly underway, it is not occurring after a period of excessive housing construction. In fact, the opposite is true: despite a surge in construction during the pandemic, it remains below its historical average relative to the population and especially the number of households. This should act to limit the drag on economic growth from housing-related activity, and therefore reduces the odds that a housing market slowdown will morph into a housing-driven US recession. Investment Implications We noted in our May report that the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set a recessionary tone to any weakness in US macroeconomic data, and that a recession scare was likely. Recent negative housing market data surprises underscore that a slowdown in the US housing market is clearly underway, and that this will likely feed recessionary concerns for a time. Investors should continue to be highly focused on the evolution of US macro data when making asset allocation decisions over the coming 6-12 months, as the current economic and financial market environment remains highly uncertain. This should include a strong focus on the housing market, as consumer surveys highlight that the overall impact of falling real wages and high house prices could cause a more pronounced slowdown in housing-related activity than we expect – and that the change and level of interest rates would imply. Nevertheless, our analysis of the historical predictors of housing construction and sales points to the conclusion that the ongoing housing market slowdown is not likely to be recessionary in nature. This, in conjunction with the factors that we noted in Section 1 of our report, support maintaining a modest overweight towards stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators generally paint a pessimistic picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is at its weakest level in almost three decades, and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still expensive. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have broken down, and have not yet reached levels that would indicate an imminent reversal. Investors should be, at most, very modestly overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Equity earnings will likely rise over the coming year if the US economy avoids a recession (as we expect), but analysts are pricing in too much growth over the coming year. A contraction in profit margins is now likely, signaling that earnings will grow at a low single-digit pace. Net earnings revisions are falling, but are not yet signaling a large enough decline in margins that would cause earnings to contract even in the face of positive revenue growth. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral regional equity allocation. The recent passive outperformance of global ex-US stocks has occurred mainly because US stocks have fallen more than global stocks, which have “caught up” to mounting US and global growth fears. Investors should wait for durable signs of an improving global growth outlook and a falling US dollar before shifting in favor of a global ex-US equity stance. Within a fixed-income portfolio, long-duration positions are reasonable on a 0-3 month time horizon given that 10-year Treasurys are significantly oversold. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend a modestly short stance. A slower but steady path of tightening, in conjunction with easing inflation, makes it more likely that the US economy will be able to “digest” the recent adjustment in rates without tipping into recession. This should ultimately push long-maturity yields higher rather than lower. Our composite technical indicator for commodity prices continues to highlight that commodities are overbought. Still, the geopolitical situation continues to favor higher energy prices, as a seemingly imminent European oil embargo against Russia will likely lower Russian oil production.  Additional fiscal & monetary support in China is likely to cause a renewed rally in industrial metals, although they may fall in the nearer-term as COVID-19 cases continue to spread across China. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals prices given that Russia’s aggression has sped up Europe’s decarbonization timeline. US and global LEIs remain in positive territory but have now rolled over significantly from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index is now rising, which may herald a stabilization in our global LEI. Manufacturing PMIs are falling in the US and globally, but have not yet fallen below the boom/bust line and are far from levels normally consistent with a recession. 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 Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Cai, J. . et al., Modeling Transmission Of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in China, Nature Medicine. May 10, 2022. 2     This is aside from the contribution to growth from imports, which mechanically subtract from consumption and investment when calculating GDP.

Chart 1 From Hero To Zero From Hero To Zero The S&P Media & Entertainment (M&E) index remains under fire due to its exposure to high beta names like GOOG(L), NFLX, FB, and DIS. These four companies dominate the industry group, comprising nearly 80% of the market cap. Initially, the group pulled back as a victim of stretched valuations, unreasonable growth expectations, and a broad ruckus within Big Tech on the back of the swift tightening of financial conditions (see chart). Notably, the M&E index’s forward P/E multiple contracted by nearly 50% moving from 30x to 16.7x in absolute terms, and now trading on par with the S&P 500. It may appear that these stocks have sold off, technicals are attractive, and valuations are no longer a concern. However, we are concerned that the M&E stocks are actually more expensive than they appear: Earnings are likely to come under more pressure. Netflix and Disney are consumer stocks, with entertainments falling under the discretionary column of a family budget.  With American families struggling with rising prices and negative real wage growth, discretionary spending may be curtailed. As for the other media companies, like FB, Alphabet, and their less famous brethren, SNAP earnings have just flashed a warning sign: Advertising spending is highly economically sensitive and is often one of the first expenses companies cut back on when tightening the belt. Therefore, it appears, that the M&E industry group is not out of the woods yet and is likely to face even more challenges over the next several months.  As such, we recommend using the next bear market rally to lighten the allocation. Sell the rip! Bottom Line: The sector's high exposure to discretionary spending and high economic sensitivity of advertising expenditures point to continued earnings disappointment. Today, we downgrade the S&P Media & Entertainment industry group from overweight to neutral, with an eye on eventually taking the allocation to underweight.

