Yield Curve

This week we present our Portfolio Allocation Summary for October 2022.

Executive Summary Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues In this report, we discuss our move last week to shift to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in more detail. Our strongest conviction view on developed market government bonds is underweighting US Treasuries. The outcome of last week’s FOMC meeting, where the Fed committed to a rapid shift to restrictive US monetary policy, supports that position. Our strongest conviction overweight is on Japan, with the Bank of Japan both willing and able to maintain its cap on longer-term JGB yields. We are also overweight countries where it will be difficult for central banks to lift rates as much as markets expect – core Europe, Australia and Canada. The explosion in UK bond yields, and collapse of the British pound, seen after last week’s UK “mini-budget” shows that investors have not lost the power to punish fiscal and monetary policies that are non-credible - like a massive debt-financed tax cut at a time of high inflation. As a result, the Bank of England will now be forced to raise rates much more than we had been expecting, and Gilts will remain extremely volatile in the near-term. Bottom Line: Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. Stay underweight US Treasuries. Upgrade exposure to government bonds in Japan and Canada to overweight, but tactically downgrade UK Gilts to underweight until a more market-friendly policy mix leads to greater stability of the British pound. Feature We shifted our recommended stance on overall global portfolio duration to below-benchmark in a Special Alert published last week. In this report, we go into the rationale for that move in more detail, and present specific details of that shift in terms of allocations by country across the various yield curves. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyReduce Global Portfolio Duration To Below-Benchmark The global inflation and monetary policy backdrops remain toxic for bond markets. Last week saw interest rate increases from multiple developed economy central banks, including the Fed and Bank of England (BoE). The magnitudes of the rate hikes unnerved bond investors, with even the likes of perennial low yielders like the Swiss National Bank and Riksbank lifting rates by 75bps and 100bps, respectively. The Fed followed up its own 75bp hike by digging in its heels on the need for additional policy tightening after the 300bps of hikes already delivered this year (Chart 1). Fed Chair Jerome Powell strongly hinted that a policy-induced US recession is likely the only way to return overshooting US inflation back to the Fed’s 2% target. This triggered a breakout of the benchmark US 10-year Treasury yield above 3.5%. But the real fireworks in global bond markets occurred after the UK government announced its “mini-budget” last Friday that included massive tax cuts to be funded by debt issuance, triggering a sharp decline in the British Pound and spike in UK Gilt yields – a move that spilled over into other bond markets, pushing government bond yields to cyclical highs in the US and euro area. Chart 1Central Banks Keep Trying To “Out-Hawk” Each Other The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues Chart 2Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation We had been anticipating another move upward in global bond yields for this cycle, and we shifted to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in advance of the Fed and BoE meetings last week. We see this next move higher in yields as being driven not by rising inflation expectations but by an upward repricing of interest rate expectations, leading to additional increases in real bond yields (Chart 2). Trying to pick a top in bond yields has now become a game of forecasting the level to which policy rates must rise in the current global monetary tightening cycle. On that front, there is still scope for rate expectations, and bond yields, to move higher in most developed market countries, justifying our downgrade of our recommended overall duration exposure to below-benchmark. Shifting rate expectations also lead to the changes in country bond allocations we announced last week. Rate Expectations And Country Bond Allocations Our proxy for medium-term nominal terminal rate expectations in developed market countries, the 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap (OIS) rate, has been tracking 10-year bond yields very closely in the US and UK and, to a lesser extent, Europe (Chart 3). In those regions, the OIS curves are pricing in an increasing medium-term level of policy rates, leading to markets repricing government bond yields higher. In the US, the OIS curve is pricing in a 2023 peak for the fed funds rate of 4.67%, but with only a modest path of rate cuts in 2024 and 2025, leading to a 5-year/5-year OIS projection of 3.36% as of Monday’s market close. After the Gilt market rout, the UK OIS curve is now pricing in a 2023 peak Bank Rate over 6%, with our medium-term nominal rate proxy settling at 3.69%. In the euro area, the OIS curve is discounting a 2023 peak in the ECB policy rate of 3.22%, with a 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate of 2.7%. For all three of those regions, the market is now pricing in the highest peak in rates for the current tightening cycle. That is not the case in Canada or Australia, where rate expectations and longer-term bond yields are still below cyclical peaks (Chart 4). Japan remains the outlier, with the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control keeping 10-year JGB yields capped at 0.25%, even with the Japan OIS curve pricing in a medium-term terminal rate of 0.75%. Chart 3Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Chart 4Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights After looking at all the repricing of interest rate expectations and bond yields, we can determine our preferred government bond allocations within our strategic model bond portfolio framework. The US Remains Our Favorite Government Bond Underweight The new set of interest rate forecasts (“the dots”) presented at last week’s Fed meeting showed that the median FOMC member was forecasting the fed funds rate to rise to 4.4% by the end of 2022 and 4.6% by the end of 2023, before falling to 3.9% and 2.9% and the end of 2024 and 2025, respectively. Those are all significant increases from the June dots, where the expectations called for the funds rate to hit 3.4% by end-2022 and 3.8% by end-2023. The median Fed forecasts are now broadly in line with the pricing in the US OIS curve for 2022-2024, although the market expects higher rates than the FOMC in 2025 (Chart 5). Chart 5USTs Still Vulnerable To Additional Fed Hawkish Surprises The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues There has been a lot of back and forth between the Fed and the markets this year, but the market has generally lagged the Fed interest rate projections for 2023 and 2024 before last week. Market pricing is now in line with the Fed dots, as investors have adjusted to the increasingly hawkish message from Fed officials that are focused solely on slowing growth, and tightening financial conditions, in an effort to bring US inflation down. We see the US Treasury curve as still vulnerable to additional hawkish messaging from the Fed, and a potentially higher-than-anticipated peak in the funds rate versus the FOMC dots. The US consumer is facing a lot of headwinds from higher interest rates and rising food and gasoline prices. However, the latter has fallen 26% from the June 13/2022 peak and is acting as a “tax cut” that also helps reduce US inflation expectations (Chart 6). Consumer confidence measures like the University of Michigan expectations survey have already shown improvement alongside the fall in gas prices, which has boosted real income expectations according to the New York Fed’s Consumer Survey (bottom panel). Even a subtle improvement in consumer confidence due to some easing of inflation expectations can help support a somewhat faster pace of consumer spending at a time of robust labor demand and accelerating wage growth. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is now growing at a year-over-year pace of 5.7%, while the ratio of US job openings to unemployed workers remains near a record high (Chart 7). Fed Chair Powell has noted that the Fed must see significant weakening of the US jobs market for the Fed to consider pausing on its current rate hike path. So far, there is little evidence pointing to a loosening of US labor market conditions that would ease domestically-generated inflation pressures. Chart 6Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Chart 7A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish Chart 8Stay Underweight US Treasuries Stay Underweight US Treasuries Stay Underweight US Treasuries We expect overall US inflation to decelerate next year on the back of additional slowing of goods inflation, but will likely settle in the 3-4% range in 2023 given stubbornly sticky services inflation and wage growth. The Fed should follow through on its current interest rate projections, with a good chance that rates will need to be pushed up even higher in response to resilient labor market conditions in the first half of 2023. The risk/reward still favors higher US Treasury yields over at least the next 3-6 months, particularly with an improving flow of US data surprises and with bond investor duration positioning now much closer to neutral according to the JPMorgan client survey (Chart 8). Bottom Line: The US remains our highest conviction strategic government bond underweight in the developed markets. Recommended Allocations In Other Countries The path for monetary policy rates outside the US shows a similar profile as in the US, with a “front loading” of rate hikes to mid-2023 followed by modest rate cuts over the subsequent two years (Chart 9). The OIS-implied path for the level of rates is nearly identical in the US, Australia and Canada. On the other hand, markets are discounting much lower of levels of policy rates in Europe and Japan compared to the US, and a considerably higher path for rates in the UK (more on that in the next section). Chart 9Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes We would lean against the US-like pricing of interest rates in Australia and Canada. Based on work we published in a recent Special Report along with our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, the neutral real interest rate (“r-star”) is estimated to be deeply negative in Australia and Canada after adjusting for the high level of non-financial debt in those countries (Table 1). That financial fragility makes it much less likely that the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia can raise rates as much as the Fed. Table 1Some Big Swings In Our R* Estimates When Including Debt The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues US-like interest rates would almost certainly trigger a major downturn in house prices and household wealth given the inflated housing values in those two countries – the growth of which is already slowing rapidly in response to rate hikes delivered in 2022. We are maintaining our overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds, while we upgraded Canada to overweight from neutral after last week’s duration downgrade. Chart 10Move To Overweight Japan Move To Overweight Japan Move To Overweight Japan We are also staying overweight on German and French government bonds, as the ECB is unlikely to deliver the full extent of rate increases discounted in the European OIS curve. Our estimated debt-adjusted r-star is also quite negative in the euro area, suggesting that financial fragility issues (due to high government debt in Italy and high corporate debt in France) will likely limit the ECB’s ability to continue with recent chunky rate increases for much longer. In Japan, we continue to view JGBs as an “anti-duration” instrument, given the Bank of Japan’s persistence in maintaining negative interest rates and yield curve control. That makes JGBs a good overweight when global bond yields are rising and a good underweight when global bond yields are falling (Chart 10). Given our decision to reduce our recommended duration exposure to below-benchmark, the logical follow through decision is to upgrade JGBs to overweight. The only remaining country to consider is our view on UK Gilts, which has now become more complicated. Anarchy In The UK The selloff in the UK Gilt market has been stunning in its ferocity. Dating back to last Thursday’s 50bp rate hike by the BoE, the 10-year UK Gilt yield has jumped 120bps and now sits at 4.52%. The increase in yields was identical at the front-end of the Gilt curve, with the 2-year yield jumping 120bps to 4.68%.  The surge in longer-term Gilt yields stands out to the rise in bond yields seen outside the UK, as it also incorporates an increase in our estimate of the UK term premium – a move that was not matched in other countries (Chart 11). The rise in Gilt yields was also much more concentrated in real yields compared to inflation expectations (Chart 12), as markets aggressively repriced the path for UK policy rates after the UK government’s announced debt-financed fiscal package, including £45bn of tax cuts. Chart 11Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Chart 12The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The UK’s National Institute for Economic And Social Research (NIESR) estimates that the combined impact of the tax cuts and additional spending measures would increase the UK government deficit by a whopping £150bn, or 5% of GDP. The NIESR also estimated that the fiscal measures, including the previously-announced plan for the UK government to cap energy price increases, would result in positive UK GDP growth in the 4th quarter and also lift annual real GDP growth to 2% over 2023-24. The UK government now faces a major credibility issue with markets on its announced fiscal plans. The sheer size of the package, coming at a time when the US economy was already operating at full employment with high inflation, invites a greater than expected monetary policy tightening response from the BoE. The UK OIS curve now forecasts a peak in rates of 6.3% in October 2023, up from the current 2.25%. That would be a massive move in rates in just one year from a central bank that has been relatively gun shy in lifting rates since the 2008 financial crisis, even during the current inflation overshoot. New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, and her new Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng, have both noted they would prefer a mix of looser fiscal policy (aimed at boosting the supply side of the economy to lift potential growth) with tighter monetary policy that would prevent asset bubbles and inflation overshoots. While there is certainly merit in any plan designed to boost medium-term growth by lifting anemic UK productivity through supply-side reforms, the timing of the announcement could not have been worse. Just one day earlier, the BoE announced a plan to go forward with the sale of Gilts from its balance sheet accumulated during quantitative easing. The Truss government needs to find buyers for all the Gilts that must be issued to pay for the tax cuts and stimulus, but the BoE will not be one of them. In the end, however, the BoE’s expected path for interest rates matters more than the increase in Gilt supply in determining the level of Gilt yields and the slope of the Gilt curve. The NIESR estimates that the UK public debt/GDP ratio will rise to 92% by 2024-25, versus its pre-budget forecast of 88%. While that is a meaningful increase, the correlation between the debt/GDP ratio and the slope of the Gilt curve has been negative for the past few years (Chart 13, top panel). The stronger relationship is between the slope of the curve and the level of the BoE base rate (bottom panel), which is pointing to an inversion of the 2-year/30-year curve if the BoE follows market pricing and lifts rates to 6%. Our view dating back to the early summer was that a low neutral interest rate would prevent the BoE from lifting rates as much as markets were discounting without causing a deep recession, lower inflation and, eventually, a quick reversal of rate hikes. The huge UK fiscal stimulus package changes that calculus, as the nominal neutral rate that will be needed to bring UK inflation back to target is likely now much higher. We have always believed that when a thesis underlying an investment recommendation is challenged by new information, it is best to adjust the recommendation to reflect the new facts. Thus, this week, we are tactically downgrading UK Gilts to underweight in our model bond portfolio framework. We still see a significant medium-term opportunity to go overweight Gilts, as UK policy rates pushing into the 4-6% range are not sustainable. However, the BoE will likely have no choice to begin lifting rates at a much more aggressive pace to restore UK policy credibility, especially with the British pound under immense selling pressure (Chart 14). Despite rumors of an inter-meeting rate hike by the BoE this week to try and support the pound, that is likely too risky a step for the BoE to take as it would invite a battle with investors and currency speculators. Such a battle would be difficult to win without a more credible and market-friendly medium-term fiscal policy from the Truss government. Chart 13The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts Chart 14Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts   Bottom Line: We will review our UK Gilt stance once there are more clear signals of stability in the pound, but for now, we will step aside and limit our recommended exposure to Gilts – even after the huge selloff seen to date, which likely has more to go. Summarizing All The Changes In Our Model Bond Portfolio All the changes to our recommended duration exposure and country allocations after the past week, including the new weightings in our model bond portfolio, are shown in the tables on pages 14-16. To summarize: We moved the overall recommended global duration exposure to below-benchmark, and shifted the model bond portfolio duration to 0.9 years below that of the custom benchmark index. We increased the size of the US Treasury underweight, and moved Canada and Japan to overweight. We moved the UK to underweight, on top of the reduction in UK duration exposure that was part of last week’s move to reduce overall portfolio duration. We are also cutting exposure to UK investment grade corporates to underweight, as part of an overall move to reduce UK risk in the portfolio. We slightly increased the overweight in Germany. In next week’s report, we will present the quarterly performance review of our model bond portfolio and, more importantly, we will present out scenario-based return expectations after all the changes made this week. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com     GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) The Global Bond Bear Market Continues The Global Bond Bear Market Continues

Executive Summary There’s Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS A survey of economic and financial market indicators suggests that we are not yet close to the end of the Fed’s tightening cycle. This argues for a continued flattening of the yield curve and one more push higher in bond yields before the end of the cyclical bond bear market. While headline inflation has rolled over, there is so far little indication of a slowdown in core price appreciation. We see core CPI reaching 3.6% during the next 12 months, driven by decelerating goods prices but sticky wage growth and services inflation. The TIPS market is discounting an overly sanguine view of headline inflation for the next 12 months, and there is value in owning TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Bottom Line: Investors should reduce portfolio duration to ‘below-benchmark’ and hold a position in 5-year/30-year Treasury curve flatteners. Investors should also overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and own 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flatteners. Feature US bond yields continued their ascent last week, spurred on by August’s surprisingly high core CPI print and the perception that the Fed will have to tighten policy even more quickly to bring inflation back down. Currently, the market is discounting that the Fed will lift the funds rate to 4.61% by April of next year and then bring it back down to 4.26% by the end of 2023 (Chart 1). Chart 1Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations This market-implied interest rate path would involve 225 bps of tightening at the next 5 FOMC meetings, or an average rate increase of +45 bps per meeting. With a 75 basis point rate increase looking like a lock for this week, market pricing is consistent with additional 50 basis point increases at the final two meetings of this year (November and December) and then two more 25 basis point rate hikes in Q1 2023. After that, the market anticipates that the tightening cycle will be over. Our view continues to be that the peak in the fed funds rate will occur later than April 2023 and that, while a pause in the Fed’s tightening cycle is likely at some point next year, inflation will be strong enough to preclude outright rate cuts. In terms of investment strategy, last week’s report presented empirical evidence showing that, on average, Treasury yields peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the cycle.1 In fact, in the seven Fed tightening cycles that we analyzed, the 10-year Treasury yield always peaked within a window spanning four months before the last rate hike and four months after (Table 1). This analysis suggests that even if the fed funds rate peaks in April, as is implied by the market, bond yields likely have one more leg higher before the end of the cyclical bear market. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears While we have been consistently highlighting that the market is not pricing-in a sufficiently high average fed funds rate for 2023, we have been recommending an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on the view that falling inflation could briefly send bond yields lower in the near term. The 10-year Treasury yield did fall back to 2.60% on August 1, but it then rebounded quickly and has continued to head higher since. With Treasury yields unlikely to re-test those depths anytime soon, we recommend shifting to a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration stance to play the final leg higher in bond yields before a US recession ends the cyclical bond bear market. The next section of this report surveys nine cyclical economic indicators and argues that the balance of evidence suggests that the fed funds rate’s peak will occur later than April 2023. Then, the final section of this report discusses our recommended TIPS investment strategy in light of last week’s CPI report and our outlook for inflation. Tracking The Tightening Cycle One of the most useful tools in our arsenal for assessing the state of the interest rate cycle is our Fed Monitor. The Fed Monitor is a composite of 47 economic and financial market variables that has been designed to output a positive value when the data recommend interest rate hikes and a negative value when rate cuts are required. Historically, the Monitor does a good job of lining up with the actual path of the fed funds rate (Chart 2). Chart 2Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required Fed Monitor Says More Tightening Required The Fed Monitor is currently down off its highs, but at 1.03 it is well above the zero line. Looking at past tightening cycles, we find that the Monitor has averaged 0.41 on the day of the last rate hike of a cycle, with a range of outcomes spanning -0.49 to +0.93. Notably, the +0.93 upper-end of that range occurred in 1995, a time when the Fed only delivered a modest amount of policy easing before pivoting back to tightening in 1999. The variables in our Fed Monitor can be grouped into three categories: (i) economic growth variables, (ii) inflation variables and (iii) financial market variables. Interestingly, we observe that the Economic Growth component of our Monitor has dipped into negative territory while the Inflation and Financial Conditions components continue to argue for tighter policy (Chart 2, bottom 3 panels). A negative Economic Growth component suggests that we are getting closer to the end of the tightening cycle, but the Fed will likely stay hawkish and tolerate an even deeper negative reading from Economic Growth as long as inflation remains high. In addition to our Fed Monitor, we have identified nine economic indicators (some included in the Fed Monitor and some not) that are particularly relevant for the Fed’s policy stance. In this week’s report, we look at the message these indicators were sending on the day of the last rate hike of seven past tightening cycles. The indicators are: The Sahm Rule: Economist Claudia Sahm has noted that a recession always occurs when the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate rises by more than 0.5% off its trailing 12-month low.2 We include the unemployment rate’s deviation from its 12-month low as a measure of labor market utilization. Employment Momentum: We look at the 6-month growth rate in nonfarm payrolls as a measure of momentum in the labor market. Inflation: We use 12-month core PCE as a measure of inflation that is most closely related to the Fed’s target. Inflation Momentum: To measure momentum in inflation we look at the difference between 3-month core PCE and 12-month core PCE. Labor Market Tightness: Using responses from the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Survey, we look at the number of people who describe jobs as “plentiful” minus the number who describe jobs as “hard to get”. Economic Growth: We use the ISM Manufacturing PMI as a simple measure of the trend in aggregate demand in the US economy. Housing: To assess trends in the housing market we look at the 12-month moving average in housing starts minus the 24-month moving average. Financial Conditions: We use the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index to assess whether financial conditions are accommodative or restrictive. The Yield Curve: We look at the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to ascertain whether the bond market perceives the monetary policy stance as accommodative or restrictive. Table 2A lists the nine indicators described above and shows their values on the day of the last rate hike of seven past tightening cycles. We also include the current reading from each indicator. Finally, we shade in red every cell that we deem consistent with the Fed stopping its tightening cycle. To make this determination we compare the value on the day of the last rate hike to the median value witnessed on the day of the last hike across all seven tightening cycles. We don’t use median values for the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index or the Treasury slope. Rather, we say that an inverted yield curve and a Financial Conditions reading above 100 are both consistent with the end of rate hikes. Table 2AEconomic Indicators At The End Of Fed Tightening Cycles One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears The last column of Table 2A simply adds up the number of red cells in each row. As of today, we see that only 2 out of nine indicators are consistent with the end of the tightening cycle. The end of a tightening cycle has never occurred with less than four indicators flashing red. Table 2B takes a slightly more sophisticated approach to the same exercise. Rather than simply comparing above or below the median, we rank each indicator as a percentile relative to its value on the day of the last rate hike across seven different tightening cycles. We then combine those percentile ranks with an equal weighting to get an “End of Tightening Score”. Larger values are consistent with a greater likelihood that the tightening cycle will end and lower values are consistent with a lower likelihood. Currently, the End of Tightening Score stands at 28%, lower than on the day of the last rate hike in all of the cycles we analyzed. Table 2BEconomic Indicators At The End Of Fed Tightening Cycles: Percentile Ranks One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears One Last Hurrah For Bond Bears As is the case with our Fed Monitor, the closest End of Tightening Score to today’s occurred in 1995. One key difference between 1995 and today is that core inflation was running much closer to target in 1995. This gave the Fed scope to fine tune its policy stance without risking its inflation fighting credibility. That flexibility is not available to the Fed in today’s high inflation environment. Bottom Line: A survey of economic and financial market indicators suggests that we are not yet close to the end of the Fed’s tightening cycle. This argues for a continued flattening of the yield curve and one more push higher in bond yields before the end of the cyclical bond bear market. Investors should set portfolio duration to ‘below benchmark’ and maintain a position in 5-year/30-year Treasury curve flatteners.3 The TIPS Market Is Too Complacent August’s month-over-month core CPI print came in well above expectations at +0.57%, sending bond yields higher and risk assets lower last week. Zooming out, while falling gasoline prices appear to have shifted the trend in headline inflation, there is so far little evidence of a meaningful move down in core or trimmed mean measures of CPI (Chart 3). Chart 3No Slowdown In Core CPI No Slowdown In Core CPI No Slowdown In Core CPI Chart 4Core CPI Forecast Core CPI Forecast Core CPI Forecast In a recent Special Report, we went through the five major components of CPI (energy, food, shelter, goods and services) and came up with 12-month forecasts for both core and headline inflation.4  For core inflation, we forecast that it will fall to 3.6% during the next 12 months (Chart 4). The main driver of the drop will be a return of goods inflation to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4, panel 3). We anticipate only a minor pullback in shelter inflation (Chart 4, panel 2) and that services inflation will remain elevated, driven by strong wage growth (Chart 4, bottom panel). Recently, we have seen some evidence that home prices and rents on new leases are decelerating, no doubt a response to high and rising mortgage rates. That said, we don’t anticipate much pass through from those trends into shelter inflation during the next 12 months. First, home price appreciation leads shelter CPI by 18 months (Chart 5A). This means that we shouldn’t expect falling home prices to meaningfully impact shelter inflation until the end of 2023. Second, rental growth on new leases as measured by Zillow and Apartment List has clearly decelerated, but it is still running much hotter than shelter CPI (Chart 5B). Given the limited historical track record, it’s very difficult to say how much (if any) of the recent deceleration in rental growth will ultimately pass through to the CPI. Chart 5AHome Prices & Shelter CPI Home Prices & Shelter CPI Home Prices & Shelter CPI Chart 5BDecelerating Rents Decelerating Rents Decelerating Rents In our research, we have found that measures of labor market utilization are the most important variables to include in any model of shelter inflation. For ease of forecasting, the model shown in Chart 4 and in the top panel of Chart 6 uses the unemployment rate as its measure of labor market tightness. This model works well, but it arguably understates shelter inflation because it doesn’t include a variable capturing wage growth. If we replace the unemployment rate in our model with the more comprehensive aggregate weekly payrolls measure, then we get a much tighter fit and a model that does a better job explaining the recent surge in shelter CPI (Chart 6, bottom panel).5 All in all, we conclude that our expectation that shelter inflation will fall from 6.3% to 4.7% during the next 12 months may wind up being a tad optimistic. When we combine our forecast for 3.6% core inflation with two scenarios for the oil price – a benign one based on what is priced into the futures curve and another based on the forecasts of our commodity strategists – we get an expected range of 2.1% to 4.7% for headline CPI during the next 12 months (Chart 7). According to our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing, if 12-month headline CPI comes in above the current 1-year CPI swap rate then TIPS will outperform nominal Treasuries during the 12-month investment horizon.6 Chart 6Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Modeling Shelter Inflation Chart 7There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS There's Value In TIPS At present, the 1-year CPI swap rate is 2.76%, near the bottom of our expected range of outcomes for 12-month headline CPI. It seems to us that a lot of things will have to go right for inflation to come in below market expectations during the next year. For this reason, we think it makes sense for investors to overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Chart 8Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners Additionally, we see a lot of value in owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (Chart 8). The 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates are both currently 2.38%, meaning that the 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven slope is at zero. Higher-than-expected inflation during the next 12 months will put more pressure on the front-end of the breakeven curve than the long end, flattening the curve. Further, logic dictates that an inverted inflation curve is more consistent with an environment where the Fed is fighting above-target inflation than a positively sloped one. There will come a time when it makes sense for the inflation curve to move back into positive territory, but that won’t be until the Fed has brought inflation down much closer to its target. Bottom Line: The inflation outlook priced into markets for the next 12 months is too benign. Investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and own TIPS breakeven inflation curve flatteners.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles”, dated September 13, 2022. 2  https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ES_THP_Sahm_web_20190506.pdf 3  For more details on this curve trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022. 5  Aggregate weekly payrolls = nonfarm employment x average weekly hours x average hourly earnings 6   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary This report looks back at seven recent Fed tightening cycles and summarizes evidence concerning how the US Treasury curve behaves relative to the length and magnitude of the tightening cycle. We document a few consistent relationships. For example, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the tightening cycle. We also notice that the Treasury slope is usually inverted by the time it troughs and that the 5-year/30-year slope tends to trough before the 2-year/5-year slope. Given our view that the peak fed funds rate may not occur until the second half of 2023, we expect another leg higher in bond yields before we reach the cyclical peak. We also anticipate further flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury curve.   Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being and should position in 5-year/30-year curve flatteners by selling the 10-year bullet versus a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. While we maintain neutral portfolio duration for now, our bias is to be short duration on a medium-to-long run horizon and we may re-evaluate our recommended duration positioning after this month’s important CPI release and September FOMC meeting. Feature BCA’s Annual Investment Conference was held last week, and we heard a wide variety of views about the outlook for US bonds. Unsurprisingly, the main difference between those with bond-bullish and bond-bearish views was that the bullish panelists anticipated a much quicker end to the Fed’s tightening cycle prompted by a US recession starting late this year or early next year. This week’s report takes a more formal look at the historical linkages between Fed tightening cycles and trends in US Treasury yields. Our goal is to provide some firm evidence that investors can use to translate their views about the length and magnitude of the Fed tightening cycle into concrete positions across the US Treasury curve. Specifically, we look at seven Fed tightening cycles – the five most recent cycles and the two periods of tightening that occurred during the inflationary surge of the early-1980s. The 1977-80 Cycle Chart 1The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The 1977-80 Cycle The Fed raised the funds rate by 11.75% between August 1977 and March 1980 in response to sky-high inflation. Then, despite core CPI inflation still running at 12%, it cut rates by 5.5% in 1980 in response to an unemployment rate that had climbed above 6%. This proved to be only a brief reprieve from monetary tightening. With inflation still a problem, the Fed pivoted back to rate hikes later in 1980 even as the unemployment rate continued its ascent. Turning to markets, we see that the Treasury index lost 22% versus a position in cash during the 1977-80 tightening cycle and that index returns troughed in March 1980, around the same time as the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked one month before the last rate hike at 12.72%, 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate that would be attained one month later (Chart 1). As for the shape of the yield curve, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope troughed at -201 bps one month before the last rate hike of the cycle (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year Treasury slope troughed at -132 bps in the same month as the peak in the funds rate and the 5-year/30-year slope troughed at -123 bps, one month before the last hike (bottom panel). The 1980-81 Cycle After a brief period of cuts in mid-1980, having still not conquered inflation the Fed changed course and lifted the funds rate to a new high in 1981. It did this even with the unemployment rate above 7%. One interesting aspect of this tightening cycle is that the bond market continued to sell off even after the Fed delivered its last rate increase. While the period of Fed tightening spanned from October 1980 until May 1981, excess Treasury index returns versus cash continued to fall until September 1981, losing 20% in the process (Chart 2). The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months after the last rate hike at 15.84%, 316 bps below the peak funds rate that was attained four months earlier. Chart 2The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle The 1980-81 Cycle Looking at the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed at -132 bps three months after the last rate hike (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed three months after the last rate hike, at -62 bps and -133 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1988-89 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 6.5% in March 1988 to 9.8% in May 1989. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 7.7% versus cash during this period but returns did trough two months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 9.32%, 48 bps below the peak fed funds rate (Chart 3). Chart 3The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle The 1988-89 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -43 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at -20 bps and -42 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1994-95 Cycle The Fed doubled the funds rate from 3% in February 1994 to 6% in February 1995. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 9.4% versus cash during this period but returns did trough three months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 7.91%, 191 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 4). Chart 4The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle The 1994-95 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at +15 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at +14 bps and +6 bps, respectively (bottom panel). In contrast to earlier cycles, it’s notable that the yield curve never inverted during the 1994-95 tightening cycle and that the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at a level significantly above the fed funds rate. The most likely reason for this is that the Fed’s pivot from rate hikes to cuts in early 1995 occurred abruptly and came as a surprise to market participants. A quick look at the economic data makes it easy to see why. The core PCE and core CPI inflation rates were elevated at the time, at 2.3% and 3.0% respectively, and the unemployment rate was significantly down from a year earlier. The 1999-2000 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 4.75% in June 1999 to 6.5% in May 2000. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 8.2% versus cash during this period but returns did trough four months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months before the last rate hike at 6.68%, 18 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 5). Chart 5The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle The 1999-2000 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -47 bps (panel 4). The 5-year/30-year slope troughed one month before the last rate hike at -59 bps but the 2-year/5-year slope didn’t trough until three months after the last rate hike at -15 bps (bottom panel). The 2004-06 Cycle The Fed lifted rates in steady increments of 25 bps per meeting from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 5.3% versus cash during this period and returns troughed around the same time as the funds rate reached its peak. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred at the same time as the peak in the funds rate, though the peak 10-year was 10 bps below the peak funds rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle The 2004-06 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed five months after the last rate hike of the cycle at -16 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed five months after the last rate hike at -20 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, four months before the last rate hike at -10 bps (bottom panel). The 2015-18 Cycle Finally, in the most recent tightening cycle before the current one, the Fed lifted rates off the zero-lower-bound in December 2015, went on hold for 12 months and then delivered a string of rate hikes bringing the funds rate up to 2.5% by December 2018. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 6.7% versus cash during this period and returns troughed two months before the peak in the fed funds rate. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred two months before the last rate hike at 3.15%, 65 bps above the peak funds rate (Chart 7). Chart 7The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle The 2015-18 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed eight months after the last rate hike of the cycle at 0 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed eight months after the last rate hike at -17 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, five months before the last rate hike at +23 bps (bottom panel). Summarizing The Evidence Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data from the seven tightening cycles that we examined. Four main points jump out. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles Table 2Fed Tightening Cycles: Peak And Trough Levels A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles A Brief History Of Fed Tightening Cycles First, both the level of the 10-year Treasury yield and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Excess Return Index tend to hit inflection points around the time of the last rate hike of the cycle. On average, the 10-year Treasury yield peaks 1.3 months before the last rate hike of the cycle, and it has always hit its peak within a window spanning four months before the last hike and four months after. The timing of the trough in index excess returns versus cash looks similar. Second, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope also tends to trough near the end of the Fed tightening cycle, but the timing of this inflection point varies a lot more than the timing of the peak in yields. In fact, during the last two cycles the 2-year/10-year slope didn’t trough until well after the last rate hike. Third, the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope always troughs at the same time or earlier than the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope. This is consistent with our intuition that the long end of the yield curve will respond more quickly to changes in the economic outlook than the front end of the curve, which remains more tied to the current policy rate. Fourth, there isn’t much consistency in where the 10-year Treasury yield peaks relative to the peak fed funds rate. On average, the 10-year yield tops out 120 bps below the peak fed funds rate, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 10-year yield peaked 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate in the 1977-80 tightening cycle and it peaked 65 bps above the peak fed funds rate in the 2015-18 cycle. The same holds true for the slope of the Treasury curve. The trough in the slope exhibits a wide range of outcomes, though it is fair to say that we typically expect the slope to be negative when it bottoms. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope only failed to invert in two tightening cycles (1994-95 and 2015-18) and in both of those cases the Fed was not expected to deliver a large number of rate cuts. In fact, it could have easily been argued that rate cuts were unnecessary based on the inflation and employment data at the time. Investment Implications In applying the lessons from this analysis to the current environment, the first conclusion we reach is that we should only look to extend portfolio duration to above-benchmark when we think that the last rate hike of the cycle will occur in 1-2 months. Currently, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to peak in June 2023 and we expect that peak could occur even later (Chart 8). For this reason, we anticipate another significant leg higher in Treasury yields before the cyclical peak is reached. Chart 8Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Our historical analysis of past tightening cycles also supports our recommended short 10-year bullet, long 5-year/30-year barbell positioning along the Treasury curve.1 Given that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope has always troughed within a window spanning five months before the last rate hike and three months after, it makes sense to position for another leg down. This is a particularly attractive trade on the 5-year/30-year portion of the curve because that slope remains in positive territory.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1A Hot Labor Market A Hot Labor Market A Hot Labor Market The balance of data that’s come out during the past month points to a labor market that is not cooling very quickly. In fact, it is cooling much more slowly than we anticipated. First, nonfarm payroll growth of +315k in August is well above the +79k that is needed to maintain the unemployment and participation rates at current levels (Chart 1). Second, what had initially looked like a significant drop in job openings was revised away with the July JOLTS report. While the ratio of job openings to unemployed has leveled-off just below 2.0, it is no longer showing any signs of falling (bottom panel). Finally, the employment component of August’s ISM Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 and even initial unemployment claims have reversed their nascent uptrend. The conclusion we draw from this spate of strong employment data is that the Fed’s tightening cycle is not close to over. This means that the average fed funds rate that is priced into markets for 2023 is almost certainly too low. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -267 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month, and it currently sits at 145 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked up to its 56th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see some modest spread narrowing during the next couple of months as inflation heads lower. That said, spread compression will be limited by the inverted yield curve and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -519 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 15 bps on the month and it currently sits at 494 bps, 125 bps above the 2017-19 average and 43 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – increased modestly in August. It currently sits at 6.6% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, high-yield spreads could stage a relief rally during the next few months as inflation falls and recession fears abate. However, the inverted yield curve will likely prevent spreads from moving much below the average level seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). All that said, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to a roughly 7% excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This return potential is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to our 4% estimate of its underlying trend.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 100 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -144 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4 We noted that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is over. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have an incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. With the duration extension trade over, the only thing preventing us from increasing exposure to the Agency MBS space is that spreads still aren’t sufficiently attractive. The average index spread versus duration-matched Treasuries is roughly midway between its post-2014 minimum and post-2014 mean (panel 4). Meanwhile, the option-adjusted spread has moved above its post-2014 mean (bottom panel), but at just 42 bps, it still offers less compensation than a Aa-rated corporate bond or a Aaa-rated consumer ABS. At the coupon level, we moved to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack last month, but this month we initiate a recommendation to favor high-coupon (3%-4.5%) securities over low coupon (1.5%-2.5%) ones. Given the lower duration of high coupon MBS, this position will profit from rising bond yields on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 156 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -563 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 117 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -677 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed by 180 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -491 bps. The EM Sovereign index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 111 bps in August. Meanwhile, the yield differential between EM sovereigns and US corporates moved deeper into negative territory (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 168 bps in August. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. China is the most important trading partner for most EM countries and thus represents a major source of economic growth. Consequently, Chinese import volumes are a useful gauge for the outlook of EM economies. The persistent contraction of Chinese import volumes (bottom panel) therefore sends a negative signal for EM bond performance. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 126 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire (Chart 6).5 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (bottom panel) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates since last year. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 82%, up from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 80%. The same measure for Revenue bonds is 94%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5/30 Barbell Versus 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in August as investors significantly marked up their 12-month rate expectations. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the market’s expected 12-month change in the funds rate – rose from 78 bps to 175 bps during the month and this caused the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to flatten by 8 bps and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope to flatten by 33 bps (Chart 7). We initiated a position in 5/30 flatteners (short 10-year bullet versus duration-matched 5/30 barbell) in our August 9th report.6 The main reason for this recommendation is our view that the Fed tightening cycle is not close to over. Therefore, it is too soon to position for a steepening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope. An analysis of past Fed tightening cycles shows that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope tends to trough earlier than other segments of the yield curve. However, that trough has always occurred within a window spanning five months before the last Fed rate hike and three months after.7 On average, the 5-year/30-year slope troughs 1-2 months before the last Fed rate hike. Given our view that the Fed tightening cycle still has a lot of room to run, we think it makes sense to bet on a further flattening of the 5-year/30-year slope. This trade looks particularly attractive when you consider that a position short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell provides a yield pick-up of 12 bps (bottom panel). TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +264 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month, moving back into the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are close to fairly valued versus nominals. In a recent report we unveiled our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing.8 In that report we showed that TIPS of all maturities tend to outperform equivalent-maturity nominal bonds whenever headline CPI inflation exceeds the 1-year CPI swap rate during a 12-month period. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.77%, and we think this will turn out to be too low based on our modeling of headline CPI. While we see value in TIPS relative to nominals, especially at the front-end of the curve, we also suspect that more value will be created during the next few months as CPI prints come in soft. Therefore, we are reluctant to immediately upgrade TIPS to overweight. Instead, we recommend that investors initiate a 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flattener. The 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve has recently jumped into positive territory (bottom panel), but an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the current macro environment where the Fed is battling above-target inflation. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -25 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 76 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -28 bps. Substantial federal government support caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings during the past two years. This year, consumers are starting to draw down that savings and are even starting to take on more debt. The amount of outstanding credit card debt is still low relative to household income, but it is rising quickly in absolute terms (Chart 9). Elsewhere, consumers are still paying down their credit card balances at high rates (panel 4), but banks are no longer easing lending standards on auto loans or credit cards (panel 3). To us, the prevailing evidence suggests that it will be a long time before delinquencies are a serious problem for consumer ABS. This justifies our overweight recommendation. That said, given that the trend toward consumer re-leveraging is in full swing, it makes sense to turn more cautious at the margin. We therefore close our prior recommendation to favor non-Aaa over Aaa-rated consumer ABS and move to a neutral allocation across the consumer ABS credit curve. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -150 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 20 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -103 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 41 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -280 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently close to their historic averages. However, the most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey showed tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (Chart 10). This suggests a more negative back-drop for CRE prices and CMBS spreads and causes us to reduce our recommended allocation from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). At 55 bps, the average Agency CMBS spread continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 175 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -7 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 7 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 1, 2022) Still Too Hot Still Too Hot   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3    For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 6    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 7     In our analysis we examined seven Fed tightening cycles. The five most recent cycles and the two cycles that occurred during the inflation spike of the early 1980s. 8    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

A message for Foreign Exchange Strategy clients, There will be no report next week, as we take a summer break. We will be joining our clients and colleagues for our annual investment conference to be held in New York, on September 7 & 8. We will resume our publication the following week, with a Special Report on the Hong Kong dollar, together with our China Investment Strategy colleagues. Looking forward to seeing many of you in person. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist Executive Summary No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy The biggest medium-term threat for Japan remains deflation, rather than inflation. This suggests that the BoJ will be loathe to abandon yield curve control anytime soon. That said, inflation is still accelerating globally, and has meaningfully picked up in Japan. Betting on a hawkish BoJ policy shift could therefore be a significant macro trade. We have identified five conditions that need to be met for the BoJ to begin removing accommodation. None are currently indicating an imminent need to alter monetary policy settings, particularly with the Japanese economy softening alongside subdued inflation expectations. The yen will soar on any hawkish BoJ policy shift. Currently, BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is short EUR/JPY. That said, the historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in yen selling pressure, before placing fresh bets on selling USD/JPY. Longer-term bond yields in Japan, for maturities beyond the BoJ yield target, are already moving higher, while speculative interest in shorting JGBs has increased.  We recommend fading these trends for now – shorting JGBs outright will remain a “widowmaker trade”. Bottom Line: The yen has undershot and longer-term investors should buy it - our preferred way to express that view in the near-term is to be short EUR/JPY.  Bond investors should be underweight “low-beta” JGBs in fixed-income portfolios on a tactical basis, not as a hawkish BoJ bet, but because global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges than break to new highs. Feature Chart 1The BoJ Is A Lonesome Dove When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? Almost every G10 central bank has raised rates over the last 12 months, even the perennially dovish banks like the ECB and Swiss National Bank, in response to soaring inflation.  The one exception has been the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The BoJ has kept policy rates unchanged throughout the year (Chart 1), while also maintaining its Yield Curve Control policy of capping 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yields at 0.25%. There has been interest from the macro investor community on Japan in recent months, betting on the BoJ eventually succumbing to the global monetary tightening trend.  If the BoJ were to shift gears and turn less accommodative, then the yen would surely soar, while JGBs will go on a fire sale. In this report, jointly published by BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we explore the necessary conditions that need to be in place for the BoJ to meaningfully shift policy, most likely starting with the end of Yield Curve Control before interest rate hikes. We see five such conditions, which will form a “checklist” to be monitored in the months ahead. Condition 1: Overshooting Inflation Expectations The BoJ has a policy mandate on inflation and most measures of underlying Japanese inflation are still well below its 2% target. For example, the weighted median and mode CPI inflation rates are only at 0.5%, even as headline CPI inflation has climbed to 2.6% on the back of two primarily non-domestic factors – rapidly rising prices for energy and goods (Chart 2). With such low baseline inflation, it has been hard to lift market-based Japanese inflation expectations like CPI swap rates above 1%, even as far out as ten years (Chart 3). CPI swaps have tended to provide a more realistic assessment of underlying Japanese inflation, adhering more closely to trends in realized core CPI inflation, and thus deserve the most attention from the BoJ.  This is in stark contrast to the BoJ’s own consumer survey of inflation expectations, that has consistently overestimated inflation over the years, which is currently showing both 1-year-ahead and 5-year-ahead inflation expectations at a startling, yet highly inaccurate, 5%.  Chart 2Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Chart 3No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan The BoJ is likely to side with the more subdued read on market-based inflation expectations in determining if monetary policy needs to turn less dovish – especially with the BoJ’s own estimate of the output gap now at -1.2%, indicating spare capacity in the economy and a lack of underlying inflation pressures (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Condition 2: Excessive Yen Weakness Our more comprehensive measure of determining the pressure to change monetary policy is captured in our central bank monitor for Japan, a.k.a. the BoJ Monitor.  The Monitor includes economic, inflation and financial variables. This measure suggests that the BoJ should not be tightening monetary policy today (Chart 5). One of the variables that goes into our BoJ Monitor is the yen. The yen impacts monetary conditions through two ways. First, import prices tend to rise as the yen weakens, feeding into domestic inflation. In short, it eases monetary conditions. That has been the story over the last year with the yen falling -15% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 6). The second impact is through profit translation effects. Overseas earnings for Japanese exporters are buffeted in yen terms as the currency depreciates. Both impacts would tend to put more pressure to tighten monetary policy, on the margin. Chart 5No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy Chart 6Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation However, the impact of yen weakness in boosting profit translation costs for Japanese concerns has eased over the years. As many Japanese companies have offshored production, lower wages in Japan have been offset by higher costs abroad. As a result, profit margins for multinational Japanese corporations are not rising meaningfully relative to their G10 peers, despite yen weakness (Chart 7). That puts the central bank in a quandary regarding how to interpret yen weakness vis-à-vis future policy moves. On the one hand, soaring global inflation and a weak yen should be allowing the BoJ to declare victory on rising inflation expectations in Japan. On the other hand, domestic wage growth will not reach “escape velocity” (Chart 8), and inflation will fail to overshoot on a sustainable basis, if corporate profit margins are not rising meaningfully. Chart 7No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness Chart 8No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese ##br##Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages Of course, Japanese authorities care about excessive moves in the yen, but they also understand their limited ability to alter the path of the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998. That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. A BoJ monetary tightening designed solely to stabilize the yen, before inflation expectations stabilize at the BoJ target, is a recipe for failure on both fronts. The bottom line is that yen weakness is giving a lift to inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year just to generate a one percentage point increase in Japanese inflation. As such, the current bout of yen weakness is unlikely to alter the longer-term goals of BoJ policy, unless a wave of selling undermines financial stability. Condition 3: Continually Rising Energy Costs Chart 9Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Policy makers in the eurozone have told us that even in the face of a recession, a threat to their credibility on price stability – like the energy-fueled overshoot of European inflation - is worth defending through monetary tightening. Thus, a continued external energy shock could also cause the BoJ to shift. Our Chief Commodity Strategist, Robert Ryan, expects the geopolitical risk premium on oil to increase in the near term. Japan imports almost all its energy and has structurally been more dependent on fossil fuels than Europe (Chart 9). A rise in energy costs that unanchors inflation expectations is a threat worth monitoring for the BoJ, one that could drag it into monetary tightening as has been the case in Europe. That said, adjustments are already underway. Japanese and European LNG imports from the US are rising. As a result, the price arbitrage between US Henry Hub prices and the Dutch TTF equivalent is likely to soften, assuaging energy import costs (Chart 10). Japan is also ramping up nuclear power production, which can help provide alternative sources to imported energy (Chart 11). Chart 10An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage Chart 11Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? The BoJ would likely not consider an early exit from accommodative monetary policy based solely on energy-fueled inflation.  After all, the current surge in global energy prices, compounded by yen weakness, has barely pushed headline inflation above the BoJ 2% target – with little follow-through into core inflation or wage growth. Condition 4: An Economic Revival In Japan A burst in Japanese growth that absorbs excess capacity and tightens labor market conditions could convince the BoJ that a policy adjustment is due. This could result in higher Japanese interest rates and bond yields.  The yen also tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is improving (Chart 12). Unfortunately, Japanese growth momentum is going in the wrong direction for that outcome. Chart 12The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy Domestic demand has been under siege from the lingering effects of the pandemic, including an unprecedented collapse in tourism. As the pandemic effects have faded, however, Japan’s economy faces new threats from slowing global growth, waning export demand, and declining consumer confidence (Chart 13). It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains nearly three percentage points below the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. While Japan’s unemployment rate is 2.6% and falling, it remains above the low reached just before the start of the pandemic. Chart 13A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth What Japan needs now is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Stronger fiscal spending could lift animal spirits in Japan and cause the BoJ to shift. Yet even on that front, the evidence does not point to a direct link from fiscal stimulus to rising inflation expectations – a necessary catalyst for the BoJ to turn more hawkish. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that there was no boost to depressed Japanese inflation expectations from the massive Japanese government fiscal programs during the worst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shock. Waning Japanese economic momentum is not putting any pressure on the BoJ to begin considering a shift to less accommodative monetary settings. Condition 5: More Hawkish Members At The BoJ There are important transitions occurring within the BoJ’s nine-member board that could change the policy bias in a less dovish direction.  In July, two new board members – Hajime Takata and Naoki Tamura – were appointed to the BoJ board. Both brought up the notion of the need for an “exit strategy” from current easy monetary policies at their introductory press conference, although both were also careful to state that they did not think the conditions were in place yet for that to occur. Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyWhat To Do About The Yen? Nonetheless, the two new appointees represent a marginally hawkish shift in the policy bias of the BoJ board, especially Takata who replaced one of the more vocal advocates for maintaining aggressive monetary easing, economist Goushi Kataoka.  Of course, the big change at the top of the BoJ will come next April when Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s current term ends. This will follow the departures of the two deputy governors, Masayoshi Amamiya and Masazumi Wakatabe in March. That means five of nine board members would be changed in less than one year, including the most senior leadership. That would be a huge change for any central bank, but especially for the BoJ where Governor Kuroda has overseen the introduction of all the current aggressive monetary policies, from negative interest rates to massive quantitative easing to Yield Curve Control. A growing constraint for the future of Yield Curve Control As outlined earlier, underlying inflation and growth trends in Japan are nowhere close to justifying an end to Yield Curve Control or even a mere upward tweak of the current 0.25% yield target on 10-year JGBs. However, there are negative spillover effects from the BoJ’s bond market manipulation that could make the current policies less sustainable over the medium term for the new incoming BoJ leadership. We addressed one of those issues earlier with the extreme yen weakness, which is largely a product of the BoJ keeping a lid on Japanese interest rates while almost the entire rest of the world is in a monetary tightening cycle. But another issue to be addressed is the impaired liquidity of the JGB market. After years of steady, aggressive bond buying, the BoJ has essentially “cornered” the JGB market.  The central bank now owns roughly 50% of all outstanding JGBs, doubling its ownership share since Yield Curve Control started in 2016 (Chart 14).  The numbers are even more extreme when focusing on the specific maturity targeted by the BoJ under Yield Curve Control, with the central bank now owning nearly 80% of all 10-year JGBs (Chart 15). Chart 14The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market Chart 15BoJ Now Owns 80% Of 10yr JGBs When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? By absorbing so much supply of the main risk-free asset in the Japanese financial system, the BoJ has made life more difficult for Japanese commercial banks, insurance companies and pension funds that require JGBs for regulatory and risk management purposes. In the most recent BoJ survey of bond market participants, 68 of 69 firms surveyed described the JGB market as having poor liquidity conditions, with an equal amount stating that JGB trading conditions were as bad or worse than three months earlier. The change in BoJ leadership could also bring about a change in policymakers’ desire to continue manipulating the JGB market via Yield Curve Control.  Although the BoJ would have to be very careful in how it signals and executes any change to Yield Curve Control.  There is currently a very wide gap between a 10-year JGB yield at 0.25% and a 30-year JGB yield at 1.25% (Chart 16). If the BoJ completely ended Yield Curve Control, the 10-year yield would converge rapidly towards that 30-year yield, likely reaching 1%. That would create a major negative total return shock to the Japanese banks and institutional investors that still own nearly 40% of JGBs. Chart 1610yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control A more likely outcome would be the BoJ raising the yield target on the 10-year to something like 0.50%, or perhaps shifting to a different maturity target where the BoJ owns a smaller share of outstanding JGBs like the 5-year sector. Yet without an actual trigger for such a move coming from faster economic growth or core inflation hitting the 2% BoJ target, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ would dare tinker with its yield curve policy, and risk a JGB market blowup, solely over concerns about bond market liquidity. Investment Conclusions None of the items in our newly constructed “BoJ Checklist” are currently indicating that a shift in Japanese monetary policy is imminent.  We therefore see it as being too early to put on the legendary “widowmaker trade” of shorting JGBs, although a case can be made to go long the yen based on longer-term valuation considerations. Japanese yen The carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase, but the BoJ is unlikely to rescue the yen in the near term. As such, short-term traders should be on the sidelines. For longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 17). Meanwhile, according to our PPP models (and a wide variety of others), the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around -41% (Chart 18). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is currently long the yen versus the euro and the Swiss franc. Chart 17The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale Chart 18The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap JGBs Chart 19Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs In the absence of a bearish domestic monetary policy trigger, JGBs should be treated by global bond investors as a risk management tool as much as anything else. The relative return performance of JGBs versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury Index of government bonds is highly correlated to the momentum of global bond yields (Chart 19). Thus, increasing the exposure to JGBs in a global bond portfolio is akin to reducing the interest rate duration of a bond portfolio – both positions will help a portfolio outperform its benchmark when global bond yields rise. On a tactical basis (3-6 month time horizon), an underweight allocation to JGBs in government bond portfolios seems appropriate, even with JGBs offering relatively attractive yields on a currency-hedged basis, most notably for USD-based investors.  Global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges, capped by slowing global growth and decelerating goods inflation but floored by stickier non-goods inflation and hawkish central banks. Thus, the defensive properties of JGBs as a “duration hedge” in global bond portfolios are less necessary in the near-term. Beyond the tactical time horizon, the uncertainty over the potential makeup of new BoJ leadership in 2023, along with some easing of global inflation pressures from the commodity space, could justify lower JGB exposure on a more structural basis - if it appears that a new wave of more hawkish policymakers is set to take over in Tokyo. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers ​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market ​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure ​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) ​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Inflation breakevens have stabilized in the US, where gasoline prices have fallen, but have reaccelerated in the UK and euro area, where natural gas prices have exploded. Inflation breakevens have declined in Canada, potentially due to markets starting to discount a rapid decline in Canadian house price inflation. Our suite of global breakeven models shows that US and Canadian 10-year breakevens are too low, while euro area and UK breakevens are too high. When adjusted for market expectations for the future stance of monetary policies, expressed as the slope of nominal bond yield curves, only the UK stands out with a “conflicted” combination of too-high breakevens and an inverted nominal Gilt curve. Bottom Line: Upgrade inflation-linked bonds to overweight in the euro area (Germany, France, Italy), while downgrading Canadian linkers to underweight. Stay underweight UK linkers, with the Bank of England on course to tip the UK into a deep recession. Maintain a neutral stance on US TIPS, but look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy. Feature Chart 1Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) have played a useful role for fixed income investors looking to protect their portfolios from the pernicious effects of the current era of high inflation. The rising inflation tide had been lifting all global ILB boats. Given the global nature of the brief deflationary shock from the global COVID lockdowns in 2020, and the persistent inflationary shock of the policy-induced recovery from the pandemic, ILB yields – and breakeven spreads versus nominal bonds – have tended to be positively correlated between countries. Now, some interesting divergences have started to appear between market-based inflation expectations (ILB breakevens or CPI swaps) at the country level. Most notably, inflation expectations have been climbing in the euro area and UK, while staying more stable – below the 2022 peak - in the US (Chart 1). In smaller ILB markets like Canada and Australia, breakevens have rolled over and remain at levels consistent with central bank inflation targets even in the fact of high realized inflation. Amid signs of easing inflation pressures from the commodity and traded goods spaces, and with global central banks now in full-blown tightening cycles to try and rein in overshooting inflation, ILB markets are likely to continue being less correlated. Being selective with ILB allocations at the country level, both on the long and short side of the market, will provide better relative return opportunities for bond investors over the next 6-12 months. To assess where those ILB opportunities lie within the developed market universe, we must first go over what is happening with various measures of inflation expectations in each country. A Country-By-Country Tour Of The Recent Dynamics Of Inflation Expectations US Chart 2Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations In the US, the correlation with inflation expectations and gasoline prices remains quite strong (Chart 2). That has been the case when gas prices were soaring, but the correlation works in both directions. The US national gasoline price has fallen by 22% since the peak on June 13, according to the American Automobile Association. Lower gas prices have helped ease consumer inflation expectations. The July reading of the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a dip in the 1-year-ahead inflation expectation to 6.2% from 6.8% in June. The 5-year-ahead inflation expectation, which was introduced to the New York Fed survey back in January, fell sharply in July to 2.3% from 2.8% in June (and from a peak of 3% back in March). The fall in US survey-based inflation is also mirrored in lower TIPS breakevens. The 10-year TIPS breakeven fell from 2.76% at the peak of the national gasoline price in mid-June to a low of 2.29% on July 7. The 10-year breakeven has since recovered to 2.58%, but is still below the levels at the time of the peak in gas prices – and considerably lower than the cyclical peak of 3.02% reached in April. The 2-year TIPS breakeven has fallen even more, down from 4.93% to 2.87% since the April peak. UK Chart 3A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK The UK inflation story has been heavily focused on the historic surge in energy prices. UK headline CPI inflation reached double-digit territory in July, climbing to 10.1% on a year-over-year basis, with the energy component of the CPI rising by a staggering 58%. Within that energy component, natural gas prices have been a huge driver, with the gas component of the CPI index up 96% year-over-year in July (Chart 3). Yet despite the relentless climb in energy prices, and the well-publicized “cost of living crisis” with high inflation rates in many non-energy sectors of the UK economy, survey-based measures of UK inflation expectations have stopped rising. The medium-term (5-10 years ahead) inflation expectation from the Citigroup/YouGov survey of UK consumers fell to 3.8% in July, down from the 4.4% peak reached back in March. Even shorter-term inflation expectations have stabilized in the face of rising energy costs (bottom panel). The dip in survey-based inflation expectations as of the July surveys may only be that – a dip – with the 10-year breakeven rate on index-linked Gilts having climbed from 3.8% to 4.2% so far in August. It’s also possible that the household inflation surveys are picking up the impact from the recent slowing of global goods price inflation (and easing global supply chain disruptions). More likely, in our view, UK households are starting to factor in the impact of BoE monetary tightening and an imminent UK recession – one that the BoE is now forecasting – on future inflation. Euro Area Chart 4European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise In the euro area, inflation expectations are finally responding to the steady climb in realized inflation evident across the region. Headline CPI inflation in the region climbed to 8.9% in July, the highest reading since the inception of the euro in 1999. The inflation has been concentrated in a few sectors, with four percentage points of that 8.9% coming from energy prices and another two percentage points coming from food, tobacco and alcohol. Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was 4.0% in July, less alarming than the headline number but still double the ECB’s inflation target of 2%. The ECB now produces its own survey of consumer inflation expectations, which it has been conducting without publishing the results since April 2020. The ECB started publishing the survey this month, as part of a broader Consumer Expectations Survey that also asks questions on topics like future economic growth and the health of labor markets. The most recent survey in June showed that 1-year-ahead inflation expectations were 5%, and 3-year-ahead were 2.8% (Chart 4). Both measures have risen sharply since February – the month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered the spike in oil and European natural gas prices – when the 1-year-ahead and 3-year-ahead measures were 3.2% and 2.1%, respectively. Euro area market-based inflation expectations are a little more subdued than those from the ECB’s consumer survey. The 5-year breakeven inflation rate on German ILBs is now at 3.4%, while the 10-year breakeven is at 2.5%. A similar message comes from European inflation swaps, with the 5-year measure at 3.4% and the 10-year measure at 2.8%. Canada Chart 5A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? In Canada, realized inflation is still elevated, but may be peaking. Headline CPI inflation was 7.6% in July, down from 8.1% in June, although this came almost entirely from lower energy inflation. Measures of underlying inflation produced by the Bank of Canada (BoC) also stabilized in July, with the trimmed CPI inflation measure ticking down from 5.4% from 5.5% in June (Chart 5). The latest read on survey-based inflation expectations from the BoC’s quarterly Consumer Expectations Survey for Q2/2022 showed a pickup in the 1-year-ahead measure (from 5.1% in Q1 to 6.8%), 2-year-ahead measure (from 4.6% in Q1 to 5%) and 5-year-ahead measure (from 3.2% to 4%). All of those measures are well above the latest readings on market-based inflation expectations from Canadian ILBs, a.k.a. Real Return Bonds, with the 5-year breakeven at 2.2% and 10-year breakeven at 2.1%. Market liquidity is always a factor in the relatively small Canadian Real Return Bond market, yet it is somewhat surprising that breakevens are so low compared with realized and survey-based inflation. The aggressive tightening so far by the BoC, including a whopping 100bp rate hike last month and more expected over the next year, may be playing a role in dampening inflation breakevens – especially with the BoC’s tightening already having an impact on the Canadian housing market. National house price inflation, which tends to lead overall headline CPI inflation by around one year, was 14.2% in July, down from the 2022 peak of 18.8% (top panel). Australia Chart 6Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan In Australia, headline CPI inflation reached 6.1% in Q2/2022, up from 5.1% in Q1/2022, while the median inflation rate was 4.2%. While energy costs were a big contributor to the rise in overall inflation, the pickup was fairly broad-based with notable increases in the inflation rates related to housing (both house prices and furniture prices). Survey-based measures of inflation expectations in Australia focus on more shorter time horizons, thus they are highly correlated to current realized inflation. On that note, the Melbourne University measure of 1-year-ahead consumer inflation expectations soared from 4.9% in Q1/2022 to 6.2% in Q2/2022, while the early read on Q3/2022 2-year-ahead inflation expectations from the Union Officials survey rose to 4.1% from 3.5% in the previous quarter (Chart 6). Market-based inflation expectations are relatively subdued given the high readings of realized inflation and shorter-term survey-based inflation expectations. The 10-year Australian ILB breakeven is now at 1.9%, while the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate is at 2.4%. The aggressive RBA tightening in 2022, with the Cash Rate having increased 175bps over the last four policy meetings, may be playing a role in holding down ILB breakevens. The relatively moderate pace of wage gains in Australia, with the Wage Price Index climbing 2.6% year-over-year in Q2, may also be weighing on ILB breakevens (middle panel). Japan There is not much exciting to say on the inflation front in Japan. The core (excluding fresh food) CPI inflation rate targeted by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) did hit a 7-year of 2.4% in July, but the core CPI measure more in line with international standards (excluding fresh food and energy) was only 1.2% in July (bottom panel). That was the strongest reading since 2015 but still well below the BoJ’s 2% inflation target. Survey-based consumer inflation expectations from the BoJ’s Opinion Survey showed a noticeable increase in Q2/2022, with the 5-year-ahead measure rising to 5% from 3% in Q1. This is obviously well above realized Japanese inflation, although the same survey showed that Japanese consumers believed that the current inflation rate was also 5%. Market-based Japanese inflation expectations are well below the BoJ survey-based measure, but in line with realized core inflation with the 2-year and 10-year CPI swap rates at 1.22% and 0.9%, respectively. The Message From Our Inflation Breakeven Valuation Models Chart 7A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds From an overall global perspective, the case for favoring ILBs versus nominal government bonds across all countries is less intriguing today than was the case in 2021 and early 2022 (Chart 7). Commodity price inflation is slowing rapidly alongside decelerating global growth. This is true both for oil and especially for non-oil commodities, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now falling on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). Supply chain disruptions on goods prices are easing, which is evident in lower rates of goods inflation in the US and other countries. Given the divergences evident between realized inflation, expected inflation and monetary policy outlook outlined in our tour of global inflation expectations, there may be better opportunities to selectively allocate to ILBs on a country-by-country basis. One tool to help us identify such opportunities is our suite of inflation breakeven fair value models. The models are all constructed in a similar fashion, determining the fair value of 10-year ILB breakevens as a function of the same two factors for each country: The underlying trend in realized inflation, defined as the five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation. This forms the medium-term “anchor” for breakevens. The year-over-year percentage change in the Brent oil price, denominated in local currency terms for each country. This attempts to capture cyclical trends around that medium-term anchor based on movements in oil and currencies. We have breakeven fair value models for eight developed market countries, which are shown in the next four pages of this report. The list of countries includes the US (Chart 8), the UK (Chart 9), France (Chart 10), Germany (Chart 11), Italy (Chart 12), Canada (Chart 13), Australia (Chart 14) and Japan (Chart 15). Chart 8Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 9Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 10Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 11Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 12Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 13Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 14Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 15Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Full disclosure: we decided last year to de-emphasize our breakeven fair value models after the 2020 COVID recession and, more importantly, the sharp global economic recovery in 2021 from the pandemic shock. The rapid acceleration of oil prices – up 2-3 times in all countries - triggered by that recovery created some wild swings in the estimated breakeven fair value. Today, with oil inflation at more “normal” levels below 100%, we have greater confidence in using the models once again in our strategic thinking on ILBs. The broad conclusions from the models are the following: 10-year inflation breakevens are too low in the US, Canada and Germany 10-year inflation breakevens are too high in the UK and Italy 10-year inflation breakevens are fairly valued in France, Japan and Australia. Taken at face value, our models would suggest overweighting ILBs in the US, Canada and Germany and underweighting ILBs in the UK (and staying neutral on France, Japan and Australia) as part of a new regional ILB diversification strategy. However, there is an additional element to consider when assessing the attractiveness of inflation breakevens at the macro level – the expected stance of monetary policy. ILB inflation breakevens often represent a market-based “report card” on the appropriateness of a central bank’s monetary policy. If monetary settings are deemed to be overly stimulative, the markets will price in higher expected inflation and wider breakevens. The opposite holds true if policy is deemed to be too restrictive, leading to reduced expected inflation and narrower breakevens. Thus, any regional ILB allocation strategy should not only use fair value assessments, but also a monetary policy “filter”. In Chart 16, we show a scatter graph plotting the latest deviations from fair value of 10-year breakevens from our eight country fair value models on the x-axis, and the cumulative amount of expected interest rate increases discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) curves for each country on the y-axis. For the latter, we define this as the peak in rates discounted in 2023 (which is the case for all the countries) minus the trough in policy rates at the start of the current monetary tightening cycle (which is near 0% for all the countries). Chart 16No Clear Link Between Rate Hikes & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The idea behind the chart is that inflation breakeven valuations should be inversely correlated to the amount of monetary tightening expected by markets. Too many rate hikes would result in markets discounting lower breakevens, and vice versa. However, there is no reliable relationship evident in the chart. For example, the OIS curves are discounting roughly similar levels of cumulative tightening in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, yet ILB breakeven valuations are very different between those countries. In Chart 17, we show a slightly different version of that scatter graph, this time plotting the ILB breakeven fair values versus the slope of the 2-year/10-year nominal government bond yield curve for all eight countries. The logic here is that the slope of the yield curve represents the bond market’s assessment of the appropriateness of future monetary policy. When policy is deemed to be too tight – with an expected peak in rates above what the market believes to be the neutral rate – the yield curve will be flat or even inverted, as markets discount slowing growth in the future and, eventually, lower inflation. Chart 17A Stronger Link Between Yield Curves & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds There is a clear positive relationship between yield curve slope and inflation expectations evident in the new chart. This provides some evidence justifying adding a monetary policy filter to a regional ILB allocation strategy. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Under this framework, US and Canadian breakevens trading below fair value is consistent with the inverted yield curves in both countries, with markets now discounting a restrictive level of future interest rates that would dampen inflation expectations. The fair value of Australian and Japanese breakevens also appears in line with the slope of the yield curves in those countries. In terms of divergences, the overvaluation of UK breakevens is inconsistent with the inverted nominal Gilt curve, while the three euro area countries should have somewhat higher breakevens (trading more richly to fair value) given the relatively steeper slope of their yield curves. Investment Conclusions Chart 18Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight After surveying our ILB breakeven fair value models, and cross-checking them versus trends in survey-based inflation expectations and our own assessment of future monetary policies, we arrive at the following country allocations within our new regional ILB strategy: Neutral on US TIPS, despite the attractive valuations. However, look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy (not our base case) or if breakevens fall even further below fair value without more deeper US Treasury curve inversion. Underweight UK ILBs. Breakevens are overshooting due to the near-term inflation risk from soaring energy prices – an outcome that will force the BoE to deliver an even tighter monetary policy, with a more deeply inverted yield curve, that will drive the UK into a disinflationary recession. Underweight Canadian ILBs, despite the attractive valuations. Canadian inflation has likely peaked, and the BoC is engineering a disinflationary downturn in the Canadian housing market with aggressive rate hikes that will maintain an inverted yield curve. Overweight German, French and Italian ILBs. The ECB is likely to deliver fewer rate hikes than markets are discounting, keeping the euro area yield curves relatively steep versus the curves of other developed countries. This also provides a better way to play the near-term inflationary upside from overshooting natural gas prices in Europe than overweighting UK ILBs, with the BoE expected to be much more hawkish than the ECB (Chart 18). Neutral Australia and Japan. Underlying inflation momentum is slower than in the other regions, while breakeven valuations are neutral and not out of line with the expected stance of monetary policy. We are incorporating this new regional ILB strategy into our Model Bond Portfolio, which can be seen on pages 18-20. The changes from current allocations involve upgrades to Germany, France and Italy to overweight, and a downgrade of Canada to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds

Executive Summary More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI The BCA global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still in a downtrend, but its diffusion index – which tends to lead the overall global LEI at major cyclical turning points – has crept higher since bottoming in January. The diffusion index is rising in part because of very marginal increases in the LEIs of a few countries, but there have been more decisive increases in the LEIs of two major countries outside the developed world – China and Brazil. There is not yet enough evidence pointing to a true bottoming of the BCA global LEI anytime soon, but an improvement in the LEI diffusion index above 50 (i.e. a majority of countries with a rising LEI) would be a more convincing signal that global growth momentum is set to rebound. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure. Feature Investors can be forgiven for being a bit confused by some conflicting messages in recent global economic data. For example, US real GDP contracted in both the first and second quarter of this year – a so-called “technical recession” – and consumer confidence is at multi-decade lows, yet the US unemployment rate fell to 3.5%, the lowest level since 1969, in July. A similar story is playing out across the Atlantic, where a historic surge in energy prices was supposed to have already tipped the euro area into recession, yet real GDP expanded in both Q1 and Q2 at an above-trend pace and unemployment continues to decline. At times like the present, when market narratives do not always line up with hard data, we always believe it important to look within our vast suite of indicators to help clear the fog. One of our most trusted growth indicators, the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), is still falling and, thus, signaling a continued deceleration of global growth over at least the next 6-9 months. However, there are some signs of more optimistic news embedded within our global LEI stemming from outside the developed economies, which could be a potential early sign of a bottoming in global growth momentum. In this report, we dig deeper into the guts of our global LEI to assess the odds of an imminent turning point in the LEI and, eventually, global growth. This has important implications for global bond yields, which are likely to remain rangebound until there is greater clarity on global growth momentum (and inflation downside momentum). What Leads The Leading Indicator? The BCA global LEI is a composite index that combines the LEIs of 23 individual countries using GDP weights. The underlying list of countries differs from that of the widely followed OECD LEI, which is comprised of data from 33 countries but with a heavy weighting on developed market economies. The overall OECD LEI excludes important exporting countries such as Taiwan and Singapore, which are highly sensitive to changes in global growth. Most importantly, the OECD LEI omits the world’s largest economy, China. For our global LEI, we prefer to use a smaller set of countries but one that includes China and a bigger weighting on emerging market (EM) economies. For most of the nations in our global LEI, we do use the country-level LEIs produced by the OECD.1 That also includes several large and important non-OECD EM countries for which the OECD calculates LEIs - a list that includes China, Brazil, India, Russia, Indonesia and South Africa. For a few selected countries, however, we use the following data: US, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore: LEIs produced by national government data sources or, in the case of the US, the Conference Board. Argentina, Malaysia and Thailand: LEIs are produced in-house at BCA, a necessary step given the lack of domestically-produced LEIs in those countries at the time our global LEI was first constructed. We find that our global LEI leads global real GDP growth by around six months, and leads global industrial production growth by around twelve months (Chart 1). Chart 1A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI A Gloomy Message From Our Global LEI The latest reading on the global LEI from July is pointing to a further deceleration of global GDP into a “growth recession” where GDP is expanding slower than the pace of potential global GDP growth (less than 2%). The global LEI is also pointing to an outright contraction of global industrial production, a path also signaled by the JPMorgan global manufacturing PMI index which hit a two-year low of 51.1 – closing in on the 50 level that signifies expanding industrial activity – in July. Chart 2A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? A Ray Of Hope On Global Growth? The momentum of our global LEI is largely influenced by its breadth. Specifically, we have found that when a growing share of countries within the global LEI have individual LEIs that are rising, the overall LEI will eventually follow suit. Thus, the diffusion index of our global LEI, which measures the percentage share of countries with rising individual LEIs, is itself a fairly good leading indicator of the global LEI at major cyclical turning points. We may be approaching such a turning point, as our global LEI diffusion index has increased from a low of 9 back in January of this year to the level of 30 in July (Chart 2). In past business cycles, the diffusion index has tended to lead the global LEI by around 6-9 months, which suggests that a bottom in the actual global LEI could occur sometime in the next few months – although that outcome is conditional on the magnitude of the rise in the diffusion index. In the top half of Table 1, we list previous episodes since 1980 where the global PMI diffusion index followed a similar path to that seen in 2022 – bottoming out below 10 and then rising to at least 30. We identified nine such episodes. In the table, we also show the subsequent change in the level of the global LEI after the increase in the diffusion index. Table 1Global LEI Diffusion Index Greater Than 50 Typically Signals LEI Uptrend A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The historical experience shows that an increase in the diffusion index to 30 was only enough to trigger a decisive rebound in the global LEI over a 6-12 month horizon in the 2000-01 and 2008 episodes. In several episodes, the global LEI actually contracted despite the pickup in the diffusion index. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think In the bottom half of Table 1, we run the same analysis but define the episodes as when the diffusion index rose from a low below 10 to at least 50. Unsurprisingly, periods when at least half of the countries have a rising LEI tend to result more frequently in the overall global LEI entering an uptrend within one year – although the two most recent episodes in 2010 and 2018-19 were notable exceptions. Bottom Line: After looking at past experience, the latest pickup in the global LEI diffusion index has not been by enough to confidently forecast a rebound in the LEI – and, eventually, faster global growth. No Broad-Based Improvement In Our Global LEI When grouping the countries within our global LEI by geographical region, it is clear that there is still no sign of improvement in North America or Europe, but some signs of bottoming in Asia and Latin America (Chart 3). Typically, the regional LEIs tend to be very positively correlated during major cyclical moves in the overall LEI, with no one region being particularly better than the others at consistently leading the global business cycle. Chart 3More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI More Regional Divergences Within Our Global LEI ​​​​​ Table 2Country Weightings In Our Global LEI A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? Of course, the global LEI is a GDP-weighted index that is dominated by the US and China (Table 2). When looking at individual country LEIs, the recent improvement in the LEI diffusion index looks less impressive. Some countries, like the UK and Korea, have only seen a tiny fractional uptick in the most recent LEI reading – moves small enough to qualify as statistical noise, even though the tiniest of positive moves still register as an “increase” when calculating the diffusion index. When looking at all the individual country LEIs within our global LEI, only two countries stand out as having meaningful increases over the past few months – China and Brazil (Chart 4). In the case of China, the idea that there could be signs of improving growth runs counter to the broad swath of recent data that highlight slowing momentum of Chinese consumer spending, business investment and residential construction. However, the production-focused components of the OECD’s China LEI, which we use in our global LEI, have shown some improvement of late (Chart 5). For example, motor vehicle production grew at a 32% year-over-year rate in July according to the OECD’s data, while total construction activity (based on OECD aggregates of production by industry) rose 9% year-over-year. Chart 4LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere LEI Improvement In China & Brazil, Sluggish Elsewhere ​​​​​ Chart 5Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI Improvement In Some Components Of The OECD's China LEI ​​​​​ The OECD’s LEI methodology is designed to include the minimum number of data series to optimize the fit of the LEI to the growth rate of each country’s industrial production index, which does lead to some peculiar series being included in the LEIs. However, there are signs of a potential rebound in Chinese economic growth evident in indicators preferred by our emerging market strategists, like the change in overall credit and fiscal spending as a share of GDP, a.k.a. the credit and fiscal impulse (Chart 6). The latter has shown a modest improvement that is hinting at faster Chinese growth in 2023, similar to the OECD’s China LEI. Turning to Brazil, the improvement in the OECD’s LEI there is focused on more survey-based data, like confidence among manufacturers and expectations on the demand for services. However, some hard data that the OECD includes in its Brazil LEI, namely net exports to Europe, have also shown clear improvement (Chart 7). Chart 6China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound China Credit/Fiscal Impulse Signaling A Growth Rebound Bottom Line: The modest improvement in our global LEI diffusion index is even less than meets the eye, as only China and Brazil have seen LEI increases that are meaningfully greater than zero. Chart 7Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI Improvement In Many Components Of The OECD's Brazil LEI ​​​​​ Investing Around The Global LEI Chart 8Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Global Financial Conditions Not Signaling An LEI Rebound Investors spend a sizeable chunk of their time focused on the future growth outlook to make investment decisions. This would, presumably, give leading economic indicators a useful role in any investment process. However, when looking at the relationship between our global LEI and the returns on risk assets like equities and corporate credit, the correlation is highly coincident (Chart 8). In other words, risk assets are themselves leading indicators of future economic growth – so much so that equity indices are often included as a component of the leading indicators of individual countries. On that front, the recent rebound in global equity markets, and the pullback in global credit spreads from the mid-June peak, could be signaling a more stable growth outlook that would be reflected in a bottoming of our global LEI. However, the monetary policy cycle matters, as evidenced by the correlation between the shape of government bond yield curves and our global LEI (bottom panel). That relationship is less strong than that of the LEI and equity/credit returns, but there are very few examples where yield curves are flat, or even inverted as is now the case in the US, and leading indicators are rising. Chart 9Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure Stay Neutral On Overall Duration Exposure In the current environment where more central banks are worrying more about overshooting inflation than slowing growth, a turnaround in our global LEI will be difficult to achieve until inflation is much closer to central bank target levels, allowing policymakers to loosen policy and steepen yield curves. We do not expect such a scenario to unfold over at least the next 12-18 months, given broad-based entrenched inflation pressures in global services and labor markets. While leading indicators may not be of much value in forecasting risk assets, we do find value in using them to forecast moves in government bond yields. Regular readers of BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy will be familiar with our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of growth-focused measures that have historically had a leading relationship to the momentum (annual change) in developed market bond yields (Chart 9). The Duration Indicator contains both the global LEI and its diffusion index, as well as the ZEW expectations indices for the US and Europe. Three of those four indicators remain at depressed levels suggesting waning bond yield momentum. Overshooting global inflation has weakened the correlation between bond yield momentum and our Duration Indicator over the past year. However, with global commodity and goods inflation now clearly decelerating, we expect bond momentum to begin tracking growth dynamics more closely again. This leads us to expect bond yields to remain trapped in ranges over at least the balance of 2022, defined most prominently by the 10-year US Treasury yield trading between 2.5% and 3%. Bottom Line: Given the uncertain message on growth from our global LEI, and with inflation rates still too high for central banks to pivot dovishly, we recommend staying close to neutral on overall global fixed income duration and modestly defensive on overall spread product exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   Details on how the OECD calculates the individual country leading economic indicators can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/sdd/leading-indicators/compositeleadingindicatorsclifrequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm\   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator? A Hint Of Recovery In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 16 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns