Yield Curve

Highlights There is no evidence of a decline in US corporate credit or bank lending spreads over the past few decades, meaning that any excess savings effect structurally depressing interest rates is occurring in the Treasury market. We note the possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower government bond yields, by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. To investigate the impact that excess savings may be having on bond yields, we define historical periods of abnormal yields based on the gap between long-maturity Treasury yields and the potential rate of economic growth. This reflects our view that potential growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. Since 1960, there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent, but the first two seem to be easily explained by the stance of US monetary policy rather than by a savings/investment imbalance. The excess savings story better fits the facts after 2000. We do find evidence that a global savings glut lowered bond yields during the early-2000s, and it may have even modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, the effect of the global savings glut was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so for cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than as a result of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, as long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion despite a reduction in savings and significantly stronger growth. The historical impact of FOMC meetings on the structural decline in long-maturity US Treasury yields strongly implies that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a lower average Fed funds rate. It is our view that the Fed has a backward-looking neutral rate outlook, informed by an incomplete understanding of the economic circumstances of the latter half of the last expansion. A low neutral rate narrative has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and we regard this as the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This phenomenon is only likely to dissipate once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. While the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Feature Chart II-110-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years For many investors, one of the most striking features of the pandemic, especially over the past year, is how low US long-maturity government bond yields have remained in the face of the highest headline consumer price inflation in four decades (Chart II-1). To many investors, this has provided even further evidence of a structural “excess savings” effect that has kept interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic activity. The theory of secular stagnation, revived by Larry Summers in late 2013, is a related concept, but many investors believe that interest rates will remain low even in a world in which the US economy is growing at or even above its trend. The fundamental basis for this view is the idea that over the longer term, the real rate of interest is determined by the balance (or imbalance) between desired savings and investment, and that advanced economies have and will continue to experience excess savings – defined as a chronically high level of desired savings relative to the investment opportunities available. According to this view, in order for the actual level of savings to equal investment, interest rates must fall. Chart II-2Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) This report challenges the view that excess savings are mostly responsible for the current level of long-term bond yields in the US. We agree that excess savings have played a role in explaining changes in long-term bond yields at different points over the past 20 years; we also agree that it is normal for interest rates in advanced economies to trend down over time in response to a demographically-driven decline in potential growth. But our goal is not to explain the downtrend in interest rates over time. Instead, we aim to explain the gap between the level of long-term bond yields today and the prevailing rate of economic activity, or consensus forecasts of the trend rate of growth (Chart II-2). We do not believe that this gap is economically justified, nor do we believe that it is driven by excess savings. We conclude that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate outlook is the primary factor anchoring US Treasury yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This is only likely to change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize; it suggests that investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Excess Savings And Interest Rates: Defining A “Mechanism Of Action” Households, businesses, and governments can directly purchase debt securities in capital markets, but they do not typically provide loans directly to borrowers. Direct lending usually occurs through the banking system, which means that excess savings would only lower interest rates in the economy through one of the following ways: By lowering the Fed funds rate By lowering long-maturity government bond yields relative to the Fed funds rate, by reducing either the term premium or investors’ expectations for the average Fed funds rate in the future By lowering corporate bond yields relative to duration-matched government bond yields By lowering lending rates on bank loans relative to banks’ cost of borrowing Charts II-3-II-5 highlight that there is no evidence of a structural decline in corporate credit spreads or bank lending rates relative to the Fed funds rate, so we can rule out this effect as a mechanism of action for excess savings to have structurally lowered interest rates. Chart II-6 highlights that interest paid on bank deposits lags the Fed funds rate, so we can also rule out the idea that excess deposits force the Fed to keep the effective Fed funds rate low. Chart II-3No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads… No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads This means that if excess savings are depressing interest rates in the US, that the effect is truly occurring in the Treasury market. As noted, this could occur by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. Related Report  The Bank Credit AnalystR-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks All of these effects are certainly possible. Keynes’ paradox of thrift highlights that excess savings can manifest itself as a chronic shortfall in aggregate demand, which would persistently lower the Fed funds rate as the Fed responds to a long period of high unemployment. This could also lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields in a scenario in which the Fed repeatedly engages in asset purchases to help stabilize aggregate demand. As well, domestic excess savings could lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields, as aging savers directly purchase government securities as part of their retirement portfolios. Finally, foreign capital inflows could also cause this effect, especially if they originate from countries with chronic current account surpluses that use an increase in US dollar reserves to purchase long-maturity US government securities. Table II-1 summarizes these possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower US government bond yields. With these mechanisms in mind, we review the past 60 years to identify periods of “abnormal” bond yields, with the goal of understanding whether excess savings appear to explain major gaps. Table II-1Possible Mechanisms Of Action For Excess Savings To Lower Long-Term Government Bond Yields April 2022 April 2022 Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7 shows the difference between nominal 10-year US Treasury yields and nominal potential GDP growth. Panel 2 shows an alternative version of this series using the ten-year median annualized quarterly growth rate of nominal GDP in lieu of estimates of potential growth, which highlights a generally similar relationship. This approach to defining “abnormal” long-maturity bond yields reflects our view that the potential rate of economic growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. To see why, given that GDP also effectively represents gross domestic income, an interest rate that is persistently below the potential growth rate of the economy would create a strong incentive to borrow on the part of households and especially firms. Chart II-7 makes it clear that the relationship has been mean-reverting over time, but that there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent. The first episode occurred from 1960 to the late 1970s, and saw government bond yields average well below the prevailing rate of economic growth. We do not see this period as having been caused by an excess of desired savings relative to investment. As we discussed in our November Special Report,1 this gap represented a period of persistently easy monetary policy which contributed to excessive aggregate demand and a structural rise in inflation. The second major episode is also easily explained, as it occurred in response to the first. Following a decade of high inflation, Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 1979 to combat inflationary expectations, which led to a two-decade period of generally tight monetary policy. Like the first period, this was not caused by an imbalance between desired savings and investment. The third episode has prevailed since the late-1990s, and has seen a negative yield/growth gap on average – albeit one that has been smaller than what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. From 2000 to 2007, the gap was generally negative, although it turned positive by the end of the economic cycle. It was modestly negative on average from 2008 to 2010, and only became persistently negative starting in 2011. The gap fell to a new low during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remains wider today than at any point during the last economic recovery. It is these post-2000 periods of a persistently negative yield/growth gap that should be closely investigated for evidence of an excess savings effect. The Global Savings Glut As noted, prior to 2000, the yield/growth gap in the US seems clearly explained by the Fed’s monetary policy stance, not by an excess savings effect. So the question is whether there is any evidence of excess savings having caused this negative gap since 2000. In our view, the answer is yes, but the effect was relatively small compared to what prevails today. We do find evidence of a global savings glut during the early-2000s. Chart II-8 highlights that the private and external sector savings/investment balances in China and emerging markets more generally were persistently positive during the 2000s. Chart II-9 highlights that multiple estimates of the term premium declined around that time – especially during Greenspan’s “conundrum” period of between 2004 and 2005. Chart II-8There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-9The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys Chart II-10 breaks down the components of the 10-year yield into the 5-year yield and the 5-year/5-year forward yield, and highlights that the negative correlation between the two components lasted for only one year. Overall, the 10-year Treasury yield was lower than potential growth for roughly two years as a result of the global savings glut effect.       Chart II-10Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude This was a significant event, and it may even have modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, it was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess Savings And US Household Deleveraging Chart II-11Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart II-11 highlights that, relative to June 2007 levels, the vast majority of the cumulative decline in the 10-year Treasury yield has occurred because of a decline in implied long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate, rather than a major decline in the term premium. The chart also shows that almost all the decline in implied long-term interest rate expectations since 2007 occurred during the 2008/2009 recession. This normally occurs during a recession as investors price in a low average Fed funds rate at the short end of the curve; the anomaly is that these expectations remained permanently low even as the economy recovered and as the Fed raised interest rates from 2015 to 2018. To us, Chart II-11 also underscores that the Fed’s asset purchases are not the main culprit behind low long-maturity bond yields today, given that the decline in long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate persisted even as the Fed stopped purchasing assets in 2014. It is not difficult to see why investors lowered their long-term Fed funds rate expectations in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, even as economic recovery took hold. Chart II-12 highlights that the “balance sheet” nature of the 2008/2009 recession unleashed the longest period of US household deleveraging in the post-WWII period, and Chart II-13 highlights that this occurred despite extremely low interest rates – and in contrast to other countries like Canada that did not experience the same loss in household net worth. Chart II-12Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-13The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008     Given that interest rates represent the price of borrowing, it is entirely unsurprising that a US balance sheet recession led to a persistent period in which credit growth was essentially unresponsive to interest rates, as households struggled to rebuild wealth lost during the recession and were unable to, or uninterested in, releveraging. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate of interest fell during that period, which we agree did occur. It is also accurate to characterize the US as having experienced a sharp increase in desired savings over that period, as highlighted by the explosion in the US private sector financial balance in the initial years of the last economic recovery (Chart II-14). Chart II-14Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. So excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so because of cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than because of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, because while Chart II-14 shows that this excess savings effect eventually waned in importance, long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-15Growth Was Historically Weak Last Cycle, But Only Because Of The First Few Years Of The Expansion April 2022 April 2022 Chart II-15 highlights that the cumulative annualized growth in real per capita GDP during the last economic cycle was significantly below that of the average of previous expansions, but this was only the case because of the very slow growth period between 2008 and 2014. Per capita growth during the latter half of the expansion was comparable to that of previous expansions, and this occurred while the Fed was raising interest rates. And yet, investors only modestly raised their long-term interest rate expectations during that period. In our view, it is this fact that holds the key to understanding why investors’ long-term rate expectations are still low today. An Alternative Explanation For Today’s Extremely Low Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-16Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Chart II-16 highlights that, since 1990, all of the structural decline in US 10-year Treasury yields has occurred within a three-day window on either side of FOMC meetings. This strongly suggests that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a low average Fed funds rate, which is consistent with how similar 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields are in relation to published FOMC and market participant estimates of the average longer-run Fed funds rate (as shown in Chart II-2). This raises the important question of why the Fed did not revise up its expectation for the neutral rate during or following the second half of the last economic expansion, when growth was much stronger than during the first half. In our view, one of the clearest articulations of the Federal Reserve’s understanding of the neutral rate of interest was presented in a 2015 speech by Lael Brainard at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Brainard noted the following: “The neutral rate of interest is not directly observable, but we can back out an estimate of the neutral rate by relying on the observation that output should grow faster relative to potential growth the lower the federal funds rate is relative to the nominal neutral rate. In today’s circumstances, the fact that the US economy is growing at a pace only modestly above potential while core inflation remains restrained suggests that the nominal neutral rate may not be far above the nominal federal funds rate, even now. In fact, various econometric estimates of the level of the neutral rate, or similar concepts, are consistent with the low levels suggested by this simple heuristic approach.”2 Chart II-17The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... Given how the Fed determines the neutral rate is, two factors explain why the Fed’s estimates of the neutral rate have not increased (and, in fact, fell modestly in March). First, core inflation remained below 2% from 2015-2019, despite the fact that the economy was clearly growing at an above-trend pace during this period in the face of Fed rate hikes. We have noted in previous reports the role that the 2014 collapse in oil prices had on household inflation expectations. The latter were already vulnerable to a disinflationary shock, given how negative the output gap had been in the first half of the expansion.3 We do not think that the decline in inflation expectations that occurred following the 2014 collapse in oil prices reflects a low neutral rate, but rather we believe that the Fed saw this as a conundrum that supported the expectation of a low average Fed funds rate. The second event explaining the Fed’s persistently low long-term rate expectations is the fact that the Fed was forced to cut interest rates in 2019, which we believe it saw as confirmation that the stance of monetary policy had become either meaningfully less easy or openly tight. From the Fed’s point of view, this perspective was also supported by recessionary indicators, such as the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve (Chart II-17), and popular (but now discontinued) econometric estimates of the real neutral rate of interest, such as those calculated by the Laubach-Williams model (panel 3). Chart II-18...