Yield Curve

Highlights Chart 1Employment Growth Employment Growth Employment Growth June’s employment report revealed that 850 thousand jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls during the month. This is well above the 416k to 505k threshold that is required to hit the Fed’s “maximum employment” target in time for a rate hike in 2022 (Chart 1). The bond market, however, didn’t see things this way. Treasury yields fell across the entire curve following the report’s release on Friday. This is likely because, in contrast to the establishment survey’s strong +850k print, the household employment survey showed a decline of 18k jobs and an uptick in the unemployment rate from 5.8% to 5.9%. Importantly, the household survey tends to be more volatile than the establishment survey, and we expect it will catch up in the coming months. We see the bond market as overly complacent in the face of what is shaping up to be a rapid labor market recovery that will only accelerate once schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse in September. US bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 50 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +209 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3/10 Treasury slope remains very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Last week’s report looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled about corporate bond excess returns.1 We found that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3/10 Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend favoring high-yield over investment grade. We also prefer municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates over investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 122 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +468 bps. Last week’s report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 2.8% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, slightly below what the market currently discounts. This estimate assumes 7% real GDP growth (an input we use to forecast corporate profit growth) and corporate debt growth of between 0% and 8%. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.8% through the first five months of the year, below the estimate generated by our macro model. At 267 bps, the average option-adjusted spread on the High-Yield index is at its lowest since 2007. However, our above analysis suggests that these spread levels are still consistent with earning positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries because default losses will also be low. High-yield spreads also look relatively attractive compared to investment grade spreads. Investors still receive an additional 97 bps of spread as compensation for moving out of the Baa credit tier and into the Ba tier (panel 2). Given the accommodative macro environment, we advise investors to grab this extra spread. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -45 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 8 bps in June. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 13 bps in June (panel 3), and it is now starting to look more competitive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 34 bps, below the 49 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 17 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 30 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will rise during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS.  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 16 bps in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +46 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 31 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +392 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 1 bp, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds continue to offer an attractive spread pick-up versus investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. Last week’s report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.4 We found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. We also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +309 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and come to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that came after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax of just 6% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over credit rating and duration-matched investment grade corporates that investors should grab (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 20% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a massive re-shaping in June. Yields at the front-end of the curve rose significantly after the June FOMC meeting while longer-maturity yields declined. All told, the yield curve flattened dramatically on the month. The 2/10 slope flattened 24 bps to end the month at 120 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 28 bps to end the month at 119 bps. As we wrote in a recent report, we believe that the June FOMC meeting marks an inflection point for the yield curve.6 Prior to the meeting, the yield curve up to the 10-year maturity point had generally been in a bear-steepening/bull-flattening regime, where the slope of the yield curve was positively correlated with the average level of yields (Chart 7). But bond investors appear to have left the June FOMC meeting with a sense that we are now marching toward a Fed rate hike cycle. In that new world, it makes more sense for the yield curve to be negatively correlated with the average level of yields: a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. Given that we expect the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, we are now sufficiently close to a tightening cycle that the yield curve should bear-flatten between now and then. We therefore recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position offers a negative yield pick-up, but it looks modestly cheap on our fair value model (see Appendix A) and it will earn capital gains as the 2/10 slope flattens. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +461 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates both fell 10 bps on the month. At 2.35%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.18%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below where the Fed would like it to be (panel 3). We see some upside in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next 6-12 months, as we expect that the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven will find its way back into the Fed’s target range before the first rate hike. However, once the Fed starts tightening it will have a strong incentive to keep long-maturity breakevens below 2.5%. This means that a long position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries has limited upside. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling somewhat during the next few months, as realized inflation is likely at its peak. This will lead to some modest steepening of the inflation curve (panel 4). We do expect, however, that the inflation curve will remain inverted. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, as the Fed will be attacking its inflation target from above rather than from below. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 14 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile by pushing the savings rate higher yet again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +183 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +82 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 66 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to a whopping +522 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to contract and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +116 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 3 bps on the month and it currently sits at 30 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: 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 June 30TH, 2021) On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff 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 June 30TH, 2021) On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff 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 9 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 9 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) On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff Appendix B: 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 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of June 30TH, 2021) On Track For 2022 Liftoff On Track For 2022 Liftoff   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021.

Dear Client, China Investment Strategy will take a summer break next week. We will resume our publication on July 14th. Best regards and we wish you a happy and healthy summer. Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A USD rebound and higher domestic bond yields pose near-term challenges to Chinese risk assets. A sharp deceleration in credit growth in the past seven months will lead to weaker-than-expected data from China’s old-economy sectors in the second half of the year.  Robust global trade has propelled Chinese exports, allowing the country to pursue financial deleverage and structural reforms. However, next year policymakers will face increased pressure to support the domestic economy as the global economic recovery peaks and demand slows. Investors should maintain an underweight stance towards Chinese stocks in 2H21, but remain alert to any improvements in China’s policy tone.  An easing monetary policy may signal a potential upgrade catalyst in 1H22. Feature Most recent macro figures confirm that China’s impressive economic upcycle has peaked. We expect that the official manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs, which will be released as this report is published, will come in modestly down. We maintain the view that a major relapse in economic activity is unlikely, but the strong tailwinds that have propelled China's recovery since Q2 last year have since abated and will lead to softer growth. Meanwhile, the rate of economic and export expansions has given Chinese policymakers confidence to scale back leverage and continue with market reforms. In the second half of the year, investors' sentiment towards Chinese stocks will be tested based on three risks: A rebound in the US dollar index. A tighter liquidity environment and higher interest rates. A weakening in macro indicators beyond market expectations. As the global economic recovery peaks into 2022, pressures to support the domestic economy will become more urgent if policymakers want to maintain an average rate of 5% real GDP growth in 2020 - 2022. The current policy settings are not yet favorable to overweight Chinese risk assets. Major equity indexes remain richly valued and the market could easily correct if domestic rates move higher. However, signs of policy easing may emerge by yearend, which would prompt us to shift our view to overweight Chinese stocks in both absolute and relative terms. The Case For A Dollar Rebound On a tactical basis (next three months), a rebound in the US dollar index may curb investors’ enthusiasm for Chinese stocks. A stronger dollar will give the RMB’s appreciation some breathing room and will be reflationary for China’s economy. However, in the short term a stronger USD will also lead to weaker foreign inflows to China’s equity markets. Chinese stock prices have become more closely and negatively correlated with the dollar index since early 2020 (Chart 1). A weaker dollar is usually accompanied by a global economic upturn and a higher risk appetite from investors, propelling more foreign portfolio flows to emerging markets (which includes Chinese risk assets). Although foreign inflows account for a small portion of the Chinese A-share market cap, global institutional investors’ sentiment has become more influential and has led fluctuations in Chinese onshore stock prices (Chart 2). Chart 1Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Closer Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And The Dollar Index Chart 2Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Foreign Investors Matter To Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Chart 3Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff Rising Market Expectations For The Fed's Rate Liftoff The US Federal Reserve delivered a slightly more hawkish surprise at its June FOMC meeting with the message that it will move the projected timing of its first fed fund rate liftoff from 2024 to 2023. Since then, market expectations have shifted from growth and inflation to focusing on the next monetary policy tightening phase, with the short end of the US yield curve rising sharply (Chart 3). Given that currency markets trade off the short end of the yield curve, higher US interest rate expectations will at least temporarily lift the US dollar. The timing and pace of the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and rate hikes will be determined by how rapidly the US economy approaches the US central bank’s definition of “maximum employment.” BCA’s US Bond Investment strategist anticipates that sizeable and positive non-farm payroll surprises will start in late summer/early fall, which will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. As such, we expect additional upside risks in the dollar index in the coming months, which will discourage foreign investors’ appetite for Chinese equities. Bottom Line: A rebound in the dollar index will be a near-term downside risk to Chinese stocks. Risk Of Higher Chinese Interest Rates Another near-term risk to Chinese stock prices is a tightening in domestic liquidity conditions and a rebound in interest rates, particularly in Q3. Chart 4The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus The PBoC Has Managed To Keep Domestic Rates Low While Pulling Back Overall Stimulus So far this year the PBoC has kept liquidity conditions accommodative to avoid massive debt defaults, while allowing a faster deceleration in the pace of credit expansion and a sharp contraction in shadow banking (Chart 4). In the coming months, however, the trend may reverse. Even though we do not think China’s current inflation and growth dynamics warrant meaningful and sustainable monetary policy tightening, there is still room for rates to normalize to their pre-pandemic levels in the next few months. Our view is based on the following:  First, there was a major delay in local government bond issuance in the first five months of the year. The supply of government bonds will pick up meaningfully in Q3 to meet the annual quota for 2021. An increase in government bond issuance will remove some liquidity from the banking system because the majority of these local government bonds are purchased by commercial banks. Adding to the liquidity gap is a large number of one-year, medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans that will be due in 2H21. Secondly, the PBoC may shift its policy tightening from reducing the volume of total credit creation (measured by total social financing) to raising the price of money. Credit growth (on year-over-year basis) in the first five months of 2021 dropped by three percentage points from its peak in Q4 last year, much faster than the 13-month peak-to-trough deceleration during the 2017/18 policy tightening cycle. As the rate of credit creation approaches the government’s target for the year, which we expect around 11%, the pressure to further compress credit expansion has eased into 2H21. China’s policy agenda is still focused on de-risking in the financial and real estate sectors, therefore, we expect policymakers to keep overall monetary conditions restrictive by raising the price of money. Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility of a hike in mortgage rates. Chart 5Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Rising Risk For A Bear Flattening In Domestic Yield Curve In Q3 Lastly, as the Fed prepares market expectations for its rate liftoff and China’s domestic economy is still relatively solid, the PBoC may seize the opportunity to guide market-based interest rates towards their pre-pandemic levels. Thus, the market will likely price in tighter liquidity conditions while lowering expectations for the economy and inflation. The short end of the yield curve will rise faster than the longer end, resulting in a flattening of the curve (Chart 5). There is a nontrivial risk that the market will react negatively to tighter liquidity conditions and rising bonds yields, particularly when the economy is slowing. We mentioned in previous reports that rising policy rates and bond yields do not necessarily lead to lower stock prices, if rates are rising while credit keeps expanding and corporate profit growth accelerates. However, currently credit impulse has decelerated sharply, and corporate profit growth has most likely peaked in Q2. Therefore, even a small increase in bond yields or market expectations of higher rates will likely trigger risk asset selloffs. Bottom Line: Bond yields will move higher in Q3, risking market selloffs. Chinese Economy Standing On One Leg China’s economic fundamentals also pose downside risks to Chinese stock prices. Macro indicators on a year-over-year comparison will soften further in 2H21 when low base effects wane, although they will weaken from very high levels. This year’s sharp credit growth deceleration will start to drag down domestic demand, with the risk of corporate profits disappointing the market. A positive tailwind from global trade prevented China's old economy from decelerating more in the first half of the year. It is reflected in the nominal imports and manufacturing orders components in the BCA Activity Index (Chart 6). However, while rising commodity prices boosted the value of Chinese imports, the volume of imports has been moving sideways of late (Chart 7). Chart 6Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Our BCA Activity Index Is Still Rising... Chart 7...