Executive Summary Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Complementing the US Political Strategy Quantitative Presidential And Senate Election Models, we introduce our Quantitative House Of Representatives Election Model. Our House election model measures the expected change in seats that will be won or lost by the incumbent party (Democratic Party) in the midterm election. The model predicts that Democrats will lose 21 seats, giving up control of the House and resulting in political gridlock from 2023 to 2025 even if the Democrats somehow hold onto the Senate. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting is effectively over. In a last ditch effort, Democrats will look to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Post-midterm, financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that should warrant investors taking a defensive position. ​​​ Asset Initiation Date Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 2022-02-23 6.1% Bottom Line: Stay tactically defensive until US election risk subsides and global macro risks stabilize.     The 2020 US election was hotly contested and future elections, like the upcoming 2022 midterm election, will be closely watched by investors. BCA’s US Political Strategy has introduced two quantitative models over the past year that aim to predict both the Presidential election in 2024 and the Senate election in 2022.  In this report we introduce our House election model, so that we now provide readers with a quantitative model-based estimate for all three major US elections. With the 2022 midterms scheduled for November 8, our House model provides valuable insight into control of Congress in 2023-24. In the 2020 election the Democrats held onto the House while winning the Senate and the White House – the so-called “Blue Sweep.” But the Democrats lost 13 House seats while the GOP gained 14, leaving a mere five-seat margin for President Biden today (221 versus 208 seats today, with six vacancies). In 2022, markets expect Republicans to take control of the House and Senate given the well-established pattern that the president’s party performs badly in midterm elections.1 Our House model agrees, and points to the Democrats losing 21 seats later this year. The Model And Variables Our House model uses a simpler modelling approach than our Presidential and Senate models. Unlike those two models, we do not predict any state level outcomes, nor do we assign a probability to any predictions. For starters, House elections do not occur at the state level but rather at the level of congressional districts. Secondly, we are primarily interested in the overall control of the House rather than individual elections. Therefore our model predicts the number of seats the incumbent party will lose or gain (seat swing), and hence its control of the House.  Our model is based off a simple linear regression. Uniquely, in our suite of three models, our House model does not include any economic variables. Rather, the model is based off three independent political variables that explain our dependent variable. Due to data constraints on one of our independent variables, our sample size is limited to 20 observable House elections, from 1982-2020. Our model is defined as: Change In House Seatsi= β0+β1Var1i+β2Var2i+β3Var3i+εi Change In House Seats. This is the dependent variable in the model and what we aim to predict. A negative change means the incumbent party will lose seats while a positive change means the incumbent party will win seats. Congressional approval (Var1). This variable measures the public’s approval rating on “how congress is doing its job.” We take the average net approval rating (approval less disapproval) in an election year. A positive net rating supports the incumbent party in gaining seats while a negative rating does the opposite.  Generic congressional ballot (Var2). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress in a given election. We take the average net support rate in an election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). The larger the president’s party’s deficit on the generic ballot rate, the more House seats it tends to lose. Defending House seats (Var3). The last independent variable is inspired by work from Sabato’s Crystal Ball.2 This measures the number of House seats defended by the incumbent president’s party in an election year. The more seats to defend, the more seats tend to be lost. One variable we omitted is presidential approval. Readers might find this surprising as presidential job approval ratings have tended to correlate reasonably well with House seats gained and lost in midterm elections. Our reason for excluding this variable is that three explanatory variables explain a high degree of variation in the dependent variable. Combined, our three variables explain more than 80% of the variation in the dependent variable. This is more than satisfactory from a statistical standpoint and keeps the model simplistic in nature. Democrats To Lose The House As it stands, our election model predicts that Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022 (Table 1). The Democrats are predicted to lose 21 seats. This prediction is based off current values of our independent variables as calculated and shown below. For the number of defending House seats, we allocate two of three vacant seats to the Democrats to defend.3 This adds up to 224 seats. Table 1Quant Model Predicts A Democrat Loss Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model For this report, we are only concerned with election outcomes pertaining to midterm elections. In this regard, our model’s prediction is in line with historical outcomes for the president’s party (Chart 1). That is, the president’s party almost always loses House seats in a midterm election. While our model does not provide any probability measure for the predicted outcome, it is in line with market expectations that Democrats will lose the House later in the year. Currently, market implied odds for the Democrats to retain the House are just 16%, as opposed to 87% for Republicans to gain control (Chart 2). Most other private forecasts for the House also point to Democrats losing control.4  Chart 1Quant Model Prediction Vs. Past Outcomes Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart 2Republicans Overwhelmingly Favored To Take The House Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Back Testing Our Model Chart 3In-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Our House model performs well during in-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1982-2020) but show results for midterm election outcomes only. Our model correctly predicted the direction of seat change (positive or negative) for 80% of outcomes, missing the direction of seat swing for just the 1998 and 2002 midterm elections (Chart 3). The latter two elections are the only two in the post-WWII period in which the president’s party gained seats and this was due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. the Dotcom Bubble and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). During this same test, when our model correctly predicted the directional change in seat swing, it only over-predicted the change once (in 1986), highlighting a more conservative forecast over time. In 2022, given the stagflationary economic backdrop and President Biden’s weak approval rating, the voting public may very well punish the Democrats harder in November than our model expects. Chart 4Out-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2002-2018, comprising of just five midterm elections. Our model correctly predicts the direction of seat swing in 80% of the midterm elections, just like our in-sample testing showed (Chart 4). 2002 is again a standout election where our model incorrectly predicted the direction of seat swing. Closing In On Election Day The midterm election is approximately five months away. Our Senate model predicts the Democrats will lose control of the Senate. Our House model suggests Democrats will lose the lower chamber too. This view is in line with the consensus across markets, forecasters, and historical outcomes. Given the poor showing by Democrats in the 2020 House election, this House prediction will be hard to change. The Senate race could still see some surprises, such as via the Supreme Court. But all in all the “Blue Sweep” of 2020 is already over. The headwinds against the president’s party have gained even more momentum in the context of high inflation, falling consumer confidence, and low real wages. These factors were not measured in our model, but they do form a basis for voting intentions in elections. Coupled with President Biden’s low approval ratings, in general and in specific policy areas like the economy, the Democratic party will need to pull off  a political “Hail Mary” to retain the Senate, let alone the House, later this year. Investment Takeaways President Biden and the Democrats may look to the 1934, 1962, 1998, and 2002 elections for proof that the ruling party can perform well in the midterms. But 1998 was a period of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity, while 2002 came in the wake of a historic attack on the homeland. The 1934 election reinforced a crisis-era government and as such could serve as a model for Biden, but today’s situation is not as dire as the Great Depression. The 1962 analogy is perhaps the best, since Biden, like President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, could conceivably benefit from an escalating showdown with Russia this fall. But Kennedy’s Democrats still lost a net of four seats in the House that year – and Kennedy’s approval rating was above 60% while Biden’s is barely 40%. COVID-19 was an unprecedented shock that continues to play out across the economic and political environment in the US. But while the Republicans suffered from the pandemic itself, the Democrats now own the stagflationary aftermath. Democratic enthusiasm should revive a bit from now until the election, but it would take a massive shock to reverse the general trend. There is a strong correlation between opinion polling in the beginning of the year and the midterm election results. Facing a shellacking, Democrats will make one last-ditch effort to pass a budget reconciliation bill before the election. Given the energy crisis in Europe, there is potential for Biden’s renewable energy subsidies to be repackaged into a general “energy security” bill that drops the former hostility to fossil fuels. This could be matched with limited tax changes, including the 15% minimum corporate tax rate that Biden negotiated with other countries. Otherwise US fiscal policy will virtually freeze even if the Senate stays in Democratic hands. Taxes will no longer be able to rise from 2023 but spending will not be subject to cuts. Heading into 2024, gridlock will be reinforced by our presidential quant election model’s slightly higher odds of Democrats retaining the White House, which we think are underestimated at present. Hence Biden is lined up to retain veto power even if Democrats squander the House and Senate in 2022, as long as his administration avoids a recession. Financial markets will see gridlock as a marginal positive in 2023, as long as inflation levels off. In the very