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity However, this view entirely ignores the fact that the US and global economies were negatively impacted in 2018 and 2019 by a politically-motivated nonmonetary shock to aggregate demand: the China-US trade war, which also impacted or targeted several major advanced economies. Chart II-18 highlights that global trade uncertainty exploded during this period, which severely damaged business confidence around the world and caused a slowdown in global industrial production. Tighter Chinese policy also likely contributed to the slowdown in global activity, but the bottom line is that factors other than US monetary policy contributed to economic weakness during this period, and that it is incorrect to infer from the 2018/2019 experience that interest rates rose to or exceeded the neutral rate of interest. In short, it is our view that the Fed has simply become backward-looking in how it perceives the neutral rate of interest; it has not yet observed a period when the Fed funds rate has risen to its estimate of neutral but is unambiguously still easy. Fixed-income investors, having demonstrably anchored their own assessments to those of the Fed over the past 30 years, have had no basis to come to a meaningfully different conclusion. We believe that the Fed’s backward-looking low neutral rate outlook has now become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will probably only change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. As a final point, we clearly acknowledge that private savings increased massively during the pandemic. Investors who are inclined to see excess savings as the primary driver of low bond yields will point to this fact. But this was a forced increase in savings, rather than a desired one. The rise in household sector savings occurred mostly because of a substantial reduction in services spending, as pandemic restrictions and forced changes in behavior prevented the consumption of many services. The household savings rate has already returned to its pre-pandemic level in the US, and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have risen to a higher point than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. US households are likely to deploy a portion of their enormous stock of excess savings, as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, which is one of the main reasons to expect that the US economy will not succumb to a recession over the coming 12-18 months – and why investors and the Fed may soon be presented with evidence that warrants an increase in their long-term interest rate expectations. Investment Conclusions There are two important investment implications of the view that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate projection is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long end of the maturity spectrum. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, the first implication is that investors will likely be faced with a recession scare as the 2-10 yield curve durably inverts and as rate sensitive sectors of the economy, such as housing, inevitably slow in response to the extremely sharp rise in mortgage rates that has occurred over the past three months. We believe that it is ultimately the level of interest rates that matters for economic activity, rather than the change in interest rates. Large changes over short periods of time, however, create a degree of uncertainty about the trajectory of rates that temporarily impacts economic activity. This underscores that investors should not maintain an aggressively overweight stance toward global equities in a multi-asset portfolio, as it is likely that concerns about corporate profits will increase significantly at some point this year. The second investment implication is that US long-maturity bond yields could increase to much higher levels over the coming 12-24 months than many investors expect, in a scenario in which pandemic-driven price pressure dissipates, real wages recover, and no major politically-driven nonmonetary policy shocks emerge. We acknowledge that long-term interest rate expectations are unlikely to change until hard evidence of the economy’s capacity to tolerate interest rates above the Fed’s implied current estimate of the neutral rate emerges. This is a case, however, when we believe that investors should heed the now-famous words of Rüdiger Dornbusch: “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” As such, while the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Lael Brainard, Normalizing Monetary Policy When The Neutral Rate Is Low, December 2015 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Our current list of tactical trade recommendations centers around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We still see value in holding our recommended cross-country spread trades that will benefit from continued US bond underperformance (short US Treasuries versus government bonds in Germany, Canada and New Zealand, all at the 10-year maturity). We also maintain our bias to lean against the yield curve flattening trend in the US, but we now prefer to do it solely via our existing SOFR futures calendar spread position. Finding attractively valued inflation breakeven spread trades is more difficult after the latest oil-fueled run-up in developed market inflation expectations. Canadian breakevens, however, stand out as having the greatest upside potential according to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators. Bottom Line: Remain in US-Germany, US-Canada an US-New Zealand 10-year government bond yield spread widening trades. Maintain our recommended position in the US SOFR futures curve (long Dec/22 futures, short Dec/24 futures). Add a new inflation-linked bond trade, going long 10-year Canadian breakevens. Feature One month has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine, and investors are still struggling to sort out the financial market implications. Equity markets in the US and Europe have recovered the losses incurred immediately after the conflict began. Equity market volatility has also fallen back to pre-invasion levels according to the VIX index (and its European counterpart, the VStoxx index). That decline in equity volatility has also coincided with a narrowing of corporate credit spreads in both the US and Europe, with the former now fully back to pre-invasion levels. Yet while credit spread volatility has calmed down, government bond yield volatility remains elevated thanks to rising commodity prices putting upward pressure on expectations for inflation and monetary policy (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels ​​​​​​ Table 1Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations We have already made some “wartime” adjustments to our global bond market cyclical recommendations, with those changes reflected in our model bond portfolio. This week, we review our shorter-term tactical trade recommendations. Our current list of tactical trades revolves around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger cyclical upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We continue to see the value in holding on to most of our existing tactical trades, with only a couple of adjustments to be made to our US yield curve and global inflation-linked bond positions (Table 1). US Yield Curve Tactical Trades: Shift Focus To SOFR Steepeners We have recommended trades that lean against the aggressive flattening of the US Treasury curve discounted in forward rates since late 2021. Our view has been that markets were discounting too rapid a pace of Fed rate increases in 2022. With the Fed likely delivering fewer hikes than expected, Treasury curve steepening trades would benefit as the spot Treasury curve would flatten by less than implied by the forwards. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyFive Reasons To Tactically Increase US Duration Exposure Now Needless to say, that view has not panned out as we anticipated. The spread between 10-year and 2-year US Treasury yields now sits at a mere +13bps, down from +104bps when we initiated our 2-year/10-year steepener trade last November. The forwards now discount an inversion of that curve starting in June of this year, which would be an extraordinary outcome by historical standards. Typically, the US Treasury curve inverts only after the Fed has delivered an extended monetary tightening cycle that delivers multiple rate hikes over at least a 1-2 year period (Chart 2). Today, the curve has nearly inverted with the Fed having only delivered only a single 25bp rate increase earlier this month. Chart 2The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Of course, the Fed’s reaction function in the current cycle is different compared to the past. The Fed now follows an average inflation targeting framework that tolerates temporary inflation overshoots after periods when US inflation ran below the Fed’s 2% target. Now, however, the Fed has no choice but to respond to surging US inflation, which has been accelerating since September and is now at levels last seen in 1982. Chart 3Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade We still see the market pricing in too much Fed tightening this year and too few rate hikes in 2023/24. The US overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounts 218bps of rate hikes in 2022, but 44bps of rate cuts between June 2023 and December 2024. We think a more likely scenario is the Fed doing less than discounted this year, as US inflation should show some deceleration in the latter half of 2022, but then continuing to raise rates in 2023 into 2024. We have expressed this view more specifically through an additional tactical trade that was initiated last month, going long the December 2022 3-month SOFR futures contract versus shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract. This new trade is essentially a calendar spread trade between two futures contracts, but with a return profile that has looked quite similar to our 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattening trade (Chart 3). Having two tactical trades that are highly correlated, and which both are driven by the same theme of the Fed doing less this year and more over the next two years, is inefficient. We see the SOFR calendar spread trade as a more precise expression of our Fed policy view compared to the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve steepener. In addition, the SOFR trade now offers slightly better value after it has lagged the performance of the Treasury curve trade over the past couple of weeks. Thus, we are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (see the table on page 15), while closing out our 2-year/10-year steepener at a loss of -92bps.1 Cross-Country Spread Trades: Keeping Betting On Relatively Higher US Yields In our Tactical Overlay portfolio, we currently have three recommended cross-country government bond spread trades that all have one thing in common – a sale of 10-year US Treasuries. The long side of the three trades are different (Germany, New Zealand and Canada), but the logic underlying all three trades is the same. The Fed will deliver more rate hikes than the central banks in the other countries. 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread Chart 4UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low Expecting a wider US Treasury-German Bund spread remains our highest conviction view in G-10 government bond markets. This is a trade we have described as a more efficient way to position for rising US bond yields than a pure below-benchmark US duration stance. We have maintained that recommendation in both our model bond portfolio and our Tactical Overlay portfolio. For the latter, that trade was implemented using 10-year bond futures in both markets and is up 3.9% since initiation back in October 2021. The case for expecting even more Treasury-Bund spread widening remains strong, for several reasons: Underlying inflation remains higher in the US, particularly when looking at domestic sources of inflation like wages and service sector prices. Europe, which relies more heavily on Russia for its energy supplies than the US, is more at risk of a negative growth shock from the Ukraine conflict. Our fundamental model of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread shows that the current level of the spread (+197bps) is about one full standard deviation below fair value, which itself is rising due to stronger US economic growth, faster US inflation and a more aggressive path for monetary tightening from the Fed relative to the ECB (Chart 4). The spread between our 24-month discounters in the US and Europe, which measure the amount of rate hikes priced into OIS curves for the two regions over the next two years, has proven to be good leading indicator of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread. That discounter spread is currently at 99bps, levels last seen when the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread climbed to the 250-300bps range in 2017/18 (Chart 5). With the relative forward curves now discounting a slight narrowing of the US-German 10-year spread over the next year, betting on a wider spread does not suffer from negative carry. We are maintaining this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio with great conviction. 