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over ...But The Volume Of The Import Component Has Rolled Over Chart 8Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Export Growth Is Moderating From Current Level Moreover, China’s export volume is peaking as the reopening in other countries shifts consumer demand from goods to services. Strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth in the coming 12 months, even though a regression-based approach suggests that export growth will stay above trend-growth if global economic activity remains robust (Chart 8). All three components of the official Li Keqiang Index, which measures China’s industrial sector activity and incorporates electricity consumption, railway transportation and bank lending, have rolled over (Chart 9). Among the three components in BCA’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, only the monetary conditions index improved on the back of lower real rates. Contributions from the money supply and credit expansion components to the overall indicator have been negative (Chart 10). Chart 9The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... The Official Li Keqiang Index Is Weakening... Chart 10...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator ...So Is Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator Chart 11Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard Household Consumption Recovery Remains A Laggard The recovery in household consumption remains well behind the industrial sector in the current cycle (Chart 11). We expect consumption and services to continue recovering very gradually. Apart from China’s long-standing structural issues, such as sliding household income growth and a high propensity to save, the cyclical recovery in consumption is dependent on China’s domestic COVID-19 situation. The country is on track to fully vaccinate 40% of its population by the end of June and 80% by year-end (Chart 12). However, hiccups in the service sector recovery are expected through 2H21, given China’s “zero tolerance” policy on confirmed COVID cases, which could trigger sporadic local lockdowns (Chart 13). Chart 12China Is Racing To Reach “Full Inoculation Rate” By Yearend China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap China Outlook: A Mid-Year Recap Chart 13Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Expect Some Hiccups In Service Sector Recovery In 2H21 Bottom Line: Any moderation in exports in the rest of 2021 may add to the slowdown in China’s economic activity. Don’t Count On Fiscal Support Chart 14Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 Fiscal Spending Has Been Disappointing In 1H21 During the first five months of the year, fiscal spending has downshifted (Chart 14). The amount of local government special-purpose bonds (SPBs) issued was far less than in the same period of the past two years, and below this year’s approved annual quota. Although we expect fiscal support to increase into 2H21, backloading SPBs would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure rather than a meaningful boost to economic activity. The RMB3 trillion SPBs to be issued in 2H21 represent only about 10% of this year’s total credit expansion. To substantially boost credit impulse and economic activity, the pickup in SPB issuance will need to be accompanied by looser monetary policy and an acceleration in bank loans (Chart 15). We do not expect that liquidity conditions will remain as lax as in 1H21. Additionally, given that the central government’s focus is to rein in the leverage of local governments and their affiliated financial vehicles (LGFV), provincial officers have little incentive to take on more bank loans against a restrictive policy backdrop. Historically, a stronger fiscal impulse linked to hefty increases in local government bond issuance has not necessarily led to meaningful improvements in infrastructure investment, which has been on a structural downshift since 2017 (Chart 16). Following a V-shaped recovery in 2H20, the growth in infrastructure investment will likely continue to slide in 2H21 due to sluggish government spending. Chart 15Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Bank Loans Still Hold The Key To Stimulus Impulse Chart 16Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Don't Count On SPBs To Meaningfully Boost Infrastructure Investment Bottom Line: There are no signs that the overall policy stance is easing to facilitate a higher fiscal multiplier from an upturn in local government bond issuance. As such, fiscal support for infrastructure spending and economic activity will disappoint in 2H21 despite more SPB issuance. Investment Conclusions Monetary conditions may tighten in Q3 although credit growth will decelerate at a slower pace. Pressures to support domestic demand will be more pronounced next year as tailwinds abate from the global recovery and domestic massive stimulus. Our view is that Chinese authorities will likely ease on the policy tightening brake towards the end of this year and perhaps even signal some reflationary measures in early 2022.  Therefore, while we maintain an underweight stance on Chinese stocks for the time being, investors should remain alert to any improvements in China's policy direction. In particular, any monetary policy easing by end this year/early 2022 may signal a potential catalyst to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight in absolute terms. Although both Chinese onshore and investable equities are currently traded at a discount relative to global stocks, they are richly valuated compared with their 2017/18 highs (Chart 17). China's economy is slowing and the corporate sector has substantially increased its leverage in the past decade. We believe that the current discount in Chinese equities relative to global stocks is warranted. Chart 18 presents a forecast for A-share earnings growth in US dollars, based on earnings’ relationship with the official Li Keqiang index. The chart shows that while an earnings contraction is not probable, without more stimulus the growth rate may fall sharply in the next 12 months from its current elevated level. This aspect, combined with only a minor valuation discount relative to global stocks, paints an uninspiring outlook for Chinese onshore stocks. Chart 17Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Traded At A Slight Discount To Global Equities Chart 18An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook An Uninspiring Domestic Equity Earnings Outlook Our baseline view is that Chinese authorities will be more willing to step up policy supports into 2022. Fiscal impulse will likely turn negative for most major economies next year and global economic recovery will have peaked. In this scenario, both China’s economy and stocks will have the potential to outperform their global peers next year.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Spread Product: The macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. High-Yield: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. EM Corporates: Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Feature Chart 1Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Last week’s report looked at how the June FOMC meeting prompted a massive re-shaping of the Treasury curve.1 It didn’t discuss, however, the impact that June’s meeting had on credit spreads. There’s a simple reason for this. Corporate bond spreads didn’t move very much post-FOMC. In fact, neither investment grade nor high-yield spreads have widened significantly during the past two weeks, despite the Fed’s apparent “hawkish turn” (Chart 1). The VIX jumped briefly above 20 in the days following the Fed meeting but it has since re-discovered its lows (Chart 1, bottom panel). This week’s report considers whether the corporate bond market is too complacent. The first section updates our assessment of where we are in the credit cycle based on two indicators that did see large swings post-Fed. The second section updates our outlook for high-yield defaults and considers whether junk spreads continue to offer adequate compensation. Finally, the third section of this report presents an introductory look at valuation in the USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) corporate sector. We find that, for the most part, investment grade EM corporates are attractively valued relative to EM sovereigns and US corporates of the same credit rating and duration. Credit Cycle Update Chart 2Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators As we have repeatedly stated in past research, the slope of the yield curve is a very important credit cycle indicator.2 We have documented that spread product tends to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by a wide margin when the yield curve is steep. This outperformance tapers off once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope falls below 50 bps and it falls off even more when the slope dips below zero.3 With that in mind, it is notable that the Treasury curve flattened dramatically following the June FOMC meeting (Chart 2). At 106 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains well above the 50 bps threshold that would start to get concerning for spread product. However, it’s likely that the yield curve will continue to flatten as we approach a Fed rate hike in 2022. In other words, we expect that monetary conditions will turn sufficiently restrictive for us to reduce our recommended spread product allocation within the next 12-18 months. On the other hand, one positive development for spread product returns is that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate declined following the June FOMC meeting. In fact, it is now below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 2, bottom panel). This is a positive development for spread product because the Fed will strive to ensure that monetary conditions stay accommodative at least until these long-dated inflation expectations are consistent with the 2.3% to 2.5% target. Or put differently, a rebound in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates back to the target range will slow the near-term pace of curve flattening, giving the credit cycle a small amount of extra running room. In short, the macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Investment Grade Corporates The highly supportive macro environment applies to investment grade corporate bonds, just as it does to all spread sectors. However, investment grade corporates have the problem that valuation is extremely tight. Much like a flat yield curve environment, a tight spread environment tends to coincide with low excess corporate bond returns. However, our research reveals that tight spreads alone are not sufficient for investment grade corporates to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. Table 1 classifies each month since May 1973 based on the investment grade corporate bond spread and the 3/10 Treasury slope. It then shows a 90% confidence interval for corporate bond excess returns during the following 12 months. It shows that, even when the corporate bond spread is below 100 bps (it is 81 bps today), investment grade corporates still tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries as long as the 3/10 Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Table 1Expected 12-Month Corporate Bond Excess Return* (BPs) Based On OAS And Yield Curve Slope The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Bottom Line: The yield curve has started to flatten but it remains very steep, consistent with spread product outperforming duration-matched Treasuries. We remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries but will re-consider this position once the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could happen within the next 12-18 months. We maintain only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds because of stretched valuations. We see more attractive opportunities in high-yield corporates (see next section), municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates (see final section below). High-Yield Default Update We last updated our default rate outlook in March.4 At that time, we concluded that junk spreads offered adequate compensation for expected default losses. Since then, we have received nonfinancial corporate sector profit and debt growth data for the first quarter of 2021, crucial inputs to our macro-based default rate model. Our macro-based model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate is based on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage (i.e. pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards (Chart 3). Lending standards enter our model with a lag, but we need a forward-looking estimate of gross leverage for our model to generate predictions. Chart 3Macro-Driven Default Rate Model Macro-Driven Default Rate Model Macro-Driven Default Rate Model To estimate gross leverage we first model corporate profit growth based on real GDP (Chart 4) and assume that real GDP grows by 7% over the next four quarters, consistent with the Fed’s median forecast. This gives us a profit growth expectation of roughly 30%. Chart 4Profit & Debt Growth Profit & Debt Growth Profit & Debt Growth We also need an estimate for corporate debt growth. Corporate debt exploded last year, growing 10% in 2020, but it then slowed to an annualized rate of 4% in Q1 2021. We think corporate debt growth will remain slow going forward. The nonfinancial corporate sector financing gap has been negative in each of the past four quarters (Chart 4, bottom panel), meaning that retained earnings have exceeded capital expenditures. In other words, firms have built up a lot of excess capital that can be deployed in place of debt to finance new investment opportunities. Table 2 shows our model’s predicted 12-month default rate based on different assumptions for profit and debt growth. If we assume corporate profit growth of 30% and corporate debt growth between 0% and 8%, then our model predicts that the 12-month default rate will fall from its current 5.5% to a range of 2.3% - 2.8%. Table 2Default Rate Scenarios The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Next, we need to consider what sort of expected default rate is priced into the High-Yield index. Our analysis of historical junk spreads and returns suggests that we should require a minimum excess spread of 100 bps in the High-Yield index after subtracting default losses to be confident that junk bonds will outperform Treasuries.5 If we also assume a recovery rate of 40% on defaulted debt, then we calculate that the High-Yield index is fairly priced for a 12-month default rate of 2.9% (Chart 5). That is, junk spreads appear slightly cheap compared to the 2.3% - 2.8% range predicted by our macro model.  Finally, it’s worth noting that actual corporate default events have been quite rare in recent months. In the first five months of 2021 we’ve seen between 1 and 3 default events per month. If we extrapolate that trend and assume we see 3 defaults per month going forward, then we calculate that the 12-month trailing default rate will fall to 2.0% by December, before leveling off at 2.2% (Chart 6). In other words, the recent trend has been one of significantly fewer defaults than predicted by our macro model Chart 5Spread-Implied Default Rate Spread-Implied Default Rate Spread-Implied Default Rate Chart 6Recent Default Trends Recent Default Trends Recent Default Trends Bottom Line: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. An Attractive Opportunity In EM Corporates This week we present an introductory look at the risk/reward opportunity in USD-denominated EM corporate bonds. Specifically, we look at the investment grade Bloomberg Barclays USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index. We compare this index to both the investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign index and the US Credit index.6 First, we look at recent performance trends and average index statistics (Table 3). Both the EM Corporate and EM Sovereign indexes have average credit ratings between A and Baa, so we compare their performance to the A-rated and Baa-rated US Credit indexes. We observe a significant option-adjusted spread (OAS) advantage in both the EM indexes, though part of the extra spread offered by the Sovereign index is compensation for its longer duration. The EM Corporate index sticks out as offering an extremely attractive OAS per unit of duration. Table 3Performance Trends & Index Statistics The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment As for performance, we see that the EM Corporate index experienced less of a drawdown (in excess return terms) during the COVID recession, though it has also returned less than both the EM Sovereign index and the Baa Credit index during the recent upswing. Chart 7Spreads Versus Credit Rating & Duration-Matched US Credit The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Next, we look at each individual credit tier of both the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index and the EM Sovereign index, and we calculate the spread relative to a credit rating and duration-matched position in the US Credit index (Chart 7). In general, we see that both EM indexes offer a spread advantage versus duration-matched US Credit across all credit rating tiers. EM sovereigns look better than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. This is the result of attractive spreads on the sovereign bonds of UAE and Qatar. However, EM corporates clearly dominate sovereigns in both the A and Baa credit tiers. Finally, we consider the risk/reward trade-off in our EM indexes by using our Excess Return Bond Map. Our Excess Return Bond Map shows the relationship between expected return (on the vertical axis) and risk (on the horizontal axis). In Chart 8A our risk measure is the 12-month spread widening required for each index to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries divided by that index’s historical spread volatility. It can be thought of as the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for the index to provide an excess return of -100 bps. A higher value corresponds to less risk, and vice-versa. Chart 8B uses the same risk measurement, only we use the spread widening required to lose 500 bps versus Treasuries to assess the risk of a large drawdown. Both Charts 8A and 8B use OAS as the measure of expected return. Chart 8AExcess Return Bond Map (100 BPs Loss Threshold) The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment Chart 8BExcess Return Bond Map (500 BPs Loss Threshold) The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The Post-FOMC Credit Environment The first thing that sticks out in Charts 8A & 8B is that Baa-rated EM corporates offer greater expected return and less risk than the EM Sovereign index and the Baa US Credit Index. This is true whether our loss threshold is set at 100 bps or 500 bps. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient data to split the EM Sovereign index by credit tier in these charts. A-rated EM corporates offer slightly less expected return than the EM Sovereign index but with significantly less risk, they also clearly dominate the A-rated US Credit Index. Aa-rated EM corporates appear to offer a similar risk/reward trade-off as the EM Sovereign index, though we know from Chart 7 that sovereigns have a spread advantage in the Aa credit tier. The bottom line is that USD-denominated EM corporates are attractively valued relative to investment grade US corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating. EM corporates also look preferable to EM sovereigns in the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns are more attractive than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 3 We use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope in place of the more widely tracked 2-year/10-year slope in our credit cycle research only because using the 3-year/10-year slope allows us to include more historical cycles in our analysis. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 5 Please see page 33 of the US Bond Strategy Quarterly Chartpack, “Testing The Limits Of Transitory Inflation”, dated May 18, 2021. 6 The US Credit Index consists predominantly of US corporate bonds, but also some non-corporate credit such as: Sovereigns, Foreign Agencies, Domestic Agencies, Local Authority bonds and Supranationals. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming   Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants July 2021 July 2021 But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… July 2021 July 2021 Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). Goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe ... And In Europe ... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment July 2021 July 2021 Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall   On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike July 2021 July 2021 The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply 10-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP   Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters   The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets   Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021   II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence July 2021 July 2021 However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer July 2021 July 2021 Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts July 2021 July 2021 Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach July 2021 July 2021   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment July 2021 July 2021 Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units July 2021 July 2021 Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper July 2021 July 2021 Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Fed: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. Duration: The drop in long-dated yields following last week’s FOMC meeting is overdone. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target band. We expect they will quickly move back into that range but doubt they will move above 2.5%. Maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Yield Curve: We are now close enough to Fed liftoff that investors should shift out of curve steepeners and into curve flatteners. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Chart 1Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise Markets React To The Fed's Hawkish Surprise The Fed caused quite a stir in bond markets last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield did a roundtrip from 1.50% before Wednesday’s FOMC meeting up to a peak of 1.58% and then back down to 1.44% by Friday’s close. This, however, wasn’t the most significant bond market move. Shorter-dated Treasury yields increased sharply after the FOMC statement was released and have remained high, resulting in a huge flattening of the curve (Chart 1). Real yields, at both the long and short ends of the curve, also jumped on Wednesday and have not fallen back down. This led to a significant drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. In fact, both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range (Chart 1, bottom panel). What’s really interesting is that this massive re-shaping of both the real and nominal yield curves was prompted by an FOMC meeting where the Fed didn’t make any significant policy announcements and, at least from our perspective, didn’t alter its forward guidance on interest rates or asset purchases in any meaningful way. In this report we will try to disentangle the seeming contradiction between the Fed’s actions and the market’s reaction. The first section looks at what the Fed actually announced at last week’s meeting and considers what that means for the future course of monetary policy. The second section looks at the market’s reaction in more detail to see if it presents any investment opportunities. What The Fed Said Considering the sum total of last week’s Fed communications – the FOMC Statement, the Summary of Economic Projections and Jay Powell’s press conference – we arrive at four takeaways: 1. The Dots Moved In The Fed’s interest rate forecasts shifted noticeably higher compared to where they were in March, a change that likely catalyzed the dramatic move in bond markets. Thirteen out of 18 FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). At the March FOMC meeting only seven participants forecasted rate hikes in 2023 (Chart 2B). On top of that, seven FOMC participants now expect to lift rates before the end of 2022, this is up from four in March. Finally, the median participant’s interest rate forecast went from calling for no rate hikes through the end of 2023 to two. Cahrt 2AMarket And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations After The June FOMC Meeting Chart 2BMarket And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Market And Fed Rate Expectations Before The June FOMC Meeting Rate expectations embedded in the overnight index swap (OIS) market also moved up last week. The OIS curve is now priced for Fed liftoff in December 2022 and for a total of 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2A). Prior to the FOMC meeting, the OIS curve was priced for Fed liftoff in April 2023 and for a total of 78 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 2B). It’s important to note that this change in the Fed’s interest rate forecasts occurred without the Fed changing its forward guidance about when it will be appropriate to lift rates. The Fed continues to communicate that it has a three-pronged test for liftoff: 12-month PCE inflation must be above 2% The labor market must be at “maximum employment” The committee must expect that inflation will remain above 2% for some time We asserted back in March that investors should focus on this verbal forward guidance from the Fed and not the dot plot, noting that the Fed’s interest rate forecasts were inconsistent with its own verbal forward guidance.1 The reason for the inconsistency is that Fed participants were trying to err on the side of signaling dovishness to the market. In his March press conference Chair Powell said that the Fed wants to see “actual progress” towards its economic objectives not “forecast[ed] progress”. This bias likely led FOMC participants to place their dots too low, ignoring the strong likelihood that the economy would make rapid progress toward its employment and inflation goals in the coming months. After last week, the Fed’s dots are now more consistent with a reasonable timeline for achieving its policy goals, but our advice remains the same. Investors should ignore the dot plot and focus instead on what the Fed is telling us about when it will lift rates. On that note, we have repeatedly made the case that the three items on the Fed’s liftoff checklist will be met in time for rate hikes to begin next year.2 2. Upside Risks To Inflation Chart 3Upside Risks To Inflation Upside Risks To Inflation Upside Risks To Inflation The second change the Fed made last week was in how it characterized the risks surrounding inflation. The official FOMC Statement continues to describe the recent increase in inflation as “transitory”, but the Summary of Economic Projections revealed a huge increase in the number of participants who view the risks surrounding their inflation forecasts as tilted to the upside (Chart 3). This shouldn’t be too surprising. Inflation has been incredibly strong in recent months with 12-month core CPI and 12-month core PCE rising to 3.80% and 3.06%, respectively. Importantly, however, a change in risk assessment doesn’t portend a change in policy. The Fed’s median forecast sees core PCE inflation falling from 3.4% this year to 2.1% in 2022, and we also agree that inflation has peaked.3 That said, it is interesting to consider how the Fed might respond if consumer prices continue to accelerate. On that question, Chair Powell said last week that the Fed would “be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy” if it “saw signs that the path of inflation or longer-term inflation expectations were moving materially and persistently beyond levels consistent with [its] goal.” Our sense is that the Fed would be prepared to bring forward the tapering of its asset purchases in response to stronger-than-expected inflation, but it is extremely unlikely that it would lift rates before its three liftoff criteria are met. In fact, given the Phillips Curve lens through which the Fed views inflation, it is much more likely that any increase in inflation that isn’t matched by a tight labor market will continue to be written off as “transitory”. 3. Tapering Discussions Have Begun Third, Jay Powell revealed in his post-meeting press conference that the Fed has begun discussions about when to start tapering its asset purchases. The Fed’s test for when to start tapering is “substantial further progress” toward its policy goals. This test is much vaguer than the criteria for liftoff, and this gives the Fed more flexibility on when it could announce tapering. For what it’s worth, Powell also said that “the standard of ‘substantial further progress’ is still a ways off.” We don’t view this revelation about tapering discussions as that significant for markets. For one thing, there is already a strong consensus among market participants that tapering will begin in Q1 2022 (Tables 1A & 1B). Given that the Fed has promised to “provide advance notice before announcing any decision to make changes to our purchases”, starting discussions this summer seems consistent with market expectations, as well as our own.4 Table 1ASurvey Of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 1BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying It’s also important to note that any announcement of asset purchase tapering wouldn’t tell us much about when the Fed’s three liftoff criteria are likely to be met. In other words, a tapering announcement doesn’t tell us anything about when rate hikes are likely to occur. This means that any tapering announcement will have much less of an impact on financial markets than the 2013 taper tantrum, for example. In 2013, markets interpreted the tapering announcement as a signal that rate hikes were coming sooner than expected. The Fed’s explicit interest rate guidance will prevent that outcome this time around. 4. Operational Tweaks Finally, the Fed raised the interest rate it pays on excess reserves (IOER) from 0.10% to 0.15% and the interest rate on its overnight reverse repo facility (ON RRP) from 0% to 0.05% (Chart 4). We discussed the possibility that the Fed might make these changes in last week’s report.5 In recent months, a surplus of cash in overnight markets caused benchmark interest rates to fall toward the lower-end of the Fed’s 0% - 0.25% target range. Critically for the Fed, the ON RRP facility functioned properly as a firm floor on interest rates. It saw its usage surge (Chart 4, bottom panel) but it prevented interest rates from falling below 0%. The IOER and ON RRP rate increases are probably not necessary if the Fed’s goal is to simply keep overnight interest rates within its target band, but the increases will help push rates up toward the middle of the target range. They may also lead to some decline in ON RRP usage, though that has not occurred just yet. In any event, the surplus of cash in money markets that is applying downward pressure to overnight interest rates will evaporate within the next few months. The Treasury Department expects to hit a cash balance of $450 billion by the end of July and, as long as Congress passes legislation to increase the debt limit this summer, the Treasury’s cash balance will probably not get much below $450 billion (Chart 5). A tapering of the Fed’s asset purchases starting late this year or early next year would also remove surplus cash from money markets.     Chart 4IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes IOER And ON RRP Rate Hikes Chart 5The Cash Surplus In Money Markets The Cash Surplus In Money Markets The Cash Surplus In Money Markets Bottom Line: The Fed’s interest rate projections moved up sharply in June but its verbal forward guidance on interest rates and asset purchases didn’t change in any meaningful way. Investors should ignore the Fed’s dot plot and assess the timing of rate hikes based on when they expect the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal to be met. We expect it will be met in time for Fed liftoff in 2022. How The Market Reacted As noted at the outset of this report, the bond market didn’t have the same sanguine reaction to the Fed’s communications as we did. It reacted as though the Fed had delivered a massive hawkish surprise. The major bond market moves were as follows: Short-maturity nominal Treasury yields jumped following the FOMC meeting on Wednesday, and those short-dated yields remained at their new higher levels through Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). Table 2AChange In Nominal Yields Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 2BChange In Real Yields Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying Table 2CChange In TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rates Following June FOMC Meeting How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying The 10-year nominal Treasury yield also increased following the Fed meeting, but then gave back all of that increase and then some on Thursday and Friday (Table 2A). The result is a significant flattening of the nominal Treasury curve, consistent with the market discounting a more hawkish path for monetary policy. Looking at real yields, we see significant increases following Wednesday’s Fed meeting for all maturities (Table 2B). Then, with the exception of the 30-year yield, real yields did not fall back down later in the week. Finally, we see large declines in the cost of inflation compensation at both the short and long ends of the curve (Table 2C). Once again, this is consistent with the market pricing-in a more hawkish Fed that will be less tolerant of an inflation overshoot. In light of these significant yield moves, we consider the investment implications for the level of bond yields, the performance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and the slope of the nominal Treasury curve. The Level Of Yields Chart 65y5y Yield Has Upside 5y5y Yield Has Upside 5y5y Yield Has Upside There were two major developments last week that influence our view on the level of Treasury yields. First, the market is now priced for a more reasonable December 2022 liftoff date and 87 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. Second, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield fell sharply. It currently sits at 2.06%, just 6 bps above the median estimate of the long-run neutral fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and 25 bps below the same measure from the Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 6). On the one hand, the market-implied path for overnight interest rates looks more in line with reality, though we still see scope for it to move higher. On the other hand, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now looks too low compared to consensus estimates of the long-run neutral interest rate. We are inclined to think that the market-implied path for rates will either stay where it is or move higher and that the drop in the 5-year/5-year forward yield is overdone. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries As shown in Chart 1, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen back to levels below the Fed’s desired target range. We don’t think TIPS breakeven inflation rates will stay below target for long. The principal goal of the Fed’s new Average Inflation Targeting strategy is to ensure that long-term inflation expectations are well-anchored near target levels. Recent market action seems to imply that the Fed will overtighten and miss its inflation objective from below, but that is highly unlikely. We recently downgraded our recommended TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral because breakevens were threatening to break above the top-end of the Fed’s target band.6 We maintain our neutral 6-12 month allocation, but we do see long-maturity TIPS breakevens moving back into the 2.3% to 2.5% target band relatively quickly. Nimble investors may wish to buy TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a short-term trade. Nominal Treasury Curve Slope Chart 7A Transition To Curve Flattening A Transition To Curve Flattening A Transition To Curve Flattening We see the potential for some of last week’s dramatic curve flattening to reverse in the near-term. It was, after all, a drop in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that was responsible for the curve flattening on Thursday and Friday and, as was already discussed, this drop in the cost of inflation compensation will likely prove fleeting. However, if we look out on a longer 6-12 month time horizon, it is much more likely that the curve will continue to flatten rather than steepen. If we assume that the first rate hike occurs in December 2022, it means that we are roughly 18 months away from the start of a rate hike cycle. In past cycles, 18 months prior to liftoff was pretty close to the inflection point between curve steepening and flattening, whether we look at the 2/10, 5/30 or even 2/5 slope (Chart 7). For this reason, we think it makes more sense to enter curve flatteners at this stage of the cycle than steepeners, even though flatteners tend to have negative carry. We therefore exit our prior curve position – long 5-year bullet / short duration-matched 2/30 barbell – a trade that was designed to be a positive carry hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration allocation.7 In its place, we recommend that investors enter a 2/10 curve flattener. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year note and going long a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade offers a negative yield pick-up of 16 bps, but the 2/10 barbell does look somewhat cheap relative to the 5-year on our model (Chart 8). Chart 8Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet Buy 2/10 Barbell, Sell 5-Year Bullet We expect to hold this trade for some time, profiting from a bear-flattening of the 2/10 yield curve as we move closer and closer to eventual Fed liftoff.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years”, dated June 1, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Fed Won’t Catch Inflation Fever”, dated May 4, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls With 12-month PCE inflation already above the Fed’s 2% target, it is progress toward the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal that will determine both the timing of Fed liftoff and whether bond yields rise or fall. On that note, the bond market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in early 2023. We also calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between 378k and 462k is required to meet the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal by the end of 2022, in time for an early-2023 rate hike. It follows from this analysis that any monthly employment print above +462k should be considered bond-bearish and any print below +378k should be considered bond-bullish (Chart 1). In that light, May’s +559k print is bond-bearish, and we anticipate further bond-bearish employment reports in the coming months as COVID fears fade and people return to a labor market that is already awash with demand. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US bond portfolios and also continue to favor spread product over duration-matched Treasuries. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +159 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 142 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.27% - almost, but not quite, within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”.1 The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is almost at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, tight valuations cause us to recommend only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We prefer high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns. Last week, the Fed announced that it will wind down its corporate bond portfolio over the coming months. The corporate bond purchase facility has not been operational since December 2020, meaning that the corporate bond market has been functioning without an explicit Fed back-stop for all of 2021. The portfolio itself is also quite small compared to the size of the corporate bond market. As a result, we anticipate no material impact on spreads. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +343 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.3% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s corporate debt binge will moderate in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 7 bps in May. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 24 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 27 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly more than the 18 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons over low coupons within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 32 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +37 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 30 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +360 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both outperformed by 8 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +27 bps and +24 bps, respectively. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +286 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and came to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. However, there may not be time to pass these tax hikes before the 2022 midterm elections. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over investment grade corporates that investors should take advantage of (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 22% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them prone to extension risk if bond yields gap higher. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/30 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields fell in May, with the 5-10 year part of the curve benefiting the most. The 7-year yield fell 8 bps in May while the 5-year and 10-year yields both fell 7 bps. Yield declines were smaller for shorter (< 5-year) and longer (> 10-year) maturities. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps to end the month at 147 bps (Chart 7). We recently changed our recommended yield curve position from a 5 over 2/10 butterfly to a 5 over 2/30 butterfly.6 In making the switch we noted that the slope of the Treasury curve has behaved differently since bond yields peaked in early April. Prior to April, the rise in bond yields was concentrated at the very long-end (10-year +) of the curve. During the past two months, the belly of the curve (5-7 years) has seen more volatility. We conclude that we are now close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that further significant increases in yields will be met with a flatter curve beyond the 5-year maturity point and that the 5-year and 7-year notes are likely to benefit the most if bond yields dip. We also observe an exceptional yield pick-up of +33 bps in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend buying the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell to take advantage of the strong positive carry in a flat yield environment, and as a hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 86 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +484 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.42%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.27%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). With long-maturity breakevens already consistent (or close to consistent) with the Fed’s target, they have limited upside going forward. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. We also think that the market has priced-in an overly aggressive inflation outlook at the front-end of the curve. The 1-year and 2-year CPI swap rates stand at 3.76% and 3.12%, respectively. There is a good chance that these lofty inflation expectations will not be confirmed by the actual data. With all that in mind, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and also a neutral posture towards the inflation curve (panel 4). The inflation curve could steepen somewhat in the near-term if short-maturity inflation expectations moderate, but we expect the curve to remain inverted for a long time yet. An inverted inflation curve is more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, and it should be considered the natural state of affairs moving forward. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +70 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. This excess savings has still not been spent and, already, the most recent round of stimulus checks is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 27 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +78 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 84 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +453 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +125 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and it currently sits at 27 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: 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 May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment 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 May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment 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 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 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) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Appendix B: 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 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion of how we assess the state of monetary policy vis-à-vis spread product please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021.

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan – Province Of China Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. Duration: The overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Corporate Bonds: High and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds. Feature Recent inflationary trends are making the Fed’s job more difficult. Not only was April’s increase in core CPI the largest since 1981, but measures of long-term inflation expectations have also jumped. The 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has quickly risen to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 1). What’s more, survey measures of inflation expectations have also moved up, in many cases to uncomfortably high levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Back To Target Back To Target Back To Target Chart 2Inflation Expectations Have Jumped Inflation Expectations Have Jumped Inflation Expectations Have Jumped All of this makes the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy look increasingly untenable. Can the Fed really just sit on the sidelines as inflation and inflation expectations rise to above-target levels? Our expectation is that the Fed will ignore rising inflation until the labor market is fully recovered, but it may then need to move quickly to contain inflationary pressures. The result could very well be a rate hike cycle that takes a long time to start, but then proceeds at a rapid pace. The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Are Different Than Its Criteria For Pace A crucial point about the Fed’s forward guidance is that the criteria that will determine the timing of the first rate hike are different than the criteria that will determine the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Liftoff Criteria Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think For liftoff, the Fed has been very explicit that three conditions must be met before it will raise rates off the zero bound (Table 1). Of the three conditions listed in Table 1, the timing of when the labor market will reach “maximum employment” is the most uncertain. We have written extensively about how the Fed defines “maximum employment” and about the pace of employment growth that’s necessary to achieve that goal by specific future dates.1 To summarize, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of at least 698k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year and average monthly payroll growth of at least 412k is required to hit that target by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Employment Growth Employment Growth Employment Growth Chart 4Labor Demand Is Strong Labor Demand Is Strong Labor Demand Is Strong Our assessment is that “maximum employment” will be achieved in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, largely because employment growth must rise quickly in order to catch up with skyrocketing indicators of labor demand (Chart 4). The risk, of course, is that inflation continues to run hot as the Fed waits for its “maximum employment” condition to be met. If this occurs, we believe that the Fed will stick to its current forward guidance. It will ignore rising inflation until its liftoff criteria are met. Only then, will Fed policy turn toward containing inflation. Pace Criteria In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida laid out three indicators that he will track to guide the pace of policy tightening post Fed liftoff.2 First, he pointed to inflation expectations. In particular, the Fed’s index of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE):3 Other things being equal, my desired pace of policy normalization post-liftoff to return inflation to 2 percent […] would be somewhat slower than otherwise if the CIE index is, at time of liftoff, below the pre-ELB level. [ELB = effective lower bound]. Chart 2 shows that the CIE index has already broken above its 2018 peak. It stands to reason that, all else equal, an elevated CIE index would speed up the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Chart 5Inflation Since August 2020 Inflation Since August 2020 Inflation Since August 2020 Second, Clarida noted that: Another factor I will consider in calibrating the pace of policy normalization post-liftoff is the average rate of PCE inflation since the new framework was adopted in August 2020. The annualized rate of change in core PCE since August 2020 is almost at the Fed’s 2% target already, and it will certainly rise to above-target levels when the April data are released, as was the case with core CPI (Chart 5). Finally, Clarida offered up a detailed Taylor-type monetary policy rule that he says he will consult once the conditions for liftoff are met: Consistent with our new framework, the relevant policy rule benchmark I will consult once the conditions for liftoff have been met is an inertial Taylor-type rule with a coefficient of zero on the unemployment gap, a coefficient of 1.5 on the gap between core PCE inflation and the 2 percent longer-run goal, and a neutral real policy rate equal to my SEP forecast of long-run r*. Chart 6Balanced Approach (Shortfalls) Rule* Recommendations Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think Chart 6 shows the results of a very similar policy rule using median FOMC estimates for r*, NAIRU and the path of inflation. We use a slightly more pessimistic forecast for the unemployment rate and assume that it reaches 4.5% by the end of 2022 and 4% by the end of 2023. Even with those conservative assumptions, the rule still recommends a policy rate of 1.5% by the end of 2022 and 2.65% by the end of 2023. This is not to say that the Fed will immediately lift rates to those levels once it is ready to hike, only that the Fed will have a strong incentive to pursue a rapid pace of rate hikes once it finally lifts rates off the zero bound. Investment Implications For investors, the bottom line is that the Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation and inflation expectations rise further, or even remain sticky near current levels, the Fed will lift rates more quickly than many anticipate. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Is Inflation A Risk For Spread Product? Yes it is, but not just yet. In past reports, we’ve often pointed to 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% as a reason to turn more cautious on spread product (see Chart 1), and the recent rise in inflation expectations certainly does set off some alarm bells. High inflation expectations pose a risk to credit spreads because of what they signal about the future course of Fed policy. If the Fed responds to high inflation expectations by tightening policy into restrictive territory, then economic growth and credit spreads are at risk. All this remains true, but the Fed’s willingness to ignore rising inflation expectations – at least until “maximum employment” and fed funds liftoff are achieved – gives spread product a little more runway than usual. One way to illustrate this dynamic is with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). Historically, corporate bond (both investment grade and junk) excess returns are strong at least until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps (Table 2). Currently, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is well above 100 bps and has shown few signs of rolling over. If the Fed was still following its old forward-looking policy framework, then the yield curve would likely be much flatter today. That is, the curve would be pricing-in some policy tightening in response to high and rising inflation expectations. However, as discussed above, inflation expectations are not currently the Fed’s primary concern and they will only become the Fed’s primary concern once “maximum employment” has been achieved and the funds rate has been lifted off the zero bound. Chart 7Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Table 2Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think All in all, we are concerned that, if inflation expectations remain elevated, the Fed may quickly ramp up its post-liftoff pace of rate hikes, sending credit spreads wider. But we are reluctant to position for that outcome when we are still many months away from Fed liftoff and the slope of the yield curve remains so steep. Chart 8Low Expected Returns In IG Low Expected Returns in IG Low Expected Returns in IG Another factor to consider is that value in spread product is extremely tight. In fact, our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread for the quality-adjusted investment grade corporate bond index is almost at its most expensive level since 1995 (Chart 8). This doesn’t change our assessment of when restrictive Fed policy will cause spreads to widen, but it does reduce our return expectations in the interim. All else equal, since the rewards from being overweight spread product versus Treasuries are low, we will be quicker to reduce our recommended spread product allocation when our indicators start to point toward the end of the credit cycle. Though, at the very least, we will still want to see the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope start to flatten and approach 50 bps before we get too pessimistic on spread product. The bottom line is that high and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overshoot Territory”, dated April 13, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm 3 The CIE is a composite measure of different market-based and survey-based indicators of inflation expectations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm  Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since Global Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since Global Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting   The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over DRAM Prices Have Rolled Over DRAM Prices Have Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   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