near term, however, US equities still face formidable hurdles that will keep us on the sidelines. Global growth is wobbly. Global supply chains remain constrained, affecting growth outcomes and adding to elevated price levels. China’s zero-covid policy and the absence of a credible plan for US-China tariff reduction and economic re-engagement continue to weigh on sentiment. Fed rate hikes are still generating uncertainty. The Middle East is unstable and likely to bring additional energy supply disruptions. Lastly, the Russia-Ukraine war has yet to come to a ceasefire and Russia is likely to reduce energy supplies to Europe in retaliation for Germany’s energy ban and NATO enlargement. With this backdrop in mind, we remain tactically defensive. We see the potential for improvement after the US election brings a reduction in policy uncertainty – as long as geopolitical risks and inflation also stabilize.   Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious to read through our model’s estimated regression coefficients as well as conditional forecasts given certain levels of our independent variables. These are discussed herein: Regression Coefficients As mentioned earlier, our model is estimated exclusively by political variables. The beta coefficients for the three explanatory variables are shown below alongside their t-statistics and p-values. All three of these variables tested statistically significant at 5% and 10% levels. The regression’s R-squared value is 0.8183, meaning that the explanatory variables help explain 81.83% of the variation in the dependent variable (Table A1). Clients can recreate the model’s prediction by multiplying the current level of each variable as it stands today by that variable’s respective beta coefficient and adding the constant at the end of the equation. Be sure to follow the methodology explained earlier in the text if such an exercise is of interest. Also, conditional forecasts can be created by holding certain parameters constant should clients want to better understand what differing levels of the three explanatory variables may imply for the change in House seats. Table A1Regression Coefficients Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Conditional Forecasts We will create simple conditional forecasts for two explanatory variables. Let’s start with the net congressional approval variable. Forecasts will be generated with data intervals calculated over the course of President Biden’s first term in office so far. The lowest net congressional approval rating was -67 ppt and the highest was -25 ppt. We will use 10 ppt intervals between -20 ppt an -70 ppt. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Table A2Conditional Forecasts Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model In Table A2, we hold our other explanatory variables constant at their prevailing levels while we assume differing levels for the net congressional approval variable. We will apply this method to conditional forecasts using the net generic congressional ballot. Table A2 shows us that a more negative net congressional approval rate suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Of course, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat (only whole seats), but this conditional forecast illustrates the point of the variable’s impact on the overall outcome. Table A3Conditional Forecasts Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Changing to the net generic congressional ballot, our conditional forecast for values ranging from -2 ppt to + 5 ppt are shown in Table A3. This range shows the high and low of the net generic congressional ballot through President Biden’s first term in office. Shading indicates the current level for the variable input. Like before, the results in Table A3 shows us that a more negative net generic congressional ballot suggests the president’s party will lose more House seats. Again, the Democrats cannot lose a fraction of a seat. But the results in Table A3 show that changes in House seats are more sensitive to changes in the net generic congressional ballot variable compared to the net congressional approval variable. This is due to two reasons: The net generic congressional ballot variable is a strong predictor of House election outcomes. It’s larger beta value indicates it’s high degree of sensitivity for the dependent variable, implying that it is the most important variable in our model, and that changes to it have the largest impact on the modelled outcome, that is predicted changes in House seats.   Footnotes 1     See The American Presidency Project. "Seats in Congress Gained/Lost by the President's Party in Mid-Term Elections," October 29, 2018. presidency.ucsb.edu 2     See Kyle Kondik, “The Kinds of Seats that Flip in Midterms,” Sabato’s Crystal Ball, May 11, 2022, UVA Center For Politics, centerforpolitics.org. 3    For our 2022 prediction, we allocate vacant House seats evenly between Democrats and Republicans. For example, if there are six vacant seats, each party will be allocated three seats to defend on top of the House seats that they already occupy. If there are an odd number of vacant seats, for example three, each party will receive one seat added to their count, then the incumbent party will receive the remaining seat. 4    See fivethirtyeight.com, 270towin.com and racetowh.com, among others. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A3US Political Capital Index Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart A1Presidential Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model ​​​​​​​ Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative House Election Model ​​​​​​​