10-year US Treasury-Canada government bond spread We entered another cross-country spread trade involving a US Treasury short position earlier this month, in this case versus 10-year Canadian government bonds. This trade is a bet on relative monetary policy moves between the Fed and the Bank of Canada (BoC). Like the Fed, the BoC is facing a problem of high inflation and tight labor markets. Canadian core CPI inflation hit a 19-year high of 3.9% in January, while the Canadian unemployment rate is at a 3-year low of 5.5%. The US is facing even higher inflation and even lower unemployment, but one major difference between the two nations is the degree of household sector debt loads. Canada’s household debt/income ratio now stands at 180%, 55 percentage points higher than the equivalent US ratio, thanks to greater residential mortgage borrowing in Canada (Chart 6). Chart 5Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening The Canadian OIS curve is now discounting a peak policy rate of 3.1% in 2023, which is at the high end of the BoC’s estimated 1.75-2.75% range for the neutral policy rate. Chart 6The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness ​​​​​ Elevated household debt will limit the BoC’s ability to lift rates that high, as this would trigger a major retrenchment of housing demand and a significant cooling of house prices. While the US is also facing issues with robust housing demand and high house prices, this is less of a factor that would limit Fed tightening relative to the BoC because US household balance sheets are not as levered as their Canadian counterparts. We are keeping our short US/long Canada spread trade (implemented using bond futures) in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, with the BoC unlikely to keep pace with the expected Fed rate increases over the next year (Chart 7). Chart 7Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread 10-year US Treasury-New Zealand government bond spread The third cross-country trade in our Tactical Overlay is 10-year New Zealand-US spread widening trade. Chart 8A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations ​​​​​​ Like the Germany and Canada spread trades, we expect the Fed to deliver more rate hikes than the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) which should push up US Treasury yields versus New Zealand equivalents. In the case of this trade, however, interest rate expectations in New Zealand are far more aggressive. Chart 9Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening The RBNZ has already lifted its Official Cash Rate (OCR) by 75bps since starting the tightening cycle in mid-2021. The New Zealand OIS curve is now discounting an additional 253bps of rate hikes in this cycle, eventually reaching a peak OCR of 3.5% in June 2023. This would put the OCR into slightly restrictive territory based on the range of neutral rate estimates from the RBNZ’s various quantitative models (Chart 8). This contrasts to the pricing in the US OIS curve that places the peak in the fed funds rate at 2.8% next year before falling back to the low end of the FOMC’s 2.0-3.0% range of neutral estimates in 2024. Both the US and New Zealand are suffering from similarly high rates of inflation, with New Zealand headline inflation reaching 5.9% in the last available data from Q4/2021. However, while markets are already pricing in restrictive monetary settings in New Zealand, markets are yet to price in a similarly restrictive move in the fed funds rate. We continue to see scope for a narrowing of the New Zealand-US 10-year bond yield spread over at least the next six months. There has already been meaningful compression of the 2-year yield spread as US rate expectations have converged towards New Zealand levels (Chart 9) – we expect the 10-year spread to follow suit. Inflation Breakeven Trades: Swap Canada For Australia We currently have one inflation-linked bond (ILB) trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, betting on higher inflation breakevens in Australia. We initiated this trade last October, largely based on the signal from our suite of Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI) for the major developed economy ILB markets. The CBIs contain three components: the deviation from fair value from our 10-year breakeven spread models, the distance between realized headline inflation and the central bank target, and the gap between the 10-year breakeven and survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations. Those three measures are standardized and aggregated to form the CBI. Countries with lower CBIs have more upside potential for breakevens, and their ILBs should be favored over those from nations with higher CBIs. Chart 10Breaking Down Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation Indicators A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Chart 11Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Given the latest run-up in global inflation breakevens on the back of soaring oil prices, there are now no countries in our CBI universe that have a negative CBI (Chart 10). Canada has the lowest CBI, and thus the highest upside potential for breakeven spread widening. We are taking a modest profit of +40bps in our Australian breakeven trade, as we are approaching the self-imposed six-month holding period limit on our tactical trades and our Australian CBI is not indicating major upside for Australian breakevens.2 Based on the message from our indicators, we see a better case for entering a new tactical spread widening position in 10-year Canadian ILBs. A comparison of the CBIs between Canada and Australia shows that the Canadian 10-year inflation breakeven is well below our model-implied fair value, which incorporates both oil prices and currency levels (Chart 11). This contrasts to the Australian breakeven which is now well above fair value. A similar divergence appears when comparing breakeven spreads to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, with Canadian breakevens looking too “undervalued” compared to Australia. While realized headline inflation is above the respective central bank targets, especially in Canada, the valuation cushion makes the ILBs of the latter the better bargain of the two. The details of our new Canadian 10-year breakeven trade, where we go long the cash ILB and sell 10-year Canadian bond futures against it, are shown in our Tactical Overlay table on page 15.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Treasury curve trade is actually a “butterfly” trade, where we have included an allocation to US 3-month Treasury bills (cash) to make the curve steepener duration-neutral. Thus, the trade is more specifically a position where we are long a 2-year US Treasury bullet and short a cash/10-year US Treasury barbell with a duration equal to that of the 2-year. 2     We have recently discovered an error in our how we have calculated the returns on the 10-year Australian futures leg of our Australian 10-year inflation breakeven widening trade. The final total return for our trade shown in the Tactical Overlay table on page 15 corrects for our error, and fortunately shows a significantly higher return than we have published in past reports. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary An inverted yield curve is a reliable recession indicator. Inversions of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the 3-month/3-month, 18-months forward slope both provide more timely recession signals than inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. An inverted yield curve is a reliable equity bear market indicator. Even when it’s not signaling a recession, the yield curve’s movements offer some insight into equity returns as stocks have consistently performed better while it is flattening than they have when it is steepening. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope embeds useful information for corporate bond excess returns. Corporates perform best when the slope is very steep and worst when it is very flat and/or inverted. Treasury securities generally outperform cash when the yield curve is either very steep or inverted. The one exception is the early-1980s when the Fed continued to tighten aggressively even after an inversion of the yield curve. Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Bottom Line: The overall message from the yield curve is that, while the economic recovery is no longer in its early stages, it is premature to talk about a recession. On a 6-to-12 month investment horizon, investors should overweight equities in multi-asset portfolios. Within US bond portfolios, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Feature It’s a well-known maxim in macro-finance that an inverted yield curve signals a recession. While that adage embeds a lot of truth, it is also sufficiently vague that it raises more questions than it answers. How far in advance does an inverted yield curve signal a recession? What specific yield curve segment sends the most helpful signal? And most importantly, does the yield curve tell us anything useful about the future performance of financial assets? These sorts of questions are particularly relevant today as we observe some sections of the yield curve approaching inversion while others make new highs (Chart 1). Chart 1Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals This Special Report explains how to think about the slope of the US Treasury curve as an indicator for the economy and financial markets. We first examine the yield curve’s empirical track record as a recession indicator. We then consider what the slope of the yield curve tells us about future equity, corporate bond and Treasury returns. The analysis presented in this report focuses on three different measures of the yield curve slope: The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the spread between the 3-month T-bill rate and the 3-month T-bill rate, 18 months forward. That last spread measure is less commonly cited, but Fed research has shown it to be a reliable predictor of recession.1 It was also recently highlighted by Fed Chair Jerome Powell.2 In the remainder of this report we will refer to the 3-month/3-month, 18-month forward spread as the “Fed Slope”. The Yield Curve & Recession Recession forecasting is a tricky business. It is often not so much a question of identifying “good” and “bad” recession indicators, but a question of balancing lead time and reliability. Recession indicators derived from financial market prices tend to offer greater advance warning of recession but also provide more false signals. On the flipside, indicators derived from macroeconomic data tend to give less lead time but with fewer false signals. Typically, the most useful recession indicators involve some combination of financial market and economic data. For example, a 2018 report from our US Investment Strategy service showed that a useful recession indicator can be created by combining the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator.3 The Treasury slope’s reputation as an excellent recession indicator is justified because, despite it being derived from volatile financial market data, an inversion of the yield curve provides a very reliable recession signal. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has inverted in advance of 7 of the past 8 recessions and has not sent a false signal.4  The 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has done even better, calling 8 out of the past 8 recessions without a false signal. The Fed Slope, meanwhile, has also called 8 out of the past 8 recessions, but it sent one false signal in September 1998. There is room to quibble about the usefulness of the yield curve as a recession indicator in terms of lead time. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has, on average, inverted 15.9 months before the start of the next recession (Table 1). This inversion has always occurred before the first Fed rate cut of the cycle, and in all but one instance (1973-75), before the peak in the S&P 500. Table 1Lead Times For Yield Curve Segments, Equity Bear Markets And Fed Rate Cuts The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator But while some advance warning is good, the 2-year/10-year slope probably gives too much lead time. For example, the 2-year/10-year slope inverted a full 24 months before the 2007-09 recession, but it would have been unwise to act on that information since the S&P 500 didn’t peak for another 22 months! The historical record shows that the 3-month/10-year Treasury curve and the Fed Slope offer more useful signals than the 2-year/10-year curve. On average, these curves provide less lead time than the 2-year/10-year slope but still generally provide advance warning of recession and stock market peaks. The recession signal from the 3-month/10-year slope has only missed the peak in the S&P 500 twice. The signal from the Fed Slope has only missed the stock market’s peak once, but it also sent one false signal. Synthesizing all this information, we conclude that the 3-month/10-year Treasury curve and the Fed Slope are both highly reliable recession indicators that typically provide more than enough advance warning for equity investors to adjust their positions. The main value of the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve is that its inversion warns that we may soon get a timelier signal from the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Fed Slope. Looking at the present situation, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened dramatically during the past few months, but at 18 bps it remains un-inverted. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Fed Slope are both elevated at 195 bps and 255 bps, respectively. We can conclude from this that recession warnings are premature. We will become more concerned about an upcoming recession when the 3-month/10-year slope and the Fed Slope approach inversion. The Yield Curve & Equity Returns Identifying a recession and demarcating its beginning and ending dates may seem like a trivial exercise that has little practical import. Celebrated mutual fund manager Peter Lynch has repeatedly offered the opinion that any time an equity investor spends thinking about the economy is wasted time. We beg to differ. Equity bear markets reliably coincide with recessions (Chart 2) – since the late 1960s, only one recession has occurred without a bear market (the first leg of the Volcker double dip from January to July 1980) and only one bear market has occurred without a recession (October 1987’s Black Monday bear market) – and an asset allocator who reduced equity exposure upon receiving advance notice of recessions would have been in a position to generate significant alpha. Chart 2Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Coincide Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Coincide Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Coincide The relationship between equity returns and the business cycle is not happenstance – variation in stock prices correlates closely with variation in corporate earnings and corporate earnings growth is a function of the business cycle. Equity prices, P, are simply the product of earnings per share, E, and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them, P/E: P = E x (P/E). If we hold somewhat fickle P/E multiples constant, stock prices will rise and fall with earnings. Given that earnings rarely decline outside of recessions (Chart 3), investors can expect equities to rise during expansions and decline during recessions. Chart 3Earnings Grow In Expansions And Fall In Recessions Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Earnings Grow In Expansions And Fall In Recessions Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Earnings Grow In Expansions And Fall In Recessions Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Digging a little more deeply into the empirical record since consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled reinforces the earnings/returns link. With the exception of the first leg of the Volcker double dip recession in 1980, forward four-quarter earnings estimates have fallen in every recession and have contracted in the aggregate at an annualized 16% rate (Table 2). Multiples have expanded at a hearty 9% clip from the beginning to the end of recessions but have always declined, sometimes sharply, during them. Conversely, earnings estimates always grow heartily during expansions, while multiples tend to observe a fairly tight range. Multiples and stocks move ahead of the business cycle, consistently troughing before the end of a recession, but the 20-percentage-point expansion/recession disparity in annualized returns testifies to the yield curve’s utility as an investment leading indicator. Table 2When Earnings Fall, So Do Stocks The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator The yield curve’s usefulness as a predictor of equity returns goes beyond recession signaling. Over the last half-century, the yield curve has tended to steepen and flatten in distinct phases. Defining a phase as a move of at least 200 basis points (bps) between the 3-month/10-year curve slope’s peak and trough, we count ten steepenings and nine flattenings since August 1969 (Chart 4). Chart 450 Years Of Steepening And Flattening 50 Years Of Steepening And Flattening 50 Years Of Steepening And Flattening After segmenting performance by slope increments in steepening (Table 3, top panel) and flattening (Table 3, middle panel) phases, we find a clear distinction. S&P 500 total returns tend to be much stronger when the yield curve is in a flattening phase than when it is steepening. In general, a steeper curve is better than a flatter (or inverted) one for equity returns but flattening dominates steepening in every segment but the current one (150-200 bps). The cheery news for investors concerned about an inverted yield curve’s effect on stocks is that the upcoming flattening increments between now and inversion have historically been favorable. Though we are tactically neutral equities, we recommend overweighting them in multi-asset portfolios over a cyclical 6-to-12 month timeframe. Table 3Stocks Like A Flattening Yield Curve The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve & Corporate Bond Returns This section of the report considers investment grade corporate bond returns in excess of a duration-matched position in US Treasuries and whether the slope of the Treasury curve can help us predict their magnitude. First, it’s important to point out that there is a lot of overlap between excess corporate bond returns and equity returns, but it is not complete (Chart 5). Corporates certainly tend to underperform duration-matched Treasuries during recessions and equity bear markets, but there have also been significant bouts of underperformance that fall outside of those periods. For example, corporate bond returns peaked well before equity returns in the late-1990s and corporates also underwent a severe selloff in 2014-15. Chart 5Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend That said, Table 4 shows that, as is the case with stocks, a strategy of reducing corporate bond exposure during recessions will profit over time. Corporate bonds have underperformed Treasuries by a cumulative 3.1% (annualized) during recessions since 1979 and have outperformed by 1.2% (annualized) in non-recessionary periods. Table 4Corporate Bond Performance In And Out Of Recessions The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator The results in Table 4 suggest that investors should remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries at least until the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverts. However, we think investors can perform even better if they pay attention to early warning signs from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. Table 5 shows historic 12-month corporate bond excess returns given different starting points for the 2-year/10-year slope. The starting points are also split depending on whether the 2-year/10-year slope was in a steepening or flattening trend at the time. Table 512-Month Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator The results presented in Table 5 show that the level of the slope matters much more than whether the curve is in a steepening or flattening trend. They also show that, in general, excess returns tend to be much higher when the slope is steep than when it is flat. We also see that the odds of corporate bonds outperforming duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon decline markedly for periods when the 2-year/10-year slope starts below 25 bps. At present, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is 18 bps, just below the 25-bps cutoff. Though we take this negative signal from the yield curve seriously, we also anticipate that peaking inflation will prevent the Fed from raising rates by 245 bps during the next 12 months, the pace that is currently discounted in the yield curve. If this view pans out it will likely lead to some modest 2/10 curve steepening and a relief rally in corporate spreads. To square the difference between the current negative message from the yield curve and our more optimistic macro view, we recommend a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds within US fixed income portfolios. Though we will likely downgrade our recommended allocation if the 2-year/10-year slope continues to flatten and approaches inversion. The Yield Curve & Treasury Returns This section of the report considers US Treasury index returns in excess of a position in cash, a metric designed to proxy for the returns earned by varying a US bond portfolio’s average duration. Treasury outperformance of cash indicates that long duration positions are profiting while Treasury underperformance of cash indicates that short duration positions are in the green. The historical relationship between Treasury returns and the slope of the yield curve is heavily influenced by the early-1980s period when the Fed plunged the economy into a double-dip recession to contain spiraling inflation. Chart 6 shows that this early-1980s episode is the only one where Treasuries sold off steeply even after all three of our yield curves had inverted. Chart 6A Repeat Of The Early 1980s Episode Remains Unlikely A Repeat Of The Early 1980s Episode Remains Unlikely A Repeat Of The Early 1980s Episode Remains Unlikely In fact, if we look at the history of 12-month Treasury returns going back to 1973 split by the starting point for the slope (Tables 6A, 6B & 6C), we see that returns are worst after the curve is inverted and best when the curve is very steep. Table 6A12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Slope Since 1973 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator Table 6B12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 3-Month / 10-Year Slope Since 1973 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator Table 6C12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For the Fed Slope** Since 1973 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator However, that picture changes if we start our historical sample in 1985 to exclude the early-1980s episode. Now, we see that Treasury returns tend to be high when the yield curve is very steep and when it is inverted (Tables 7A, 7B & 7C). The worst 12-month periods for Treasury returns are when the 2-year/10-year slope is between 75 bps and 100 bps, when the 3-month/10-year slope is between 50 bps and 75 bps and when the Fed Curve is between 0 bps and 25 bps. If we apply today’s situation to the post-1985 results shown in Tables 7A, 7B & 7C, we would conclude that the outlook for Treasury returns is very positive. The 3-month/10-year slope and Fed Curve are very steep, and the 2-year/10-year slope is in the 0 bps to 25 bps range. Of course, that message from the 2-year/10-year slope flips if viewed in the context of the post-1973 data shown in Table 6A. Table 7A12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Slope Since 1985 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator Table 7B12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 3-Month / 10-Year Slope Since 1985 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator Table 7C12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For the Fed Slope** Since 1985 The Yield Curve As An Indicator The Yield Curve As An Indicator Our assessment is that the risk of a repeat of the early-1980s episode is still relatively small. Yes, inflation is extremely high, but it is likely to moderate naturally as we gain more distance from the pandemic. In that environment, the Fed will not feel the need to continue tightening aggressively even after all three segments of the yield curve have inverted. As such, we are inclined to view the message from the yield curve as positive for Treasury returns on a 12-month horizon, and we continue to advocate keeping average bond portfolio duration “at benchmark”.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/dont-fear-the-yield-curve-20180628.htm 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-21/powell-says-look-at-short-term-yield-curve-for-recession-risk?sref=Ij5V3tFi 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report, “How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?”, dated August 13, 2018. 4 We define an instance of “inversion” as a yield curve slope below zero for two consecutive months. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). A 50 bps rate hike is possible at some point this year, but only if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored or core PCE inflation prints consistently above 0.30%-0.35% per month. Historical evidence suggests that Treasury securities perform best when the yield curve is very steep or very flat. All else equal, an inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope would make us more bullish on bonds. High-yield corporates have performed better than investment grade corporates during the recent sell-off. Investors should continue to favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain “at benchmark” portfolio duration and buy Treasury curve steepeners. We also maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We Have Liftoff The Fed followed through on its earlier promise and lifted the funds rate by 25 basis points last week. FOMC participants also sharply revised up their expectations for the future pace of tightening, though this revision mostly just made the Fed’s forecast more consistent with what was already priced in the yield curve. Market rate hike expectations, as inferred from the overnight index swap curve, shifted up only slightly after the Fed’s announcement (Chart 1). Chart 1Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations As of Monday morning, the bond market is priced for 208 bps of tightening during the next 12 months and 174 bps between now and the end of the year. This is close to the median FOMC forecast which calls for 150 bps of further tightening this year followed by an additional 92 bps in 2023. Last week’s report highlighted the tricky situation faced by the Fed.1 On the one hand, the Fed must tighten quickly enough to keep long-dated inflation expectations anchored. On the other hand, the Fed wants to avoid tightening so quickly that it causes a recession. For investors, we think it makes sense to assume that the Fed will try to split the difference by lifting rates at a pace of 25 bps per meeting for at least the next 12 months. However, there are significant risks to both the upside and downside of this projection. The Odds Of A 50 bps Hike The upside risk is that inflation is sufficiently sticky that the Fed will feel the need to deliver a 50 bps rate hike at some point this year. Last week’s Fed interest rate projections show that 7 out of 16 FOMC participants think that at least one 50 bps rate hike will be necessary. Meanwhile, market prices are consistent with one 50 basis point rate hike and five 25 basis point rate hikes at this year’s six remaining FOMC meetings. We think the Fed will only deliver a 50 bps rate hike if inflation looks to be tracking above the committee’s 2022 forecast or if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored to the upside. Related Report  Global Investment StrategyIs A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? On the inflation front, the FOMC’s central tendency forecast calls for core PCE inflation of between 3.9% and 4.4% in 2022, with a median of 4.1%. To match this forecast, core PCE will have to average a monthly growth rate of between 0.30% and 0.35% in each of this year’s eleven remaining months (Chart 2).2 Every monthly inflation print above that range increases the odds of a 50 bps Fed move, every print below that range brings the odds down. As for long-maturity inflation expectations, the Fed likely views them as “well anchored” for the time being. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has broken meaningfully above the Fed’s target range but the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains consistent with the Fed’s goals (Chart 3). The University of Michigan’s survey measure of 5-10 year household inflation expectations has risen sharply, but it has not yet broken meaningfully above recent historical levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Chart 3Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Our sense is that inflation is very close to peaking and that lower inflation in the back half of the year will apply downward pressure to inflation expectations and prevent the Fed from delivering a 50 bps hike at any single FOMC meeting. However, we will be closely tracking the evolution of Charts 2 and 3 to see if this situation changes. The Odds Of Skipping A Meeting Chart 4Financial Conditions Financial Conditions Financial Conditions The downside risk to the Fed’s expected rate hike path results from the fact that financial conditions have already responded aggressively to the Fed’s actions and communications. While it’s certainly true that financial conditions remain extremely accommodative in level terms (Chart 4), we must also acknowledge that, historically, the sort of rapid tightening of financial conditions that we have already seen is almost always followed by a significant slowdown in economic activity (Chart 4, panel 2). On top of all that, the yield curve is now completely flat beyond the 5-year maturity point and the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is a mere 22 bps away from inversion (Chart 4, bottom panel). The Fed’s new interest rate projections show the median expected interest rate moving above estimates of the long-run neutral rate in 2023 and 2024. This sort of rate hike path is consistent with a mild inversion of the yield curve, and the Fed will likely downplay the yield curve’s recession signal during the next few months. That said, a deepening inversion of the yield curve will only increase market worries about an over-tightening of monetary policy. This could lead to a sell-off in risk assets that would accelerate the tightening of financial conditions and lead to expectations of even slower economic growth. The next section of this report explores what an inverted 2-year/10-year yield curve has historically meant for Treasury returns. Investment Implications Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). We also see economic growth slowing but remaining solid enough to prevent a significant sell-off in risk assets and a deep inversion of the yield curve. We also acknowledge, however, that the risks to this view (in both directions) are unusually high. Given all that, our recommended investment strategy is to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The market is already well priced for a steady 25 bps per meeting pace of tightening and bond yields will merely keep pace with forwards if that pace is delivered. We also see yield curve steepeners profiting during the next 6-12 months as the yield curve’s flattening trend takes a pause now that market expectations have fully adjusted to the likely path of Fed rate increases. We remain neutral TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long-end of the curve, but underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end. Short-maturity TIPS will underperform as inflation moderates in H2 2022. The Yield Curve And Treasury Returns The historical relationship between the slope of the yield curve and Treasury returns is very interesting. To examine it, we first looked at historical data on excess Treasury index returns versus cash since 1989 (Table 1). Table 112-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Treasury Slope The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Specifically, we show 12-month excess Treasury returns given different starting points for the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. For example, when the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has been between 0 bps and 25 bps, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index has historically outperformed a position in cash by an average of 2.75% during the next 12 months. A 90% confidence interval places expected returns between 1.75% and 3.73%, and excess Treasury returns were positive in 73% of historical observations. The first big conclusion that jumps out from Table 1 is that Treasuries perform best when the yield curve is either very steep or very flat. The worst periods for Treasury returns have tended to occur when the slope is between 25 bps and 100 bps. It’s easy to understand why a very steep yield curve would lead to strong Treasury returns. A steep curve means that Treasuries offer a large yield advantage versus cash, or put differently, an extremely rapid pace of rate hikes would be necessary for cash returns to overcome the carry advantage in bonds. It’s more difficult to understand why Treasury returns have been strong after instances of curve inversion. The most likely reason is that market participants have tended to overestimate the odds of the Fed achieving a “soft landing” and have underestimated the odds of an upcoming recession and rate cuts. The data used in Table 1 are limited in that observations only begin in 1989. As such, the table misses the Paul Volcker period of the early 1980s when Treasuries continued to sell off well after the curve inverted. Chart 5 extends the historical period back to the mid-1970s and uses shading to indicate periods of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion. Chart 5Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Chart 5 reveals a pretty clear pattern. With the exception of the late-1970s/early-1980s episode, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak right around the time of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion, or shortly after in the case of 1989. What can we take away from this analysis? First, the evidence suggests that we should have a bias toward taking more duration risk in our portfolio if and when the yield curve inverts. A more deeply inverted yield curve should also be viewed as a stronger bond-bullish signal than a modestly inverted yield curve. Second, we must acknowledge the major risk to this strategy. Specifically, the risk that inflation will be so high that the Fed will continue to tighten aggressively even after the yield curve inverts, as Paul Volcker did in the early-1980s. Our sense is that the odds of a repeat “Volcker moment” are low. Inflation will naturally fall as the pandemic’s impact wanes and the Fed won’t be forced to deliver another hawkish shock to market expectations. Therefore, we maintain our “at benchmark” recommendation for portfolio duration for now, but we may turn more bullish on bonds if the yield curve inverts. The Poor Performance Of Investment Grade Bonds Chart 6IG Has Lagged HY IG Has Lagged HY IG Has Lagged HY One notable aspect of recent bond market moves has been that the performance of investment grade corporate bonds has significantly lagged the performance of high-yield corporate bonds during the recent period of spread widening (Chart 6). This is highly unusual. Typically, we expect bonds with more credit risk to behave like “higher beta” securities. That is, we expect lower-rated bonds to perform better in bull markets and worse in bear markets.3 The typical relationships held earlier in the cycle. Chart 7A shows that high-yield corporate bonds delivered stronger excess returns than investment grade corporate bonds from the March 2020 peak in spreads through the end of that year. Chart 7B shows that high-yield continued to outperform investment grade throughout the bull market for spreads in 2021. Chart 7ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: March 2020 To December 2020 The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Chart 7BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: January 2021 To September 2021 The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Chart 7CCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Based on that relationship, we would expect high-yield to perform worse than investment grade since spreads troughed in September 2021, but that has not been the case (Chart 7C). How do we explain the relatively weak performance of investment grade corporates relative to high-yield? One possible explanation is that the industry composition of the investment grade and high-yield bond universes is different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment grade is more geared toward Financials. Given the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is driving the return divergence between investment grade and high-yield. Chart 8 shows the performance of each individual industry group within both investment grade and high-yield since the September 2021 trough in spreads. It shows that Energy bond returns have indeed been stronger than for other sectors. In fact, high-yield Energy excess returns have been positive! Chart 8Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion However, Chart 8 mainly reveals that industry composition only explains part of the divergence between investment grade and high-yield returns. Notice that every single high-yield industry group has outperformed its investment grade counterpart since September 2021. This suggests that there is a more fundamental reason for the divergence between investment grade and high-yield performance. Chart 9Following The 2018 Roadmap Following The 2018 Roadmap Following The 2018 Roadmap Our own sense is that the corporate bond market is following the roadmap from early 2018 (Chart 9). At that time, Fed tightening pushed the Treasury slope below 50 bps and investment grade corporates started to perform poorly, presumably because the removal of monetary accommodation justified somewhat wider corporate bond spreads. However, high-yield performed well in early 2018 as there was no material increase in corporate default risk, even though the Fed was tightening. A similar market narrative could easily be applied to today. Back in 2018, the market narrative shifted late in the year when investors suddenly decided that Fed tightening had gone too far. High-Yield sold off sharply and caught up with investment grade. The Fed was then forced to end its tightening cycle and corporate bonds rallied in early 2019. We see this 2018 roadmap as a significant risk, but not destiny. While there’s a chance that the market will soon decide that the Fed has over-tightened, leading to a sharp sell-off in high-yield. There’s also a chance that gradual Fed rate hikes will continue for much longer than the market anticipates without meaningfully slowing the economy. In that case, high-yield returns would remain solid for some time and the recent spread widening in investment grade would probably abate. For the time being, we find ourselves more inclined toward the latter scenario. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds within a US bond portfolio. We may soon get a chance to upgrade our corporate bond allocation if inflationary pressures abate and the war in Ukraine shows signs of de-escalation. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Soft Landing Is Still Possible”, dated March 15, 2022. 2 PCE data is so far only updated to January 2022. 3 In this report we use Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) as a simple measure of a bond index’s credit risk. A higher DTS means that a bond has greater credit risk and vice-versa. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Other Recommendations The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion

Executive Summary For the Fed, maintaining its credibility with a long sequence of rate hikes that does not crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market is akin to the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds. And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal trading watchlist: US interest rate futures, 3-year T-bond, Canada versus Japan, AUD/KRW, and EUR/CHF. Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Bottom Line: The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Feature Amid the uncertainties of the Ukraine crisis, there is one certainty. The latest surge in energy and grain prices is a classic supply shock. Prices have spiked because vital supplies of Russian and Ukrainian energy and grains have been cut. This matters for central banks, because to the extent that they can bring down inflation, they can do so by depressing demand. They can do nothing to boost supply. In fact, depressing demand during a supply shock is a sure way to start a recession. But what about the inflation that came before the Ukraine crisis, wasn’t that due to excess demand? No, that inflation came not from a demand shock, but from a displacement of demand shock – as consumers displaced their firepower from services to goods on a massive scale. This matters because central banks are also ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-1 looks like a seismograph after a huge earthquake, and in a sense that is exactly what it is. The chart shows the growth in spending on durable goods, which has just suffered an earthquake unlike any in history. Zooming in, we can see the clear causality between the surges in spending on durables and the surges in core inflation. The important corollary being that when the binge on durables ends – as it surely must – or worse, when durable spending goes into recession, inflation will plummet (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Chart I-2The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes But, argue the detractors, what about the uncomfortably high price inflation in services? What about the uncomfortably high inflation expectations? Most worrying, what about the recent surge in wage inflation? Let’s address these questions. Underlying US Inflation Is Running At Around 3 Percent In the US, the dominant component of services inflation is housing rent, which comprises 40 percent of the core consumer price index. Housing rent combines actual rent for those that rent their home, with the near-identically behaving owners’ equivalent rent (OER) for those that own their home. Given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation. Housing rent inflation closely tracks the tightness of the jobs market, because you need a job to pay the rent. With the unemployment rate today at the same low as it was in 2006, rent inflation is at the same high as it was in 2006: 4.3 percent. In other words, given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given its dominance in core inflation, rent inflation running at 4.3 percent would usually be associated with core inflation running at around 3 percent – modestly above the Fed’s target, rather than the current 6.5 percent (Chart I-4). Confirming that it is the outsized displacement of spending into goods, and its associated inflation, that is giving the Fed and other central banks a massive headache. Yet, to repeat, monetary policy is ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-4Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Still, what about the surging expectations for inflation? Many people believe that these are an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like early-2008 or now, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words: Inflation expectations are nothing more than a reflection of the last six months’ inflation rate (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Turning to wage inflation, with US average hourly earnings inflation running close to 6 percent, it would appear to be game, set, and match to ‘Team Inflation.’  Except that this is a flawed argument. To the extent that wages contribute to inflation, it must come from the inflation in unit labour costs, meaning the ratio of hourly compensation to labour productivity. After all, if you get paid 6 percent more but produce 6 percent more, then it is not inflationary (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary In this regard, US unit labour costs increased by 3.5 percent through 2021, and slowed to just a 0.9 percent (annualised) increase in the fourth quarter.2 Still, 3.5 percent, and slowing, is modestly above the Fed’s inflation target, and could justify a slight nudging up of the Fed funds rate. But it could not justify the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing. The Fed Is Praying For A ‘Hail Mary’ Fortunately, the bond market understands all of this. How else could you say 7 percent inflation and 2 percent long bond yield in the same breath?! This is crucial, because it is the long bond yield that drives rate-sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing and construction. And it is the long bond yield that sets the level of all asset prices, including real estate and stocks. Although the Fed cannot admit it, the central bank also understands all of this and hopes that the bond market continues to ‘get it.’ Meaning that it hopes that the long end of the interest rate curve does not lift too far and crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market. So why is the Fed hiking the policy interest rate? The answer is that there will be a time in the future when it does need to lift the entire interest rate curve, and for that it will need its credibility intact. Not hiking now could potentially shred the credibility that is the lifeblood of any central bank. Still, to maintain its credibility without crashing the economy the Fed will have to make the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. For our non-American readers, the Hail Mary is a high-risk desperate move with little hope of completion. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. To sum up, the likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental analysis in the preceding sections, the strong trend in both the 18 month out US interest rate future and the equivalent 3 year T-bond has reached the point of fragility that has identified previous turning-points in 2018 and 2021 (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). This week we are also adding to our watchlist the commodity plays Canada versus Japan and AUD/KRW, whose outperformances are vulnerable to reversal. From next week you will be able to see the full watchlist of investments that are vulnerable to reversal on our website. Stay tuned. Finally, the underperformance of EUR/CHF has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has identified the previous major turning-points in 2018 and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Chart I-9The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-10The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-11Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Go Long EUR/CHF Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy The Fed Needs A ‘Hail Mary’ To Maintain Credibility Without Crashing The Economy 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary The Fed is in a tough spot. On the one hand, rising long-dated inflation expectations will incentivize it to tighten more quickly. On the other hand, the flat yield curve and poor risky asset performance point to a heightened risk of recession if it tightens too aggressively. The Fed will try to split the difference by lifting rates at a steady pace of 25 bps per meeting, starting this week. Though upside risks have increased, it remains likely that core inflation will peak within the next couple of months. This will allow the Fed to continue tightening at a steady pace, one that is already well discounted in the market. Monthly Core Inflation By Major Component A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and favor yield curve steepeners. Corporate bond spreads will continue to widen in the near-term, but a buying opportunity will soon emerge. A Tough Spot For The Fed A lot has happened since we shifted our portfolio duration recommendation from “below benchmark” to “at benchmark” on February 15. The Russian invasion of Ukraine sent bond yields sharply lower the following week but yields have since recovered and are now close to where they were when we upgraded our duration view (Chart 1). That said, the round-trip in nominal yields masks some significant moves in the real and inflation components. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.98%, up from 2.45% on February 15, and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has moved up to 2.38% from 2.05% (Chart 2). In the past two weeks we’ve also seen a further flattening of the yield curve (Chart 2, panel 3) and widening of credit spreads (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2A Stagflationary Shock A Stagflationary Shock A Stagflationary Shock Chart 1Round-Trip Round-Trip Round-Trip Taken together, recent market moves are consistent with a stagflationary shock. Long-dated inflation expectations are higher, but the yield curve is flatter and risk assets have sold off. This sort of environment is a complicated one for Fed policy. On the one hand, rising long-dated inflation expectations give the Fed a greater incentive to tighten quickly. On the other hand, rapidly tightening financial conditions increase the risk that the Fed may move too aggressively and push the economy into recession. So what’s the Fed to do? For now, it will try to split the difference. In practice, this means that the Fed will start tightening policy this week and proceed with a steady rate hike pace of 25 basis points per meeting. Once this process starts, we see two possible scenarios. The first possible scenario is that the Fed achieves its “soft landing”. A steady hike pace of 25 bps per meeting proves to be slow enough that financial conditions tighten only gradually, the yield curve retains its positive slope and inflation peaks within the next couple of months, halting the upward trend in long-dated inflation expectations. This benign scenario is still more likely than many people appreciate. For starters, the bond market is already priced for close to seven 25 basis point rate hikes this year, the equivalent of one 25 bps hike per meeting (Chart 3). This means a 50 bps hike at some point this year is required for the Fed to deliver a hawkish surprise to near-term expectations. In our view, a 50 bps hike is unlikely unless long-dated inflation expectations continue to move higher and become obviously “un-anchored”. If inflation peaks within the next couple of months, in line with our base case outlook, then so will long-dated expectations. Chart 3Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations The second possible scenario is that we see no near-term relief on the inflation front. Global supply chains remain disrupted by the war in Ukraine and surging COVID cases in China, and commodity prices continue their upward march. This would initially lead to even higher long-dated inflation expectations and an even faster pace of expected Fed tightening. It could even lead to a 50 bps Fed rate hike at some point, though we think it’s more likely that it would lead to an inverted yield curve and a severe tightening of financial conditions (i.e. sell off in equities and credit markets) before the Fed even gets the chance to deliver a 50 bps hike. Investment Implications The “soft landing” scenario remains our base case view. The Fed will start tightening in line with current market expectations and core inflation will peak within the next couple of months, keeping long-dated inflation expectations in check. Related Report  US Investment StrategyQ&A On Ukraine, Financial Markets And The Economy The correct investment strategy for this outcome is to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and to favor a 2/10 yield curve steepener (buy the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note). Not only is the front-end of the bond market fully priced for a steady hike pace of 25 bps per meeting, but the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is close to median survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. This suggests that the upside in long-dated bond yields is limited (Chart 4). As for the yield curve, assuming that the Fed’s well-discounted steady pace of tightening is unlikely to invert the curve, then it makes sense to grab the extremely attractive yield pick-up available in the 2-year note versus a duration-matched cash/10 barbell (Chart 5). Chart 4Close to Fair Value Close to Fair Value Close to Fair Value Chart 5A Huge Yield Pick-Up In Steepeners A Huge Yield Pick-Up In Steepeners A Huge Yield Pick-Up In Steepeners The investment implications of our second “un-anchored inflation expectations scenario” are more difficult to game out. However, we think the most likely outcome is that bond yields would rise initially, driven by inflation expectations, and then plunge once the yield curve inverts and it becomes clear that the Fed will be forced to tighten the economy into recession. This is not our base case scenario, but investors with a 6-12 month investment horizon who wish to position for this outcome should probably extend portfolio duration rather than shorten it. The 2022 Inflation Outlook A key pillar of the “soft landing” scenario described above is that core inflation peaks within the next couple of months and starts to head lower in H2 2022. Today, we’ll assess the likelihood of that occurring by looking at the three main components of core CPI inflation: goods, shelter, and services (excluding shelter). The first fact to consider is that month-over-month core CPI has printed between 0.5% and 0.6% in each of the past five months, almost matching the extreme inflation readings seen between April and June 2021 (Chart 6). If month-over-month core inflation continues to print at 0.5%, then year-over-year core CPI will drop between March and June before rising again to reach 6.3% by the end of the year (Chart 7). Conversely, if month-over-month core inflation declines to 0.3%, then year-over-year core inflation will fall steadily to 4.2% by the end of 2022. Chart 6Monthly Core Inflation By Major Component A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible Chart 7Annual Inflation Annual Inflation Annual Inflation These two outcomes likely have different implications for policy and markets. The world where core inflation remains sticky above 6% probably coincides with expectations of rapid Fed tightening, a near-term inversion of the yield curve and rising expectations of recession. Conversely, the world where core inflation falls to 4.2% by the end of 2022 and appears to be on a downward trend probably coincides with well-contained inflation expectations and a steady pace of Fed tightening. We therefore want to know which of these outcomes is more likely. To do that we consider the outlooks for core inflation’s three main components. 1. Core Goods Chart 8Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Goods have been the main driver of elevated inflation during the past year, especially the new and used car segments (Chart 8). Prior to the pandemic, core goods inflation tended to fluctuate around 0%. Currently, the year-over-year rate is up around 12%. We view a significant decline in core goods inflation as highly likely this year. First off, used car prices – as measured by the Manheim Used Vehicle Index – have already moderated (Chart 8, panel 2), while other measures of supply bottleneck pressures like the ISM manufacturing supplier deliveries and prices paid indexes are rolling over, albeit from high levels (Chart 8, panel 3). Reduced demand should also ease some of the upward pressure on goods prices this year. Consumer spending on goods dramatically overshot its pre-COVID trend during the past two years (Chart 8, bottom panel) as spending on services was often not possible. With US COVID restrictions on the verge of being completely lifted, some spending is likely to shift away from goods and towards services in 2022. The recent news of a surging omicron COVID wave in China and renewed lockdown measures already in place in Shenzhen province may delay the re-normalization of supply chains. As of yet, we think it’s premature for this to alter our view. The omicron experience of other countries suggests that the wave will be quick and that restrictions will not be as severe as in past COVID waves.  2. Shelter Shelter is the largest component of core CPI and it is also the most tightly correlated with the economic cycle. That is, it tends to accelerate when economic growth is trending up and the unemployment rate is falling, and vice-versa. Shelter faces two-way risk in 2022. The upside risk comes from private measures of asking rents and home prices that have already surged. The Zillow Rent Index is up 15% during the past 12 months and the Zillow Home Price Index is up 20% (Chart 9A). Recent research has shown that these private measures tend to feed into core CPI with a lag of about one year.1 The downside risk to shelter inflation this year comes from the economic cycle itself. Chart 9B shows that there is a tight correlation between shelter inflation and the unemployment rate, and between shelter inflation and aggregate weekly payrolls (employment x hours x wages). The unemployment rate’s rapid 2021 decline will not persist this year. The labor market is nearing full employment and last year’s fiscal impulse has faded. Chart 9BShelter Inflation II Shelter Inflation II Shelter Inflation II Chart 9AShelter Inflation I Shelter Inflation I Shelter Inflation I Netting it all out, we think shelter inflation will continue to trend higher for the next few months but will eventually level-off near the end of this year as economic growth slows. 3. Core Services (excluding Shelter) Services inflation printed an extremely strong 0.55% month-over-month in February, though a large portion of that increase was driven by pandemic-related services like airfares and admission to events, increases that will moderate now that the omicron wave has passed. More fundamentally, wage growth is the key driver of services inflation, and it has been extremely strong. The Atlanta Fed’s Wage Growth Tracker is up to 4.3% year-over-year, its highest since 2002, and it is showing signs of broadening out to wage earners of all levels (Chart 10). Though we see wage growth remaining strong, its acceleration is also likely to moderate in the coming months. The Census Bureau’s most recent Household Pulse Survey showed that almost 8 million people were absent from work in February because they were either sick with COVID themselves or caring for someone with COVID symptoms (Chart 11). Near-term wage demands will moderate during the next few months as the pandemic ebbs and these people return to work. Chart 10Wage Growth Is Strong Wage Growth Is Strong Wage Growth Is Strong Chart 11Covid Still Weighing On Labor Supply Covid Still Weighing On Labor Supply Covid Still Weighing On Labor Supply We also must grapple with the possible deflationary fall-out from the recent energy and gasoline price shock. Real household incomes are declining (Chart 12A), and while consumers have ample room to either tap their savings or increase debt to support spending (Chart 12B, top panel), the recent plunge in consumer sentiment suggests that they may behave more cautiously (Chart 12B, bottom panel). Chart 12AReal Incomes Are Falling Real Incomes Are Falling Real Incomes Are Falling Chart 12BConsumer Confidence Is Low Consumer Confidence Is Low Consumer Confidence Is Low Putting It Together We could see core goods inflation falling all the way back to a monthly rate of 0% this year. This would be consistent with its pre-pandemic level, but also wouldn’t incorporate any outright price declines – which are also possible. If we additionally assume some further acceleration in Owner’s Equivalent Rent and Rent of Primary Residence, to 0.6% per month, and a slight pullback in services inflation to a still-strong 0.3% per month, then overall core CPI inflation would hit a monthly rate of 0.34%, consistent with annual core CPI inflation of 4.2%. We think this is a reasonable forecast though we see risks to the upside driven by another bout of supply chain pressures in manufactured goods. In general, we expect year-over-year core CPI inflation to reach a range of 4% to 5% by the end of this year. That would be consistent with the “soft landing” scenario described earlier in this report. Corporate Bonds: Waiting For A Buying Opportunity To Emerge Chart 13Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Finally, a quick update on our corporate bond allocation. Corporate bonds have sold off sharply versus Treasuries since February 15. The investment grade corporate bond index has underperformed a duration-equivalent position in Treasury securities by 217 bps while High-Yield has underperformed by a less dramatic 120 bps. With economic risks high and the Fed on the cusp of a tightening cycle, we think further spread widening is likely in the near-term. However, if the “soft landing” scenario described earlier in this report pans out, then we will soon see a buying opportunity in corporate bonds. The 12-month quality-adjusted breakeven spread for the investment grade corporate index has risen close to its historical median, from near all-time expensive levels only a few months ago (Chart 13). While a flat yield curve poses a risk to corporate bond returns, wide spreads may soon become too attractive to ignore. Table 1A shows average historical 12-month investment grade corporate bond excess returns given different starting points for the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope and the 12-month corporate breakeven spread. Table 1B shows 90% confidence intervals for those average returns and Table 1C shows the percentage of instances in which excess returns were above 0%. Table 1AAverage 12-Month Future Investment Grade Corporate ##br##Bond Excess Returns* (BPs) A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible Table 1B90 Percent Confidence Interval Of 12-Month Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* (BPs) A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible Table 1CPercentage Of Episodes With Positive 12-Month Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible At present, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is +9 bps and the 12-month breakeven spread is 18 bps. Historically, this sort of environment is consistent with positive excess corporate bond returns 59% of the time, but with a negative average return overall. That said, if the yield curve retains its positive slope, then a further 18 bps of corporate index spread widening would push the 12-month breakeven spread above the 20 bps threshold. The historical record suggests that this would be an unambiguous buy signal. Bottom Line: We are sticking with our recommended 6-12 month corporate bond allocations for now. We are neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and overweight (4 out of 5) on high-yield. A yield curve inversion and heightened risk of recession would cause us to turn more cautious, but we think it’s more likely that widening spreads present us with an opportunity to upgrade our corporate bond allocations within the next few months. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2022/february/will-rising-rents-push-up-future-inflation/ Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible Other Recommendations A Soft Landing Is Still Possible A Soft Landing Is Still Possible

Executive Summary On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally. But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. Fractal trading watchlist: Brent crude oil, and oil equities versus banks equities. The DAX Has Sold Off ##br##Because It Expects Profits To Plunge… The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... …But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off ##br##Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off   Bottom Line: In the Ukraine crisis, the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market, before the cavalry of lower bond yields ultimately charges to the rescue. Feature Given the onset of the largest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War, with the potential to escalate to nuclear conflict, you would have thought that the global stock market would have crashed. Yet since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24 to the time of writing, the world stock market is down a modest 4 percent, while the US stock market is barely down at all. Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Admittedly, since the invasion, European bourses have fallen – for example, Germany’s DAX by 10 percent. And stock markets were already falling before the invasion, meaning that this year the DAX is down 20 percent while the S&P 500 is down 12 percent. But there is a crucial difference. While the DAX year-to-date plunge is due to an expected full-blooded profits recession that the Ukraine crisis will unleash, the S&P 500 year-to-date decline is due to the sell-off in the long-duration bond (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). This difference in drivers will also explain the fate of these markets as the crisis evolves, just as in the pandemic.   Chart I-1The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge... The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge...   Chart I-2...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off ...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off During The Pandemic, Central Banks And Governments Saved The Day… We can think of a stock market as a real-time calculator of the profits ‘run-rate.’ In this regard, the real-time stock market is several weeks ahead of analysts, whose profits estimates take time to collect, collate, and record. For example, during the pandemic, the stock market had already discounted a collapse in profits six weeks before analysts’ official estimates (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts Chart I-4The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead ##br##Of Analysts The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts We can also think of a stock market as a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. Just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like when bond yields change. It turns out that the long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond, while the shorter-duration German stock market has the same duration as a 7-year bond. Pulling this together, and assuming no change to the very long-term structural growth story, we can say that: The US stock market = US profits multiplied by the 30-year bond price (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). The German stock market = German profits multiplied by the 7-year bond price (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-5US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... Chart I-6...Equals The US Stock Market ...Equals The US Stock Market ...Equals The US Stock Market Chart I-7German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... Chart I-8...Equals The German Stock Market ...Equals The German Stock Market ...Equals The German Stock Market When bond yields rise – as happened through December and January – the greater scope for a price decline in the long-duration 30-year bond will hurt the US stock market both absolutely and relatively. But when bond yields decline – as happened at the start of the pandemic – this same high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. When bond yields decline, the high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. During the pandemic, the 30-year T-bond price surged by 35 percent, which more than neutralised the decline in US profits. Supported by this surge in the 30-year bond price combined with massive fiscal stimulus that underpinned demand, the pandemic bear market lasted barely a month. What’s more, the US stock market was back at an all-time high just four months later, much quicker than the German stock market. …But This Time The Cavalry May Take Longer To Arrive Unfortunately, this time the rescue act may take longer. One important difference is that during the pandemic, governments quickly unleashed tax cuts and stimulus payments to shore up demand. Whereas now, they are unleashing sanctions on Russia. This will choke Russia, but will also choke demand in the sanctioning economy. Another crucial difference is that as the pandemic took hold in March 2020, the Federal Reserve slashed the Fed funds rate by 1.5 percent. But at its March 2022 meeting, the Fed will almost certainly raise the interest rate (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As the pandemic was unequivocally a deflationary shock at its outset, it was countered with a massive stimulatory response from both central banks and governments. In contrast, the Ukraine crisis has unleashed a new inflationary shock from soaring energy and food prices. And this on top of the pandemic’s second-round inflationary effects which have already dislocated inflation into uncomfortable territory. Our high conviction view is that this inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, and thereby ultimately morph into a deflationary shock. Yet the danger is that myopic policymakers and markets are not chess players who think several moves ahead. Instead, by fixating on the immediate inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices, they will make the wrong move. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market. Compared with the pandemic, both the sell-off and the recovery will take longer to play out. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. One further thought. The Ukraine crisis has ‘cancelled’ Covid from the news and our fears, as if it were just a bad dream. Yet the virus has not disappeared and will continue to replicate and mutate freely. Probably even more so, now that we have dismissed it, and Europe’s largest refugee crisis in decades has given it a happy hunting ground. Hence, do not dismiss another wave of infections later this year. The Investment Conclusions Continuing our chess metaphor, a tactical investment should consider only the next one or two moves, a cyclical investment should be based on the next five moves, while a long-term structural investment (which we will not cover in this report) should visualise the board after twenty moves. All of which leads to several investment conclusions: On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. How Can Fractal Analysis Help In A Crisis? When prices are being driven by fundamentals, events and catalysts, as they are now, how can fractal analysis help investors? The answer is that it can identify when a small event or catalyst can have a massive effect in reversing a trend. In this regard, the extreme rally in crude oil has reached fragility on both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. Meaning that any event or catalyst that reduces fears of a supply constraint will cause an outsized reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile Equally interesting, the huge outperformance of oil equities versus bank equities is reaching the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has reliably signalled major switching points between the sectors (Chart I-12). Given the fast-moving developments in the crisis, we are not initiating any new trades this week, but stay tuned. Chart I-12The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Biotech To Rebound Biotech Is Starting To Reverse Biotech Is Starting To Reverse US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece’s Brief Outperformance To End Greece Is Snapping Back Greece Is Snapping Back Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Chart 1A Tough Balancing Act For The Fed A Tough Balancing Act For The Fed A Tough Balancing Act For The Fed In last week’s Congressional testimony, Fed Chair Jay Powell talked about his goal of achieving a “soft landing”. That is, the Fed will tighten enough to slow inflation but not so much that the economy tips into recession. This balancing act was always going to be difficult, and recent world events have only complicated it. On the one hand, the US labor market has essentially returned to full employment. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is just 1% below its pre-COVID level, a gap that will soon be filled by the 1.2 million people being kept out of the labor force by the pandemic (Chart 1). On the other hand, risk-off market moves driven by the war in Ukraine have caused the yield curve to flatten (Chart 1, bottom panel). The Fed’s task is to respond to the strong US economy by lifting rates, but to also avoid inverting the yield curve. To split the difference, the Fed will proceed with a 25 bps rate hike at each FOMC meeting, but will slow down if the curve inverts. Our recommended strategy is to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being given the uncertainty in Ukraine. However, the Treasury curve is now priced for too shallow a path for rate hikes. We are actively looking for a good time to re-initiate duration shorts. Feature   Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 124 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -238 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 16 bps on the month and it currently sits at 130 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread has moved up to its 36th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). The corporate bond sell-off that began late last year on heightened expectations of Fed tightening has accelerated in recent weeks, this time driven by the war in Ukraine. The result of the turmoil is that a significant amount of value has returned to the corporate bond market. In fact, spreads have not been this wide since early 2021. Continued uncertainty about how the Ukrainian situation will evolve causes us to recommend a neutral stance on investment grade corporate bonds in the near term. However, enough value has been created that a buying opportunity could soon emerge. Corporate balance sheets remain healthy. In fact, the ratio of total debt to net worth on nonfinancial corporate balance sheets is at its lowest level since 2010 (bottom panel). Further, the most likely scenario is that the economic contagion from Russia/Ukraine to the United States will be limited. While Fed tightening is set to begin this month, spreads are now wide enough that a flat but positively sloped yield curve is not sufficient to justify an underweight stance on corporate bonds. Investors should stay neutral for now but look for an opportunity to turn more bullish. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 56 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -213 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 17 bps on the month and it currently sits at 376 bps. 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 – also moved up to 4.6% (Chart 3). The odds are good that defaults will come in below 4.6% during the next 12 months, and as such, we expect high-yield bonds to outperform a duration-matched position in Treasuries. This warrants a continued overweight allocation to High-Yield on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon, though we acknowledge that further spread widening is likely until the situation in Ukraine reaches a place of greater stability. High-Yield valuations continue to be more favorable than for investment grade corporates (panel 3). We therefore maintain a preference for high-yield corporate bonds over investment grade.       MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -60 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS widened 12 bps on the month, driven by an 11 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) increased by 1 bp on the month (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021 despite the back-up in yields.1 This valuation picture is starting to change. The option cost is now up to 44 bps, its highest level since 2016 and refi activity is slowing as the Fed moves toward rate hikes. At 30 bps, the index OAS remains unattractive. However, the elevated option cost raises the possibility that the OAS may be over-estimating the pace of mortgage refinancings for the first time in a while. If these trends continue, it may soon make sense to increase exposure to agency MBS. We closed our recommendation to favor high coupon over low coupon securities on February 15th, concurrent with our decision to increase portfolio duration. We will likely re-establish this position when we move portfolio duration back to below benchmark. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 399 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -483 bps. EM Sovereigns underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 519 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -646 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 323 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -379 bps. Russian sovereign bonds were recently downgraded to below investment grade, but before they were removed from the index they contributed -367 bps to Sovereign excess returns in February. In other words, if Russian securities are excluded, the EM Sovereign index only lagged Treasuries by 152 bps in February and actually outperformed a duration-matched position in US corporate bonds. As a result, the EM Sovereign index now offers less yield than a credit rating and duration-matched position in US corporate bonds (Chart 5). This recent shift in valuation leads us to reduce our recommended exposure to EM Sovereigns from overweight to underweight. Russian securities also negatively influenced EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign returns in February, but that index still offers a significant yield premium over US corporates whether Russian bonds are included or not (bottom panel). The turmoil overseas causes us to reduce exposure to this sector as well, but we will retain a neutral allocation instead of underweight because of still-attractive valuations. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -126 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). While the war in Ukraine introduces a great deal of uncertainty into the economic outlook, the municipal bond sector should be better placed than most to deal with the fallout. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will continue to support state & local government coffers for some time. That said, relative muni valuations have tightened significantly during the past few months and the recent back-up in corporate spreads will eventually give us an opportunity to increase exposure to that sector. With that in mind, this week we downgrade our municipal bond allocation from “maximum overweight” (5 out of 5) to “overweight” (4 out of 5). We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 5% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 11% versus corporates (panel 2). Both figures are down considerably from their 2020 peaks. For their part, high-yield muni spreads have also not kept pace with the recent widening in high-yield corporate spreads (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve flattened dramatically In February, driven by a re-pricing of Fed expectations in the first half of the month and then later by flight-to-quality flows spurred by the war in Ukraine. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes flattened by 22 bps and 3 bps in February. They currently sit at 24 bps and 51 bps, respectively (Chart 7). As noted on the first page of this report, during the next few months the Fed will be forced to strike a balance between tightening policy fast enough to prevent a de-stabilizing increase in inflation expectations and slow enough to prevent an inversion of the yield curve. The latter would likely signal an unacceptable increase in recession risk. In the near-term, we view the risks as clearly tilted toward further curve flattening as the Fed initiates a rate hike cycle while geopolitical uncertainties keep a lid on long-dated yields. However, this dynamic will eventually give way when political uncertainties abate and/or the Fed is forced to move more slowly in response to an inverted (or almost inverted) curve. With that in mind, a position in curve steepeners continues to make sense on a 6-12 month investment horizon. We also maintain our recommendation to favor the 20-year bond over a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This position offers an enticing 26 bps of duration-neutral carry. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 150 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +127 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 19 bps on the month and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps. Perhaps the most interesting recent market move is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose during the past month, even as flight-to-safety flows surged into the US bond market. That is, while nominal Treasury yields declined, TIPS yields fell even more, and the cost of inflation compensation embedded in US bond prices increased. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.70%, above the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.16%, still below the Fed’s target range but significantly higher than where it was in January. The bond market has responded to the war in Ukraine and resultant surge in commodity prices by bidding up the cost of inflation compensation. While we agree that higher commodity prices increase the risk that inflation will remain elevated in the second half of the year, we still think the most likely outcome is that core inflation starts to moderate in the coming months as supply chain pressures ease and the pandemic exerts less of an impact on daily life. Upcoming Fed rate hikes will also apply downward pressure to long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. As a result, we maintain our recommended neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long-end of the curve and re-iterate our recommendation to underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end of the curve.  ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 25 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -5 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 25 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -6 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 22 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1 bp. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth has rebounded, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. This also indicates that while surging gasoline prices will weigh on consumer activity in the coming months, household balance sheets are starting from such a good place that we don’t expect a meaningful increase in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 95 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -98 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 90 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -92 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 108 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -105 bps (Chart 10). Though CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -21 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 46 bps (bottom panel). The average Agency CMBS spread remains below its pre-COVID level, but it 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 172 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 Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing 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. Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing 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 February 28, 2022) Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing 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 February 28, 2022) Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing 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 -29 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 29 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) Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing 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 February 28, 2022) Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Recommended Portfolio Specification Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Other Recommendations Sticking The Landing Sticking The Landing Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary We look at the Ukraine crisis in the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary, because the economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to a generalized demand destruction. Bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond. The ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on banks, add alternative electricity, and review bitcoin. Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Bottom Line: The recent rise in bond yields and the associated outperformance of cyclical sectors such as banks, ‘value’, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move within a much bigger structural downtrend. This structural downtrend is now set to resume. Feature Suddenly, nobody is worried about Covid and everybody is worried about nuclear war. Or as Vladimir Putin warns, “such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.” The life lesson being that every shock is always supplanted by a new shock. Hence, in this report we look at the Ukraine crisis through a wider lens. We look at the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. The Predictability Of Shocks Shocks are very predictable. This sounds like a contradiction, but we don’t mean the timing or nature of individual shocks. As specific events, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the global pandemic were ‘tail-events’ that did come as shocks. Yet the statistical distribution of such tail-events is very predictable. This predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term strategy for investment, or life in general. The predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term investment strategy. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent, albeit this is just one definition.1On this definition, the Ukraine crisis is not yet a far-reaching economic or financial shock, but it is certainly well-placed to become one. Applying this definition of a shock through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of shocks over any long period is well-defined and very predictable. For example, over a ten-year period the number of shocks exhibits a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33 (Chart I-1), while the time between shocks exhibits an Exponential distribution with parameter 3.33. Chart 1The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Very Predictable The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Many economists and investment strategists present their long-term forecasts for the economy and financial markets, yet completely ignore this very predictable distribution of shocks – making their long-term forecasts worthless! The question to such economists and strategists is why are there no shocks over your forecasting horizon? Their typical answer is that it is not an economist’s job to predict ‘acts of god’ or ‘black swans.’ But if insurance companies can incorporate the very predictable distribution of acts of god and black swans, then why can’t economists and strategists? Over any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certainty, at 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period, it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2On A Multi-Year Horizon, Another Shock Is A Near-Certainty The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Witness that since just 2016 we have experienced Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as US president. These were binary-outcome events where we could ‘visualise’ the tail-event in advance, but many dismissed it as implausible. Then we had a global pandemic, and now Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the crucial question is not whether we will experience shocks. We always will. The crucial question is, will the shock be net deflationary or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The Danger From Higher Energy Prices: The Obvious And The Not So Obvious Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned that the Ukraine crisis has lifted the crude oil price to a near-trebling since October 2020, not to mention the massive spike in natural gas prices? Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns. Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders. The obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they are demand destructive to both energy and non-energy consumption. In this regard, the good news is that the economy is becoming much less energy-intensive – every unit of real output requires about 40 percent less energy than at the start of the millennium (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, even if the scope to hurt is lessening, higher energy prices are still demand destructive. Chart I-3The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The not so obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they risk driving up the long-duration bond yield and thereby tipping more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. This was the where the greater pain came from in both 2000 and 2008 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Chart I-5Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fortunately, the recent decline in the 30-year T-bond yield suggests that the bond market is looking through the short-term inflationary impulse of higher energy prices (Chart I-6). Instead, it is focussing on the deflationary impulse that will come from the demand destruction that the higher prices will trigger. Chart I-6Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will only lead to additional demand destruction. Sanctions restrict trade and economic and financial activity – therefore they hurt both the side that is sanctioned and the side that is sanctioning. This mutuality of pain caused the West to balk at both the timing and severity of its sanctions. But absent an unlikely backdown from Russia, the sanctions noose will tighten, choking growth everywhere.   If bond yields were to re-focus on inflation and move higher, it would add a further headwind to the economy and markets, forcing the 30-year T-bond yield back down again from a ‘line in the sand’ at around 2.4-2.5 percent. So, the long-duration bond yield will go down directly or via a short detour higher. Either way, bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Given the very tight connection between bond yields and stock market sector, style, and country allocation, it will become clear that the recent outperformance of cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move in a much bigger structural downtrend (Chart I-7). This structural downtrend is set to resume. Chart I-7When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Yet, the over-arching message from the anatomy of shocks is that the ultimate structural low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond.   Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on banks, adds alternative electricity, and reviews bitcoin. Supporting the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, the recent outperformance of banks has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled several important turning-points through the past decade (Chart 1-8). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short world banks versus world consumer services, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.  Chart I-8The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary US biotech is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Much of biotech’s underperformance is due to transient factors: specifically, the sell-off in long-duration bonds; the focus on delivering a Covid vaccine; regulatory concerns; a drought in M&A; and a flood of IPOs. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. If, as we expect, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on biotech, and add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Bottom Line: Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Feature Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. But before we go into the specifics of biotech, let’s quickly discuss the recent action in the broader market. The Past Year Has Been All About ‘Duration’ A good way to think of any investment is to compress all its cashflows into one future ‘lump-sum payment.’ The length of time to this lump-sum payment is the investment’s ‘duration.’ And the present value of the investment is just the discounted value of this lump-sum payment, where the discount factor will depend on the required return on the investment combined with its duration.1 It follows that, all else being equal, the present value of a long-duration stock must rise and fall in line with the present value of an equally long-duration bond – because their discount factors move in lockstep. And, as we have been banging on in recent weeks, this simple observation is all you need to explain market action over the past year. For the 30-year T-bond, 2.4-2.5 percent is an important resistance level. Given that long-duration indexes such as the Nasdaq, S&P 500 and MSCI Growth have the same duration as the 30-year T-bond, they have been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Hence, when the long-duration bond rallied, these stock markets outperformed shorter-duration indexes such as the FTSE100 and MSCI Value; and when the long-duration bond sold off, they underperformed. Chart I-1The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Chart I-2MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Russian invasion of Ukraine has catalysed a retreat in the 30-year T-bond yield from a ‘line in the sand’ at 2.4-2.5 percent, which we have previously highlighted as an important resistance level. If, as we argued in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Over the longer term, the bigger driver of the stock price will not be the discount factor on the future lump-sum payment; the bigger driver will be the size of the lump-sum payment itself. For any company, industry, or stock market, this expected lump-sum payment will evolve in line with current profits multiplied by a ‘structural growth multiple.’ It turns out that while current profits are updated every quarter, the structural growth multiple does not change much from quarter to quarter, year to year, or even decade to decade. Yet occasionally, it can phase-shift violently downwards when an event, or realisation, shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. Occasionally, an event or realisation shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. For example, after the dot com bubble burst it became clear that the sky-high hopes for non-US tech companies were just pie in the sky. The result was that their structural growth multiple halved, which weighed down non-US tech stocks for the subsequent 10 years (Chart I-3). Chart I-3After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed More recently, the realisation that Facebook – or Meta Platforms as it is now known – is losing subscribers was the gestalt moment that shattered hopes for its structural growth. Note that while its 2022 profits are down slightly, the Meta share price has collapsed, indicating a big hit to the structural growth multiple (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Conversely, there are rare occasions when a phase-shift down in a structural growth multiple is unwarranted or has gone too far. Right now, a case in point is the biotech sector, especially the US biotech sector. Relative to the relationship of the 2010s decade, US biotech’s structural growth multiple has halved (Chart I-5). The result is that US biotech is trading at the greatest valuation discount to the market (-20 percent). Ever. It is also trading at its greatest valuation discount to the broader tech sector (-35 percent). Ever (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-5US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? Chart I-6US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... Chart I-7...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech ...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech ...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech Another way of putting it is that in the post-pandemic era, while the structural growth multiple for the broader tech sector is largely unchanged, the structural growth multiple for biotech has collapsed by 40 percent (Charts I-8, I-11). Begging the question, is such a massive structural de-rating justified? Chart I-8US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple ##br##Is Unchanged... US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple Is Unchanged... US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple Is Unchanged... Chart I-9...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed ...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed ...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Chart I-10Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple##br## Is Unchanged... Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple Is Unchanged... Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple Is Unchanged... Chart I-11...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed ...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed ...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Much Of Biotech’s Underperformance Is Due To Transient Factors We have identified five culprits for biotech’s recent underperformance, but they are largely transient: The sell-off in long-duration bonds: Ironically, though the market has downgraded biotech’s structural growth, it has still behaved like a long-duration sector that has tracked the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond. Hence, if the long-duration bond rallies, it will boost biotech stocks. The focus on delivering a Covid vaccine: While biotech was developing a Covid vaccine, investors became enamoured with the sector, but once the vaccine was delivered, investors fell out of love with the sector. Yet there is more to biotech than a provider of vaccines, and as we show in the final section, the sell-off has gone too far. Regulatory concerns: In the US there has been some concern about the dilution of a biotech company’s intellectual property (IP) rights – known as March-In-Rights – if government funding or research has contributed to an innovation. In practice though, the sophistication of most innovations means that IP would remain with the innovator. There has also been concern about drug pricing reform, but as is normal in any negotiation, the opening extreme position is likely to get watered down. A drought in M&A: The focus on Covid, plus the uncertainty around regulation, has led to a drought in the M&A activity that is usually the mechanism to crystallize value. Still, for long-term investors, value is value, whether it is crystallized or not. Furthermore, the drought in M&A cannot last forever. A flood of IPOs: The more than 100 biotech IPOs in 2021 was double the usual rate, creating an oversupply and indigestion for specialist investors in the sector. But given the poor performance of the sector, the IPO flood is likely to recede through 2022-23 in a self-correction. So, we come back to the question: is it right to price a structural growth outlook for biotech worse than the overall market and much worse than for big-tech? If anything, it is big-tech that faces the much greater existential risk in the form of Web 3.0 – which will remove big-tech’s current ownership of the internet, thereby wiping out its very lucrative business model. Look out for our upcoming Special Report on this major theme. To repeat, the market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market, when most of the headwinds it faces are transient. All of which leads to two investment conclusions. The market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on our main theme, biotech, and we add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. Reinforcing the arguments in the preceding sections, US biotech is deeply oversold versus broader tech, reaching a point of fractal fragility that signalled several significant turning-points through the past two decades (Chart I-12). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long US biotech versus US tech, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 17.5 percent. Chart I-12US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech   US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted-average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Time To Buy Biotech Time To Buy Biotech Time To Buy Biotech Time To Buy Biotech 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations