Cyclicals vs Defensives

Highlights 2022 will be a year of economic normalization. We hope that even if we can’t leave COVID behind, we will learn to live with it. Economic growth will remain strong, but it will be trending down towards its long-term average, while inflation will cool off somewhat on the back of the resolution of supply chain bottlenecks and waning pent-up demand. Monetary conditions will tighten, and 10-year rates will move up towards the 2-2.25% mark. Corporate profitability will return to trend. The likely deceleration in earnings growth and margin contraction will be driven by a combination of factors: A slowdown in top-line growth, a decline in corporate pricing power, and increases in labor and input costs. The US economy is firmly in the slowdown stage of the business cycle. However, growth is coming off high levels, and this phase is likely to be prolonged, and this is by no means a death knell for the bull market. Yet, during the slowdown, returns tend to be lower than during the recovery and expansion phases of the business cycle, and volatility is heightened. We expect an S&P 500 total return of just under 8% – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Point estimates are difficult in finance, so we will characterize this return expectation as in the middle single digits. Overweight Small vs. Large for the following reasons: First, Small is expected to outperform in an environment of rising rates - A BCA view for 2022. Second, Small is cheap. Third, the profitability of Small has improved dramatically which attests to the ability of smaller companies to efficiently manage their operations even under duress. Last, while Small is trading with a 25% discount to Large on a forward PE basis, its earnings growth over the next 12 months is expected to be double of Large, 20% vs. 10%. We are neutral in our Growth/Value allocation, but we find the argument of rates rising and Value outperforming highly compelling. Our neutral position will be a great launching pad towards overweighting value stocks at the first whiff of rising long rates. In the meantime, we choose a selective exposure to value sectors by the means of our hand-picked cyclical themes. Overweight Cyclicals vs. Defensives as the pandemic will recede in importance in 2022: Every time COVID fears subside, Cyclicals outperform Defensives. Pent-up demand has not yet waned, hindered by supply shortages and shipping delays. Further, rising rates is an environment favorable for Cyclicals at the expense of Defensives. Within Cyclicals, we prefer the following sectors and themes: Consumers are flush with cash and there is strong pent-up demand for services and selected consumer goods like services: Overweight Hotels, Restaurants, Cruises, Amusement Parks, and Casinos, along with Commercial and Professional Services. Also, overweight Healthcare Equipment and Services which benefits from the backlog in elective procedures. New Capex Cycle: Businesses bring their supply chains back to the US and excess consumer demand has driven the need for expanded capacity. Capex intentions are on the rise. Overweight Construction and Engineering, Building Materials, and Capital Goods. New Credit Cycle: Early signs that both consumer and business lending is picking up. Rising rates will also lend a helping hand to Banks – overweight Overweight Energy as demand for oil is robust on the back of global recovery and chronic underinvestment in Capex. Underweight resource stocks, which are exposed to a slowdown in China. The US housing market should post a solid performance next year on the back of the structural demand tailwinds: Since GFC, around five million houses were underbuilt. This supply shortage also coincides with millennials, a cohort that has 11 million more people compared to the previous generation, starting families. Overweight Real Estate and Homebuilders Multi-year structural themes are Millennials, Generation Z, EV revolution, and Cybersecurity. 2022 will be a big year for the new technology themes. We are reading about gene editing, the metaverse, 3D printing, and cleantech. We will be sure to share what we learn in a series of Special Reports. Feature House Views Last Week, BCA published its annual outlook, a transcript of our yearly discussion with the firm’s long-time clients, Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X. In this document, we discussed the major themes for 2022. Below are some of the main conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to recede in importance next year. The effect of the recently discovered Omicron variant remains unknown, but we expect any negative economic impact that occurs to be limited to the first half of the year. A receding pandemic will lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. We expect actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations currently suggest. Economic growth in advanced economies will be above trend for the year on average, and we expect the US and euro area output gaps to close in 2022. Any economic activity disrupted by Omicron in the first half of 2022 will likely shift into the second half of the year. Above-trend growth will be supported by easy monetary policy, a shift in spending from goods to services, and a sizeable amount of excess savings that will support overall consumer spending. A reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the latter half of next year rather than in the coming six months. Stocks will outperform bonds in 2022, but equity market returns will be in the single-digit territory – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Equity market volatility may increase in the lead-up to US monetary policy tightening at the end of the year, but we expect only a moderate rise in long-maturity bond yields—which will not threaten economic activity or cause a major decline in equity multiples. Equity investors should favor small-cap over large-cap stocks in 2022. Small-cap stocks tend to outperform when bond yields are rising, and relative valuation levels are attractive. We generally favor cyclical sectors next year but stretched relative performance versus defensives means that we expect to rotate away from cyclicals at some point over the coming year. A window exists for value outperformance versus growth in 2022, in response to higher long-maturity government bond yields. We do recommend the former over the latter. Brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. The US dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, depending on the extent of the economic impact from the Omicron variant. Beyond that, the dollar’s countercyclical nature, above-trend global growth, and overbought conditions suggest that investors should bet on a lower dollar. In this report, we will explore the implications of the above views for US Equities. 2022 Is A Year Of Normalization If 2021 passed under the banner of recovery, 2022 will be a year of economic normalization. We hope that even if we can’t leave COVID behind, we will learn to live with it, variants and all, and it will become less disruptive to the economy and our personal lives. As such, economic growth will remain strong, but it will be trending down towards its long-term average, while inflation will cool off somewhat on the back of the resolution of supply chain bottlenecks and waning pent-up demand. Monetary conditions will tighten, and 10-year rates will move up towards the 2-2.25% mark. US Economic Growth And Corporate Profitability Will Return To Trend The economy is expected to grow at a robust pace next year (7.3% nominal GDP growth), albeit slower than this year (Chart 1). After a growth surge on the back of the post-COVID recovery, the economy has entered the slowdown phase of the business cycle. Economic growth is poised to shift closer to its long-term trend in 2022. Corporate profitability is also expected to trend lower next year (Chart 2). While corporate earnings in 2021 have been impressive, this performance is unlikely to be repeated, as the unique circumstances of the pandemic and the recovery are giving way to more ordinary business conditions. Amid the pandemic and during the early innings of recovery, companies have cut costs aggressively, improved productivity, while lower interest rates have reduced debt servicing burdens, and a weaker dollar has boosted overseas earnings. As the economy restarted, sales growth surged, and corporate pricing power was on the rise thanks to significant pent-up demand for goods and services and consumers being flush with cash. Chart 1Economic Growth Will Return To Trend Chart 2Sales Growth Is Poised To Slow   In 2022, earnings growth will return to trend (Chart 3). The likely deceleration in earnings growth and margin contraction (Chart 4) next year will be driven by a combination of factors: First and foremost, a slowdown in top-line growth, a decline in corporate pricing power, i.e., the ability of companies to raise prices, which has been diminished by consumers’ income increasing slower than inflation. Chart 4Profit Margins Are Set To Compress In the meantime, the tight labor market is putting upward pressure on wage growth (Chart 5). Labor costs are singlehandedly the largest expense, hovering around 50% of sales, dwarfing all the other expense items. Input costs are also on the rise with PPI soaring, cutting into corporate profitability (although we do expect PPI to decelerate) (Chart 6). Chart 5Wage Growth Is Accelerating Chart 6Corporate Pricing Power Has Been Waning In addition, there are a few minor expenses that are set to rise in 2022: Capex recovery will push up depreciation expense, interest expense is set to go up because of rising rates and corporate re-leveraging, and taxes are projected to increase, especially for the US multinationals exposed to the international minimum tax. And of course, there is also an appreciating dollar, diminishing the translated value of overseas profits. While each of these line items is minor, in concert they will have a noticeable adverse effect on corporate profitability. We provide analysis of the S&P 500 margins in Marginally Worse and Sector Margin Scorecard reports. 2022: Pedestrian Returns And Higher Volatility The US economy is firmly in the slowdown stage of the business cycle. However, growth is coming off high levels, and this phase is likely to be prolonged, and this is by no means a death knell for the bull market. Yet, during the slowdown, returns tend to be lower than during the recovery and expansion phases of the business cycle (Chart 7). Slowdowns are also usually accompanied by heightened volatility. The TINA trade is still on – there are few inexpensive asset classes, and yield is hard to come by. With rates expected to rise, equities are still a more attractive alternative to bonds (Chart 8). Equities are real assets that do a good job protecting investments from rising prices (that is until inflation triggers tighter monetary policy). With rate hikes still a few quarters away, the party is continuing. There is still a lot of liquidity sloshing around looking for attractive corners of the market. This is manifested in positive equity inflows and a “buy-on-dips” mentality, which, so far, has precluded any major market corrections. Buybacks are on the rise – many corporations have had bumper profits and are returning cash to shareholders (Chart 9). This trend is exacerbated by the current administration’s hostility to M&A activity. Chart 9Buybacks Are Reverting To The Pre-pandemic Level   Returns: Multiple Expansion Passes Baton To Earnings Growth Multiple expansion was a key driver of returns in 2020. In 2021, the baton was passed to earnings growth, which contributed 40% to realized returns this year (Chart 10). 2022 will be more like 2021 than 2020. Multiple expansion is highly unlikely as it tends to be a driver of returns during the recovery stage of the business cycle when the market anticipates economic rejuvenation. Furthermore, valuations are already elevated. When the S&P 500 is trading at over 21x forward earnings, the probability of negative returns over the next 12 months has historically been around 65% (Chart 11). While we believe that there are many factors supporting equities delivering positive returns next year, it is hard to be overly optimistic. Hence, it will be earnings growth again that will rule the day in 2022, with a little help from dividends and buybacks. However, while earnings growth is a key driver of returns, it is expected to slow from the current levels, returning to its historical trend (Chart 12). The blockbuster returns of 2021 will be in the rear-view mirror. Chart 12Earnings Growth Is Slowing Total Return Estimate: Mid-To-High Single Digits Above-trend economic growth and consumer price inflation point to revenue growth in the high single digits, and this would normally serve as a conservative estimate for earnings growth given that profit margins have been trending higher since the beginning of the 2009 economic recovery. However, margins are expected to compress in 2022, and earnings growth to decelerate. We proxy sales growth to nominal GDP growth of 7.6%. With margins expected to contract, the best scenario for the degree of operating leverage for the S&P 500 is a historical average of 0.96, translating sales growth into earnings growth of 7.3% (Table 1). For reference, sell-side analysts expect S&P 500 earnings to grow by 8% in 2022 (Chart 13). S&P 500 PE NTM stands at 20.5 which, historically, on average, is about three points below realized PE LTM in 12 months. We assume that PE LTM at the end of 2022 will be 25.6, or a 1.6% contraction from the 25.2 multiple today. Table 12022 S&P 500 Price Target And Total Return Estimate With an average historical dividend yield of 2.2%, we get: (1+7.3%)*(1-1.6%)*(1+2.2%) = 7.9% - Total Return Estimate 4,591*(1+7.3%)*(1-1.6%) =~ 4,850 - Price Target We expect an S&P 500 total return of just under 8% – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Point estimates are difficult in finance, so we will characterize this return expectation in the middle single digits. The rate of multiple contraction, earnings growth, and dividend yield in 2022 are just educated guesses. Sector And Styles Key Views Small Vs. Large Cap: It Is Finally A Small World 2021 was a tumultuous year for small caps. After a strong outperformance at the beginning of the year on the back of a recovery trade, this asset class has been languishing since March, with each new attempt for a prolonged rally failing (Chart 14). Over the year, small caps have become extremely cheap and unloved, trading at 16x forward earnings with a 25% discount to Large. The BCA Valuation Indicator for Small vs. Large is standing more than two standard deviations below its long-term average. So why was Small so unloved considering two blockbuster reporting seasons with earnings growth of more than 200%? Even on an annualized basis, since 2019 Small has delivered 47% annualized growth compared to 14% from Large (Chart 15). Moreover, smaller companies have been successful in repairing their balance sheets, which now look much healthier. Chart 14Small Had A Tumultuous Year Small was out of favor as investors fretted about an economic slowdown (Chart 16), the Delta variant (along with the other Greeks), razor-thin margins, and the ability of smaller companies to navigate the economy, plagued with supply bottlenecks and labor shortages. Yet, we went overweight Small vs. Large back in October and are still sticking to our guns. First, Small, which has higher allocations to Cyclicals, such as Financials and Industrials, is expected to outperform in the environment of rising rates (Chart 17) - A BCA view for 2022. Second, in a market where most asset classes are exuberantly expensive, Small is cheap. Third, the profitability of Small has improved dramatically, which attests to the ability of smaller companies to efficiently manage their operations even under duress, as well as to pass costs on to their customers. Last, while Small is trading with a 25% discount to Large on a forward PE basis, its earnings growth over the next 12 months is expected to be double that of Large, 20% vs. 10%. The froth in expectations for the earnings growth of Small has also come down from its peak at 88% and now appears to be a low bar to clear. Chart 16Small Earnings Growth Expectations Are Reasonable And Profitability Has Rebounded Chart 17Small Is Expected To Outperform In The Environment Of Rising Rates What are the risks to this call? If economic growth disappoints, and the yield curve continues its relentless flattening, signifying a Fed policy mistake or the onset of another COVID Greek, Small is bound to underperform. Margins are narrow and continued cost pressures, especially surging labor costs, have the potential to dent small caps’ profitability. Yet, on a balance of probabilities of such an outcome vs. attractive valuations and fundamentals, this is a risk we are willing to take. Growth Vs. Value: Be Nimble The story of Growth vs. Value is similar to that of Large vs. Small. Value had a fantastic run as the pandemic started to recede, but then as worries about the Delta variant emerged, Growth took over yet again. Over the past year, Growth outperformed Value by 11%, and by 18% over just the last 26 weeks. As a result of such a strong run, Growth has become very expensive, trading at 29x forward multiples, which is a 80% premium to Value (which is trading at 16x). The Growth/Value BCA Valuation indicator is nearly 3 standard deviations above average, and from a statistical perspective, is 99% likely to mean revert. What makes this valuation discrepancy absurd is that both asset classes are bound to deliver roughly the same earnings growth over the next year, i.e., 10%. What is the deal? Just like Small vs. Large, this year, Value vs. Growth has been strongly linked to the 30-year Treasury yield (Chart 18). This has not always been the case in the past, but since the onset of the pandemic, very long-maturity bond yields have done a good job at explaining the relative performance of these asset classes. Growth is overweight Technology, which has been a star of the “work from home” theme. Further, falling long rates inflate the present value of cash flows and earnings of the growth stocks. In the meantime, Value is highly exposed to Financials, which have a hard time maintaining their profitability during times of falling rates and flattening yield curves. Apart from sector composition, Growth as an asset class has also become synonymous with quality, which comes to the rescue at times of heightened risk aversion and uncertainty. This is usually accompanied by falling rates. Indeed, profit margins for Growth are 7% higher than for Value. Since 2019, the annualized earnings growth of Growth is 14.4% compared to 9.8% for Value. The difference is even more dramatic for Sales growth: 6.5% for Growth vs. -1.1% for Value (Chart 19). Chart 18US Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates However, while we observe that Growth is more reliable for churning out strong numbers, falling sales of Value indicate substantial pent-up demand for products and services. Value also thrives in the environment of robust economic growth and the steepening yield curve. We are currently neutral in our Growth/Value allocation, but we find the argument of rates rising and Value outperforming highly compelling. Our neutral position will be a great launching pad towards overweighting value stocks at the first whiff of rising long rates. In the meantime, we choose a selective exposure to value sectors by the means of our hand-picked cyclical themes. We have also retained some exposure to Growth by staying with our overweights to Technology and Pharma, as a means of protecting our portfolio from the kind of volatility we have experienced because of the Omicron scare and the Fed’s policy adjustments. Growth Is Robust And COVID Is Receding: Overweight Cyclicals Cyclical sectors have significantly outperformed Defensives this year (by 12%), benefiting from economic reopening and ubiquitous pent-up demand both from businesses and consumers. Despite a strong run and exceeding the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 20), Cyclicals have room to move higher when compared with the prevailing levels in 2010-2011, but that period reflected resource price levels that we are unlikely to see in the coming year. Yet, we expect further outperformance of Cyclicals in 2022. Chart 20Cyclicals/Defensives Performance Has Exceeded Pre-Pandemic Peak Chart 21Cyclicals Rally When COVID Fears Reced We do hope that the pandemic will recede in importance in 2022: Every time COVID fears subside, Cyclicals outperform Defensives (Chart 21). Pent-up demand has not yet waned, hindered by supply shortages and shipping delays. For many cyclical sectors, such as Consumer Discretionary, Financials, Real Estate, and Industrials, annualized sales growth from 2019 to 2021 is below historical levels, suggesting that there is room for catchup growth (Chart 22). One of the cornerstones of the BCA outlook is that rates will rise. This is an environment favorable for Cyclicals. Defensive sectors tend to underperform when bond yields are rising, as many of them are heavily indebted and have somewhat fixed cash flows because of regulations (Utilities, Telecoms) or strong competition from cheaper substitutes (Pharma amid challenges from generics and biosimilars). Cyclicals are not that much more expensive than Defensives (22x vs. 19x forward earnings) and are trading with a 13% premium. The Cyclical/Defensive Valuations Indicator has come down from three to two standard deviations (Chart 23). Despite a modest valuations premium, earnings of Cyclical sectors are expected to grow at 25% while Defensives will only grow at 6% over the next 12 months. In short, Cyclicals are more attractive than Defensives as a group, but we prefer a granular approach and handpick cyclical sectors that we expect to thrive in the current macroeconomic environment and have favorable sales and earnings growth prospects. Later in the report, we will discuss some of our cyclical sector picks. Chart 23Relative Valuations Of Cyclicals Have Come Down But Are Still Rich Despite Worries About Inflation, Consumers Still Have Money To Spend: Overweight Consumer Services The US government has supported consumers during the lockdowns with a series of helicopter cash drops to all Americans, enumerated in trillions of dollars. As a result, even nine months after the last cash disbursement, consumers are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings (Chart 24). Extremely loose fiscal and monetary policy have lifted household net worth by 128% of GDP (Chart 25). And while consumers do indeed worry about inflation, expecting it to rise to 7.5% in 12 months, there is still plenty of dry powder sitting in their bank accounts. Chart 24Consumers And Businesses Have A Lot Of Dry Powder Chart 25Household Wealth Has Soared Consumer spending on goods has been above the pre-pandemic trend for months and has recently turned. In the meantime, spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, suggesting that there is plenty of pent-up demand (Chart 26). Specifically, spending on sports clubs, public transportation, personal care, medical services, and professional services are still below pre-pandemic levels. Pent-up demand will boost Consumer Services, and we recommend overweights to Hotels, Restaurants, Cruises, Amusement Parks, and Casinos, along with Commercial and Professional Services. Further, while pent-up demand for goods has generally been met, there are still pockets of demand out there due to shortages, such as for automobiles and selected consumer durables. We are also overweight Healthcare Equipment and Services which benefits from the backlog in elective procedures. Chart 26Spending On Services Is Still Below The Pre-pandemic Trend New Capex Cycle: Overweight Industrials Industrials is another cyclical sector that we favor. Supply chain disruptions have demonstrated for many businesses that they need to bring their supply chains back to the US, launching the US Manufacturing Renaissance. Also, excess consumer demand has driven the need for expanded capacity. For months now, manufacturers have been inundated with orders (Chart 27). The industrial sector is also exposed to the restocking of inventories and is poised to benefit from the Infrastructure Bill. Therefore, Industrials will continue to benefit from the surge in capital expenditures, as evidenced by the sharp increase in US core capital goods orders. Capex intentions have been on the rise as well (Chart 28). Chart 27Producers Inundated With Orders And Need More Capacity To profit from this emerging trend, we are overweight Construction and Engineering, Building Materials, and Capital Goods. Chart 28Surge In Capital Expenditure Will Benefit Industrials New Credit Cycle: Overweight Banks 2021 was a blockbuster year for banks on the back of the booming M&A and IPO activity. However, to achieve sustainable profitability, they need to jumpstart the loan growth process. Both businesses and consumers have repaired their balance sheets, and the re-leveraging cycle is set to commence to finance Capex and higher price tag purchases like autos. There are early signs that lending is likely to pick up next year (Chart 29). According to JPM: “The customers who typically contribute to credit card loan growth are starting to spend the savings built up from the pandemic at a faster clip, suggesting they could be getting closer to taking on debt again.” Credit card spending is recovering (Chart 30). Chart 29Early Innings Of A New Credit Cycle Chart 30Consumers Are Borrowing Again While sell-side analysts anticipate that margins will decline, we believe that they may surprise on the upside: High operating leverage, improving pricing power, and growing demand for loans will contribute to strong profitability. Further, the BCA house view is 10-year rates rising to 2.0 – 2.25% in 2022, which will support net interest margins. Energy Sector Vs. Materials Energy profit margins are linked to underlying commodity prices. The BCA Commodity and Energy strategists’ view is that the medium-term supply/demand backdrop is highly supportive of the current energy pricing dynamics and that the oil price is expected to stay high, at around its current level, for the next two years. They also note that upside price risk is increasing going forward, due to inadequate Capex. Although the price of oil has risen above the break-even level, energy companies are reluctant to invest in Capex due to pressure from shareholder activists and newly found financial discipline (Chart 31). As a result, prices are likely to remain high until “high prices cure high prices.” In the meantime, energy producers are returning cash to shareholders – a unique bonus in the current world starved for yields. Oil demand is expected to stay robust on the back of the global economic recovery, especially with an increase in consumption by airlines that are resuming international travel. Case in point: ExxonMobil (XOM) “anticipates demand improvement in its downstream segment with a continued economic recovery.” Chart 31Chronic Underinvestment Is Driving Up Price Of Oil Chart 32A Slowdown In China Is Hurting Demand For Raw Materials Resource stocks, on the other hand, may not meaningfully outperform in 2022, at least not consistently – our views on China imply that metals and mining stocks may at least passively underperform in the first half of the year (Chart 32). US Housing Rally Still Has Legs To Run On The US housing market should post a solid performance next year on the back of the structural demand tailwinds: Since the GFC, around five million houses were underbuilt. This supply shortage also coincides with millennials, a cohort that has 11 million more people compared to the previous generation, starting families. The data is also reflective of the supply/demand mismatch with inventories of new and existing homes for sale, and the homeowner vacancy rate at all-time lows, and housing prices exploding higher. At the same time, US building permits are still below the two million SAAR print that historically marked previous housing cycle peaks (Chart 33). The implication is that the current housing boom still has room to go further, benefiting US homebuilders as they monetize the supply/demand mismatch. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a six-month high in November. Tack on the 80bps sell-off in the 30-year US Treasury yield that translates into more affordable mortgage rates for consumers, and there is little that can undercut the US housing market throughout 2022. We are bullish on both the Real Estate and Homebuilders sectors. However, we would be remiss not to mention risks to this call: The performance of the real estate market is highly dependent on the direction of the rates. If long rates rise substantially, this sector will be in the crosscurrents of housing shortages and less affordable mortgages. However, the 2-2.25% 10-year yield that BCA anticipates by end -2022 should not put a significant dent into house ownership affordability. Chart 33Housing Shortages Will Drive Multi-Year Outperformance of Real Estate And Homebuilders Risks To The Outlook Rising rates are a key condition for our sector and style calls to pan out. However, if supply chain bottlenecks do not clear soon, inflation will not slow down meaningfully, and the US economy will enter a rising price-wage spiral. The Fed will realize that it is behind the curve and will start hiking rates aggressively, i.e., faster than the pace currently anticipated by the market. As a result, economic growth will disappoint, and the unemployment rate will rise. The yield curve will continue flattening with long rates staying range-bound or moving lower. In this scenario, Growth and Defensives will outperform, while Small, Value and Cyclicals will underperform. Multi-Year Structural Themes To finish, we want to remind clients of our long-term themes, which we expect to continue to pan out next year. Millennials Are Not Coming Of Age; They Are Already Here According to the US Census Bureau, millennials (born 1982 to 2000), are the US's largest living generation and represent more than one-quarter of the US population. This is a generation that is highly educated, and relatively unburdened by debt. While in the past, this generation was perceived as “forever young,” it is rapidly showing signs of maturing: Joining the labor force, starting families, and shopping for houses and cars, thereby pushing consumption up. However, millennials’ consumption basket is different, with an emphasis on new technology, homeownership, electric vehicles, and green energy. ETFs that capture the theme are MILN and GENY. Gen Z Is Coming Of Age And Has Money To Spend Generation Z in the US includes 62 million people born between 1997 and 2012. With $143B in buying power in the US alone, making up nearly 40% of all consumer sales, Gen Z wields increasing influence over consumer trends. This is the first generation of digital natives—they simply can’t remember the world without the internet. They are the early adopters of the new digital ways to bank, get medical treatments, and learn. Gen Z is joining the workforce and replacing retiring baby boomers. We have created a Gen Z basket with stocks representing fintech, investing and crypto, online gaming, quality-over-price, and some others. There are no ETFs just yet that capture this emerging theme. Cybersecurity Is A Must-Have Global digital transformation as well as rising geopolitical tensions create fertile ground for attacks by both cybercriminals and malicious state actors. The cyber defenses of most private and public companies are still ill-prepared, and the space is poised for robust growth since cybersecurity is a “must-have” for survival. This growing market has attracted a plethora of new cybersecurity players who provide cloud-based SaaS solutions and are well-versed in deploying AI and ML to counter cyber threats. While many of these companies are still young with relatively small capitalization, their potential is enormous. We recommend tactical and structural overweights to the theme. The following ETFs provide exposure to the theme: BUG, CIBR, and HACK. EV Revolution The auto industry is undergoing a major technological disruption. This process is expensive and perilous yet presents an enormous future earnings growth opportunity. And all the ingredients for success are in place: The proliferation of new technologies, government support, changing consumer preferences, and a surging US economy. This tide will lift all boats: Legacy and EV-only auto manufacturers and suppliers as well as EV ecosystem players. We are bullish on the sector on a 12-month investment horizon. ETFs are DRIV, IDRIV, KARS, BATT, and LIT. What We Are Researching For 2022 2022 will be a big year for the new technology themes. Some are brand new, while others have been around for a while. We are reading about gene editing, the metaverse, 3D printing, and cleantech. We will be sure to share what we learn in a series of Special Reports.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation

Highlights Our theme for the year, “No Return To Normalcy,” is largely vindicated. Inflation is back! The geopolitical method still points to three long-term strategic themes: multipolarity, hypo-globalization, and populism. All are inflationary in today’s context. Our three key views for 2021 produced two hits and one miss: China sold off, oil prices held up, but the euro fell hard. Our view on Iran is still in flux. COVID-19 proved more relevant for investors than we believed, though we took some risk off the table before the Delta and Omicron variants emerged. Our biggest miss was long Korea / short Taiwan equities. Our geopolitical forecast was spot on but our trade recommendation collapsed. Our biggest hit was long India / short China equities. China’s historic confluence of internal and external risk drove investors to India, the most promising strategic EM play. Feature Every year we conduct a review of the past year’s geopolitical forecasts and investment recommendations. The intention is to hold ourselves to account, prepare for our annual outlook, and improve our analytical framework. Our three key views for 2021 were: 1.  China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk = bearish view of Chinese equities; 2.  The US pivot to Asia runs through Iran = neutral-to-bullish view of oil prices; 3.  Europe wins the US election = bullish view of the euro and European equities. The first view on China was a direct hit. The second view is in flux. The third view was initially right but then turned sour. A crude way of assessing these views would be to look at equity performance relative to long-term trends: China sold off, the UAE rallied, and Europe sold off (Chart 1). Chart 1Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss This is not the whole story. We modified our views over the course of the year as new information came to light. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar, with negative implications for the euro. In June we adjusted our position on Europe overall, arguing that European political risk had bottomed and would rise going forward. In August we adjusted our position on Iran, warning of an imminent crisis due to the Biden administration’s refusal to lift sanctions and Iran’s pursuit of “breakout” uranium enrichment capacity. We stayed bearish on China throughout the year. Going forward, given that a near-term crisis is necessary to determine whether Iran will stay on a diplomatic track, we would short UAE or Saudi equities. We would expect oil to remain volatile given upside risks from geopolitics but downside risks from the new Omicron variant and China’s slowdown. China’s slowdown was also a controlling factor for the Europe view. The energy crisis and showdown with Russia can also get worse before they get better. So we prefer US assets for now and will revisit this issue in our annual strategic outlook due in the coming weeks. Before we get to the worst (and best) calls of the year, we have a few words on our analytical framework in the context of this year’s signal developments. The Geopolitical Method: Lessons From 2021 As with any method rooted in practice, the geopolitical method has many flaws. But it has the advantage of being systematic, empirical, probabilistic, and non-partisan. How do we check ourselves on the thorny problem of partisanship? First, geopolitics requires practicing empathetic analysis, i.e. striving to understand and empathize with the interests of each nation and nation-state when analyzing their behavior. For example: China: China’s ruling party believes it is necessary to have an all-powerful leader to deal with the urgent systemic risks facing the country. We refrain from criticizing single-party rule or China’s human rights record. But we do see compelling evidence that the Communist Party’s shift from consensus rule to personal rule will have a negative impact on governance and relations with the West.1 China obviously rejects foreign diplomatic and military support for Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a renegade province, and hence the odds of a war in the Taiwan Strait are high over the long run. Russia: Russia is threatening its neighbors on multiple fronts not because it is an evil empire but because of its insecurity in the face of the US and NATO, and particularly its opposition to western defense cooperation with Ukraine. Its unproductive domestic economy and vulnerability to social unrest are additional reasons to expect aggression abroad. Second, we take very seriously any complaints of bias we receive from clients. Such complaints are rare, which is encouraging. But we treat all feedback as an opportunity to improve. At the same time, the need to draw clean-cut investment conclusions for all clients will always override the political sensitivities of any subset of clients. Geopolitics is based in the idea that politics is rooted in structural forces like geography and demography, i.e. forces that limit or constrain individual actors and only change at a glacial pace. Geopolitical analysts focus on measurable and material factors rather than ever-changing opinions and ideas. It is impossible for investors today to ignore the global political environment, so the important thing is to analyze it in a cold and clinical manner. To combine this method with global macroeconomic and investment research, one must assess whether and to what extent financial markets have already priced any given policy outcome. The result will be a geopolitically informed macro conclusion, which should yield better decisions about conserving and growing wealth. This is the ideal for which we aim, even though we often fall short. Over the years our method has produced three primary strategic themes: Great Power struggle (multipolarity); hypo-globalization; and domestic populism (Table 1). Table 1Our Major Themes Point To Persistent Inflation Risk The macro impact of these themes will vary with events but in general they point toward a reflationary and inflationary context. They involve a larger role of government in society, new constraints on supply, demand-side stimulus, and budget indiscipline. Bottom Line: Nation-states are mobilizing, which means they will run up against resource constraints. A Return To Normalcy? Or Not? As the year draws to a close, our annual theme is vindicated: “No Return To Normalcy.”  The term “normalcy” comes from President Warren G. Harding’s election campaign in 1920. It was an appeal to an American public that yearned to move on from World War I and the Spanish influenza pandemic. A hundred years later, in December 2020, the emergence of a vaccine for COVID-19 and the election of an orthodox American president (after the unorthodox President Trump) made it look as if 2021 would witness another such return to normalcy. We foresaw this narrative and rejected it. Primarily we rejected it on geopolitical grounds – global policy will not revert to the pre-Trump status quo. We also argued that the pandemic and the gargantuan fiscal relief designed to shield the economy would have lasting consequences. Specifically they would create a more inflationary context. Chart 2No Return To Normalcy In 2021 The most obvious sign that things have not returned to normal in 2021 is the “Misery Index,” the sum of unemployment and headline inflation. Misery Indexes skyrocketed during the crisis and today stand at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% in 2019, respectively (Chart 2). Unemployment rates are falling but inflation has surged to the highest levels since the 1990s. For investors to be concerned about inflation at the beginning of a new business cycle is unusual and requires explanation. It suggests that inflation will be a persistent problem going forward, as the unemployment rate falls beneath NAIRU and participation rates rise. While we expected inflation, we did not expect the political blowback to come so quickly. President Biden’s approval rating collapsed to 42.2% this fall. Approval of his handling of the economy fell even lower, to 39.6%, below President Trump’s rating at this stage. Consumer confidence has fallen by 15.1% since its post-election peak in June 2021. Republicans are automatically favored to win the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections – but if the economy does not improve they will also win the Senate. Despite Biden’s unpopularity, we argued that his $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill and his $1.75 trillion partisan social spending bill would pass Congress. So far this view is on track, with infrastructure signed into law and the Senate looking to vote on the social bill in December (or January). These bills illustrate the strategic themes listed above: the US is reviving public investments in civil and military sectors, reducing global dependencies, and expanding its social safety net. However, large new government spending when the output gap is virtually closed will tend to be inflationary. Russia and China also have high or rising misery indexes, which underscores that political and geopolitical risks will rise rather than fall over the coming 12 months. Unemployment rates are not always reliable in authoritarian states, so the Misery Index is if anything overly optimistic regarding social and economic conditions. China is not immune to social unrest but Russia is particularly at risk. Quality of life and public trust in government have both deteriorated. Inflation will make it worse. Russians remember inflation bitterly from the ruble crisis of 1998. President Putin is already ratcheting up tensions with the West to distract from domestic woes. While we were positioned for higher inflation in 2021, we were too dismissive of the global pandemic. We expected vaccination campaigns to move faster, especially in the US, and we underrated the Delta variant as a driver of financial markets, at least relative to politics. A close look at Treasury yields, oil prices, and airline stocks shows that the evolution of the pandemic marked the key inflection points in the market this year (Chart 3). Chart 3COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging Bottom Line: Tactically the market impact of the newly discovered Omicron variant of the virus should not be underrated. It is critical to find out if it is more harmful to younger people than Delta and other variants. Cyclically inflation will remain a persistent risk even if it abates somewhat in 2022. Worst Calls Of 2021 We now proceed to our main feature. As always we begin with the worst calls of the year: Chart 4Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea 1.  Long Korea / Short Taiwan. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. US-China conflict is a secular trend and contains elements of all our major themes: Great Power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism. Taiwan is the epicenter of this conflict and a war is likely over the long run. For 2021 we predicted a 5% chance of war but a 60% chance of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis,” i.e. a diplomatic crisis, and our contrarian short of Taiwanese equities was premised on this expectation. Investors are starting to respond to these self-evident geopolitical risks, judging by the TWD-USD exchange rate and the relative performance of Taiwanese equities, which have peaked and are lagging expectations based on global semiconductor stocks. But our choice of South Korean equities as the long end of the pair trade was very unfortunate and the trade is down by 22% (Chart 4). Korea is suffering from a long de-rating process in the face of China’s industrial slowdown and a downgrade to Korean tech sector earnings, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has highlighted. 2.  Short CNY Versus USD And EUR. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. This year we argued that President Biden would be just as hawkish on China as President Trump and would not remove tariffs or export controls. We also argued that the SEC would punish US-listed China stocks and that bilateral relations would not improve despite a likely Biden-Xi summit. These views proved correct. But our neutral view on the dollar and bullish view on the euro betrayed us and the trade has lost 4% so far. The euro collapsed amid its domestic energy crisis and China’s import slowdown (Chart 5). China’s exports boomed while the People’s Bank kept the currency strong to fend off inflation. Chart 5China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank Chart 6Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks 3.  Long Value Versus Growth. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. We have long favored value over growth stocks, expecting that our strategic themes would lead to more muscular fiscal spending, government intervention in the economy, and a return of inflation. In 2021 we bet that rising inflation expectations and higher bond yields would favor value over growth. This was only one aspect of our larger pro-cyclical view that tech-heavy US equities would underperform their global peers and emerging markets would outpace developed markets. These expectations came true during the first part of the year when exuberance over the “reflation trade” led to a big pop in value (Chart 6). By the second quarter we had pared back our pro-cyclical leanings but we maintained value over growth, ultimately at a loss of 3.75%. The reality nowadays is that value is a byword for low quality, as our colleagues Juan Correa-Ossa and Lucas Laskey have shown. Growth stocks continue to provide investors with innovation and robust earnings amid a lingering pandemic. 4.  Long Aerospace And Defense Stocks. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. We are perennially bullish on defense stocks given our strategic themes. We expected aerospace and defense stocks to recover as vaccines spread and travel revived. We successfully played the rebound in absolute terms. But the slow pace of vaccination and the emergence of the Delta variant dealt a blow to the sector relative to the broad market. And now comes Omicron. As for defense stocks specifically, investors are downplaying Great Power struggle and worried that government defense budgets will be flat or down. Significant saber-rattling is occurring as expected in the major hotspots – the Taiwan Strait, the Persian Gulf, and Russia’s periphery – but investors do not care about saber-rattling for the sake of saber-rattling. Geopolitical tensions went nowhere so far this year and hence defense stocks floundered relative to the broad market (Chart 7). Still we would be buyers at today’s cheap valuations as we see geopolitical risk rising on a secular basis and the odds of military action are non-negligible in all three of the hotspots just mentioned. 5.  Long Safe Havens. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. Measured geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty collapsed over the second half of 2020. By early 2021 we expected it to revive on US-China, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions. As such we expected safe-haven assets to catch a bid, especially having fallen as the global economy reopened. We stayed long gold (up 22.6% since inception, down 5.2% YTD) and at various times bought the Japanese yen and Swiss franc. Some of these trades generated positive returns but in general safe havens remained out of favor (Chart 8). As with defense stocks, we are still constructive on the yen and franc. Chart 7Market Ignored Saber-Rattling 6.  Long Developed Europe / Short Emerging Europe. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. Our pessimistic view of Russia’s relations with the West, and hence of Russian currency and equities, clashed with our positive outlook on oil and commodity prices this year. To play Russian risks we favored developed European equities over their emerging peers (mainly Russian stocks). But emerging Europe has outperformed by 5% since we initiated the trade and other variations on this theme had mixed results (Chart 9). Of course, geopolitical tensions are escalating in eastern Europe we go to press. Chart 8Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection​​​​​​ Chart 9Refrain From The Russia Rally We do not think investors can afford to ignore the US-Russia conflict, which has escalated over two decades. President Putin has not changed his strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The US is internally divided and distracted by a range of challenges, while it continues to lack close coordination with its European allies. Western responses to Russian aggression have failed to change Russia’s cost-benefit analysis. Thus we continue to expect market-negative surprises from Russia, whether that means a seizure of littoral territory in Ukraine, a militarization of the Belarussian border, more disruptive cyber attacks, or some other big surprise. Bottom Line: While our geopolitical forecasts generally hit the mark this year, global financial markets ignored most geopolitical risks other than China. The global recovery, inflation, and the pandemic, vaccines, variants, and social distancing remained the key dynamics. This threw many of our trades off track. However, we are sticking with some of our worst calls this year given the underlying geopolitical and economic forces motivating them beyond a 12-month time frame. Best Calls Of 2021 1.  Long India / Short China. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Our number one view for 2021 was that China would suffer a historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk that would be negative for equities. This view contrasted with our bullish view on India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had won another single-party majority in the 2019 elections and stood to benefit from the attempts of the US and other democracies to diversify away from China. We favored Indian stocks and local currency bonds – both trades saw a sharp run-up (Chart 10). Unfortunately, we took profits too soon, only netting 12% on the long India / short China equity trade. Some of our other India trades did not go so well. Going forward we expect a tactical reset given India’s tremendous performance this year. 2.  Booking Gains At Peak Biden. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. We closed several of our reflation trades in the first quarter, when exuberance over vaccines and the Democrat’s election sweep reached extreme levels (Chart 11). We captured a 24% gain on our materials trade and a 37% gain on energy stocks. We turned a 17% profit on our BCA Infrastructure Basket relative trade. We were prompted to close these trades by dangers over Taiwan and Ukraine that soon dissipated. But we also believed that markets were priced for perfection. By the second quarter we had taken some risk off the table, which served us well throughout the middle of the year when the Delta variant struck. While global energy and materials rose to new highs later in the year, the Fed and Omicron interrupted their run. Chart 10Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China 3.  Long Natural Gas On Russia Risks. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. All year we held the contrarian view that the new Nord Stream II pipeline linking Russia and Germany would become a major geopolitical flashpoint and that it was much less likely to go into operation than consensus held. Chart 11Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron​​​​​​ We also fully expected Russia to act aggressive in its periphery. In March we argued that while Russia probably would not re-invade Ukraine, long-term risk was substantial (and accordingly a new military standoff began in the fall) We also noted that Russia had other tools to coerce its neighbors. As a result we went long natural gas futures, following our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. While the trade returned 20%, we took profits before the European energy crisis really took off (Chart 12). 4.  The “Back To War” Trade. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. Cyber warfare is one of the ways that the Great Powers can compete without engaging in conventional war. We have long been bullish on cyber-security stocks. However, the pandemic created a unique tactical opportunity to initiate a pair trade of long traditional defense stocks / short cyber stocks that returned 10%. It was a geopolitical variation on the “back to work” trades that characterized the revival of economic activity after pandemic lockdowns. Cyber stocks will enjoy a tailwind as long as the pandemic persists and working from home remains a major trend. But over the cyclical time frame defense stocks should rebound relative to their cyber peers, just as physical geopolitical tensions should begin to take on renewed urgency with nations scrambling for territory and resources (Chart 13). Chart 12Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Chart 13The 'Back To War' Trade Chart 14Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge 5.  Long Rare Earth Metals. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We have long maintained that rare earth metals would catch a bid as US-China tensions rose. The pandemic stimulus galvanized a new capex cycle with a focus on strategic goals like supply chain resilience, military-industrial upgrades, and de-carbonization that will boost demand for rare earths. Our trade made a 9% gain, despite difficulties throughout the year arising from our homemade BCA Rare Earth Basket, which proved to be an idiosyncratic instrument. Going forward we will express our view via the benchmark MVIS Rare Earth Index (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Our successful trades hinged on broad geopolitical views: China’s confluence of internal and external risk, Biden’s reflationary agenda, persistent US-Russia conflict, and India’s attractiveness relative to other emerging markets. The change in 2022 is that Biden’s legislative agenda will be spent so the market will shift from American reflation to the Fed and global concerns. If China does not stabilize its economy, more bad news will hit China-related plays and global risk assets. Honorable Mentions: For Better And For Worse Short EM “Strongmen.” Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We shorted the currencies of Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines relative to benchmark EM currencies. Though we closed the trade too early, earning a paltry sum, the political analysis proved correct and the market ultimately responded in a major way (Chart 15). Upcoming elections for these countries in 2022-23 will ensure that their dysfunctional politics remain negative for investors, while other emerging market currencies continue to outperform. Chart 15Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders ¡Viva México! Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Mexico benefited from US stimulus, the USMCA trade deal, the West’s economic divorce from China, and the resumption of tourism, immigration, and remittances. In general Latin America stands aloof from the Great Power struggles afflicting emerging markets in Europe and East Asia. But Latin America’s perennial problem with domestic populism and political instability undermines US dollar returns. Mexico looks to be a notable exception. Chart 16¡Viva México! Mexico suffered the biggest opportunity cost from the West’s love affair with China over the past 40 years. Now it stands to gain from the US drive to relocate supply chains, onshore to North America, and diversify from China. Two of our Mexico trades were ill-timed this year, but favoring Mexico over other emerging markets, particularly Brazil, was fundamentally the right call (Chart 16). Bottom Line: Cyclically Mexico is an emerging market with a compelling story based on fundamentals. Tactically disfavor emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Investment Takeaways Our batting average this year was 65%. 2021 will be remembered as a transitional year in which the world tried but did not quite return to normal amid a lingering pandemic. Inflation reemerged as a major concern of consumers, governments, and central banks. Developed markets adopted proactive fiscal policy but global cyclicals faced crosswinds as China resumed its monetary, fiscal, and regulatory tightening campaign. Our bearish call on China was a direct hit. China’s political risks will persist ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Cyclically stay short CNY-USD and TWD-USD. Our worst market call was long Korean / short Taiwanese equities. But the world awoke to Taiwan risk and Taiwanese stocks peaked relative to global equities. Over the long run we think war is likely in the Taiwan Strait. Re-initiate long JPY-KRW as a strategic trade. Our best market call was long Indian / short Chinese equities. Tactically this trade will probably reverse but strategically we maintain the general thesis. The US and Iran failed to rejoin their nuclear deal this year as we originally expected. In August we adjusted our view to expect a short-term Persian Gulf crisis, which in turn will lead either to diplomacy or a new war path. Oil shocks and volatility should be expected over the next 12 months. Tactically go short UAE equities relative to global. European equities and the euro disappointed this year, even though we were right that Scotland would not secede from the UK, that Italian politics would not matter, and that Germany’s election would be an upset but not negative for markets. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar and in June we argued that European political risk had bottomed and would escalate going forward. We remain tactically negative on the euro, though we are cyclically constructive. We still prefer DM Europe over EM Europe due to Russian geopolitical risks. Re-initiate long CAD-RUB and long GBP-CZK as strategic trades. We are waiting for a tactical re-entry point for the following trades: long CHF-USD, CHF-GBP, GBP-EUR, short EM ‘Strongman’ currencies versus EM currencies, long US infrastructure stocks, long European industrials, and long Italian versus Spanish stocks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1   While autocracy is agreed to be negative for governance indicators, the connection between regime type and economic growth is debatable. Suffice it to say that the determinants of total factor productivity, such as human capital, trade openness, and effectiveness of the legislature, are often difficult to sustain under autocratic or authoritarian regimes. On this point see United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review," Staff Working Paper 2 (2007). For further discussion, see Carl Henrik Knutsen, "A business case for democracy: regime type, growth, and growth volatility," Democratization 28 (2021), pp 1505-24; Ryan H. Murphy, "Governance and the dimensions of autocracy," Constitutional Political Economy 30 (2019), pp 131-48. For a skeptical view of the relationship, see Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, "Political Regimes and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:3 (1993), pp 51-69.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Highlights US growth will slow next year, not because demand will falter, but because supply-side constraints will prevent the economy from producing as much output as households and businesses want to buy. If aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, the price level will rise. We argue that the US aggregate demand curve is currently quite steep. This implies that the price level may need to rise a lot to restore balance to the economy. In fact, if the aggregate demand curve is not just steep but upward-sloping, which is quite possible, there may be no price level that brings aggregate demand in line with supply; the US economy could go supernova. When supply is the binding constraint to growth, investors need to throw the old playbook for dealing with growth slowdowns out the window. Rather than positioning for lower bond yields, investors should position for higher yields. Rather than expecting a stronger dollar, investors should expect a weaker one. Rather than favoring growth stocks, large caps, and defensives, investors should favor value stocks, small caps, and cyclicals. The Binding Constraint To Growth Is Now Supply After a post-Delta wave rebound in Q4, the US economy is expected to slow over the course of 2022. The Bloomberg consensus is for US growth to decelerate from 4.9% in 2021Q4 to 4.1% in 2022Q1, 3.9% in 2022Q2, 3.0% in 2022Q3, and 2.5% in 2022Q4. Growth in the first quarter of 2023 is expected to dip further to 2.3%. We agree that US growth will slow next year but think the market narrative around this slowdown is misguided. Chart 1Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand The standard market playbook for dealing with an economic slowdown is to position for lower bond yields, a stronger US dollar, and a decline in commodity prices. On the equity side, the playbook calls for shifting equity exposure from cyclicals to defensives, favoring large caps over small caps, and growth stocks over value stocks. There are two major problems with this narrative. First, growth is peaking at much higher levels than before and is unlikely to return to trend at least until the second half of 2023. Second, and more importantly, US growth will slow due to supply-side constraints rather than inadequate demand. US final demand will remain robust for the foreseeable future. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to 15% of annual consumption (Chart 1). The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 2). Banks are falling over themselves to make consumer loans (Chart 3). Chart 2Revolving Credit On The Rise Again Chart 3Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumers Chart 4A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 4). As we discussed two weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Investment demand should remain strong. Business inventories are near record low levels (Chart 5). Core capital goods orders, a leading indicator for corporate capex, have soared (Chart 6). Chart 5Business Inventories Are Near Record Low Levels Chart 6Rise In Durable Goods Orders Bodes Well For Capex Chart 7The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Signaling The Need For More Homebuilding The Dodge Momentum Index, which tracks planned nonresidential construction, rose to a 13-year high in October. The home­owner vacancy rate is at multi-decade lows, signifying the need for more homebuilding (Chart 7). While increased investment will augment the nation’s capital stock down the road, the short-to-medium term effect will be to inflate demand. Policy Won’t Tighten Enough To Cool The Economy What is the mechanism that will push down aggregate demand growth towards potential GDP growth? It is unlikely to be policy. While budget deficits will narrow over the next few years, the IMF still expects the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit to be nearly 3% of GDP larger between 2022 and 2026 than it was between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 9The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation   As Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, writes in this week’s US Political Strategy report, the passage of the $550 billion infrastructure bill has increased, not decreased, the odds of President Biden and the Democrats passing their social spending bill via the partisan budget reconciliation process. On the monetary side, the Federal Reserve will finish tapering asset purchases next June and begin raising rates shortly thereafter. However, the Fed has no intention of raising rates aggressively. Most FOMC members see the Fed funds rate rising to only 2.5% this cycle (Chart 9). The “dots” call for only one rate hike in 2022 and three rate hikes in both 2023 and 2024. Investors expect rates to rise even less by end-2024 than the Fed foresees (Chart 10).   The Inflation Outlook Hinges On The Slope Of The Aggregate Demand Curve If policy tightening will not suffice in cooling demand, the economy will overheat and inflation will rise. But by how much will inflation increase? The answer is of great importance to investors. It also hinges on a seemingly technical question: What is the slope of the aggregate demand curve? As Chart 11 illustrates, prices will rise more if the aggregate demand curve is steep than if it is flat. Chart 12Wages Rose Faster Than Prices During The Inflationary Late-60s and 70s It is tempting to think of the aggregate demand curve in the same way one might think of the demand curve for, say, apples. When the price of apples rises, there is both a substitution and an income effect. An increase in the price of apples will cause shoppers to substitute away from apples towards oranges. In addition, if apples are so-called “normal goods,” shoppers will buy fewer apples in response to lower real incomes. This chain of reasoning breaks down at the aggregate level. When economists say the price level has risen, they are referring to all prices; hence, there is no substitution effect. Moreover, since one person’s spending is another’s income, rising prices do not necessarily translate into lower overall real incomes. Granted, if nominal wages are sticky, as they usually are in the short run, an unanticipated increase in prices will reduce real wage income. However, this will be offset by higher business income. Over time, wages tend to catch up with prices. In fact, wage growth usually outstrips price growth during inflationary periods. For example, real wages rose during the late-1960s and 70s but fell during the disinflationary 1980s (Chart 12). Textbook Reasons For A Downward-Sloping Aggregate Demand Curve According to standard economic theory, there are three main reasons why aggregate demand curves are downward-sloping: The Pigou Effect: Higher prices erode the purchasing power of money, resulting in a negative wealth effect. The Keynes Effect: Higher prices reduce the real money supply. This pushes up real interest rates, leading to lower investment spending. The Mundell-Fleming Effect: Higher real rates push up the value of the currency, causing net exports to decline. None of these three factors are particularly important for the US these days. Chart 13Base Money Has Swollen Since The Subprime Crisis Strictly speaking, the Pigou wealth effect applies only to “base money,” also known as “outside money.” Outside money includes cash notes, coins, and bank reserves. Inside money such as bank deposits are not included in the Pigou effect because while an increase in consumer prices decreases the real value of bank deposits, it also decreases the real value of commercial bank liabilities.1  In the US, the monetary base has swollen from 6% of GDP in 2008 to 28% of GDP as a result of the Fed’s QE programs (Chart 13). Nevertheless, even if one were to generously assume a wealth effect of 10% from changes in monetary holdings, this would still imply that a 1% increase in consumer prices would reduce spending by only 0.03% of GDP. Simply put, the Pigou effect is just not all that big. In contrast to the Pigou effect, the Keynes effect has historically had a significant impact on the business cycle. However, the importance of the Keynes effect faded following the Global Financial Crisis as the Fed found itself up against the zero lower bound on interest rates. When interest rates are very low, there is little to distinguish money from bonds. Rather than holding money as a medium of exchange (i.e., for financing transactions), households and businesses end up holding money mainly as a store of wealth. In the presence of the zero bound, the demand for money becomes perfectly elastic with respect to the interest rate (Chart 14). As a result, changes in the real money supply have no effect on interest rates, and by extension, interest-rate sensitive spending. And if a decline in the real money supply does not push up interest rates, this undermines the Mundell-Fleming effect as well. Could The Aggregate Demand Curve Be Upward-Sloping? The discussion above, though rather theoretical in nature, highlights an important practical point: The aggregate demand curve may be quite steep. This means that the price level might need to rise a lot to equalize aggregate demand with aggregate supply. Chart 15US Real Bond Yields Hitting Record Lows In fact, one can easily envision a scenario where a rising price level boosts spending; that is, where the demand curve is not just steep but upward-sloping. One normally assumes that higher inflation will prompt central banks to raise rates by more than inflation has risen, leading to higher real rates. However, if the Fed drags its feet in hiking rates, as it is wont to do given its concerns about the zero bound, rising inflation will translate into a decline in real rates. Lower rates will boost demand, leading to higher inflation, and even lower real rates. In addition, lower real rates will benefit debtors, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to spend than creditors. This, too, will also boost aggregate demand. It is striking in this regard that real bond yields hit a record low this week, with the 10-year TIPS yield falling to -1.17% and the 30-year yield drooping to -0.57% (Chart 15). Black Holes Vs. Supernovas In the case where the aggregate demand curve is upward-sloping, there is no stable equilibrium (Chart 16). If demand falls short of supply, demand will continue to shrink as the price level declines, leading to ever-rising unemployment. Unless policymakers intervene with stimulus, the economy will sink into a deflationary black hole. In contrast, if demand exceeds supply, demand will continue to rise as the price level increases exponentially. The economy will go supernova. Tick Tock Young stars fuse hydrogen into helium, releasing excess energy in the process. After the star has run out of hydrogen, if it is big enough, it will start fusing helium into heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The process of nucleosynthesis continues until it reaches iron. That is the end of the line. Fusing elements heavier than iron requires a net input of energy. Unable to generate enough external pressure through fusion, the star loses its battle to gravity. The core collapses, spewing material deep into interstellar space (a good thing since your body is mainly made from this stardust). Observing the star from afar, one would be hard-pressed to see anything abnormal until it explodes. The path to becoming a supernova is highly non-linear. The same is true for inflation. Just like a star with an ample supply of hydrogen, the Fed can burn through its credibility for a while longer. During the 1960s, it took four years for inflation to take off after the economy had reached full employment (Chart 17). By that time, the unemployment rate was two percentage points below NAIRU. Most of today’s inflation is confined to durable goods. This is not a sustainable source of inflation. The durable goods sector is the only part of the CPI where prices usually fall over time (Chart 18). Chart 17Inflation Spiked In The 1960s Only Once The Unemployment Rate Had Fallen Far Below Equilibrium Chart 18Inflation Has Been Concentrated In Durable Goods, A Sector Where Prices Usually Fall Over Time To get inflation to go up and stay up in modern service-based economies, wages need to rise briskly. While US wage growth has picked up, the bulk of the increase has been among low-wage workers, particularly in the services and hospitality sector (Chart 19). Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mainly At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution The most likely scenario for next year is that firms will simply ration output, fearful that raising prices too quickly will hurt brand loyalty and trigger accusations of price gouging. Shortages will persist, but this time they will be increasingly concentrated in the service sector. Such a state of affairs will not last, however. Competition for workers will cause wages to rise much more than they have so far. Keen to protect profit margins, firms will start jacking up prices. A wage-price spiral will develop. The US economy could go supernova. Investment Conclusions Chart 20Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Near The Bottom End Of The Fed's Comfort Zone US growth will slow next year, not because demand will falter, but because supply-side constraints will prevent the economy from producing as much output as households and businesses want to buy. This means that the old playbook for dealing with growth slowdowns needs to be thrown out the window. Rather than positioning for lower bond yields, investors should position for higher yields. Rather than expecting a stronger dollar, investors should expect a weaker one. Rather than favoring growth stocks, large caps, and defensives, investors should favor value stocks, small caps, and cyclicals. While inflation expectations have recovered from their pandemic lows, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 20). Rising inflation expectations will lift long-term bond yields, justifying a short duration stance in fixed-income portfolios. Higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 21 shows that there has been a strong correlation between the relative performance of growth and value stocks and the 30-year bond yield this year. Rising input prices will make the US export sector less competitive, leading to a weaker dollar. Historically, non-US stocks have done well when the dollar has been weakening (Chart 22). Chart 21The Relative Performance of Value Stocks Has Closely Tracked Bond Yields This Year Chart 22Non-US Stocks Tend To Do Best When The US Dollar Is Weakening As for the overall stock market, with the Fed still in the dovish camp, it is too early to turn negative on equities. An equity bear market is coming, but not until rising inflation forces the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes. That will probably not happen until mid-2023. Short Gilt Trade Activated We noted last week that we would go short the 10-year UK Gilt if the yield broke below 0.85%. Our limit order was activated on November 5th and we are now short this security.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  To distinguish between inside and outside money, one should ask where the liability resides. If the liability resides within the private sector, it is inside money. By convention, central bank reserves are classified as outside money. However, one could argue that since taxpayers ultimately own the central bank, an increase in the price level will benefit taxpayers by eroding the real value of the central bank’s liability. If one were to take this view, the Pigou effect would be even weaker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will increase US government non-defense spending to around 3% of GDP, a level comparable to the 1980s-90s and larger than the 2010s.   Democrats are increasingly likely to pass their ~$1.75 trillion social spending bill, with odds at 65%. The budget reconciliation process necessary to pass this bill is also necessary to raise the national debt limit by December 3, so Congress is unlikely to fail.    The Democratic spending bills will reduce fiscal drag very marginally in 2022-24 and will occasionally increase fiscal thrust thereafter. Republicans are unlikely to repeal much of the spending in coming years. Limited Big Government is a new strategic theme. The federal government is permanently taking a larger role in the economy – but this role will still be limited by voters, who do not favor socialism. Biden’s approval rating will stabilize at a low level. Immigration, crime, and especially inflation will determine the Democrats’ fate in the 2022 midterms. Gridlock is likely. The stock market has already priced the infrastructure bill and it will continue to rally on the rumor that reconciliation will pass. But growth has outperformed value, contrary to expectations. Feature Democrats in the House of Representatives finally passed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which consists of $550 billion in brand new spending and $650 billion in a continuation of existing levels of spending to cover the next ten years. The legislation passed with 228 votes in the House, ten more than needed, due to 13 Republican votes, making it “bipartisan” (Chart 1). The contents of the bill are shown in Table 1. Republicans supported the bill because of its focus on traditional infrastructure – roads, bridges, ports – but they also agreed to more modern elements such as $65 billion on broadband Internet and $36 billion on electric vehicles and environmental remediation. Implementation of the bill will be felt in 2023-24, in time for the presidential election, as committees will need to be set up to identify and approve projects. Table 1Itemized Infrastructure Plan While $550 billion is not a lot in a world of multi-trillion dollar stimulus bills, nevertheless it makes for a 34% increase in federal non-defense investment to levels consistent with the 1980s-90s (Chart 2). The new government spending will amount to 3% of GDP per year over the next ten years, a non-trivial amount of stimulus even though the big picture of the budget deficit remains about the same (Chart 3). The passage of the infrastructure bill will increase, not decrease, the odds of Biden and the Democrats passing their $1.75 trillion social spending bill via the partisan budget reconciliation process. Subjectively we put the odds at 65% in the wake of infrastructure, although recent events suggest that the odds could be put even higher. While left-wing Democrats failed to link the infrastructure and social spending bills, as we argued, nevertheless the passage of infrastructure was a requirement for the key swing voter in the Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Manchin is negotiating on the reconciliation bill, suggesting he will vote for it, and he will ultimately capitulate because he will not want to be blamed for a default on the US national debt. The US will hit the national debt ceiling on December 3 and the only reliable means for the Democrats to raise the ceiling is reconciliation. The other critical moderate Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, seems to have capitulated, after securing a removal of corporate and high-income individual tax hikes from the bill. Far-left senators might make a last stand, holding up reconciliation and winning some last-minute concession. Six House Democrats refused to vote for the infrastructure bill (including New York House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). However, progressives lost leverage after the Democrats’ losses in the off-year elections. Moreover the debt ceiling will force the hand of the progressives as well as the moderates. Any such hurdles will ultimately be steamrolled by the president and Democratic Party leaders. Combined with infrastructure, the net deficit impact of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills will range from $461 billion to $1 trillion (Table 2). Our scenarios vary based on how much credence we give to Democratic revenue raisers, since many of these are gimmicks and accounting tricks to make the bill look more fiscally responsible than it really is. At the most the US is looking at an increase in the budget deficit of less than 0.5% of GDP per year in the coming years. Table 2Biden Administration Tax-And-Spend Scenarios Investors should think of Biden’s legislative efforts as very marginally reducing fiscal drag rather than increasing fiscal thrust, at least in the short run. The budget deficit is normalizing after hitting unprecedented peacetime extremes at the height of the global pandemic and social lockdowns. The shrinking deficit subtracts from aggregate demand in 2022-2024. But the new spending bills will remove a small part of that drag during these years, as highlighted in Chart 4. More importantly the US Congress is signaling that fiscal policy is back in action and that fiscal retrenchment is a long way off. Over the long run, new spending will add marginally to fiscal thrust and aggregate demand, suggesting that the US government’s contribution to the economy will grow a bit in the latter part of the 2020s, namely if Democratic legislation survives the 2024 election. For the most part it probably will, as it is very difficult to repeal entitlements or slash government spending even with Republican majorities, as witnessed with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017. Chart 5Polarization Of Economic Sentiment Declining The polarization of economic sentiment – i.e. divergence in partisan views of the economy – has fallen since the pandemic and will likely continue to fall as the business cycle continues (Chart 5). Both presidential candidates offered infrastructure packages – they only differed on how to fund it. With the government taking a larger role in the economy – and yet the Republicans likely to rebound in future elections – the result is one of our new strategic themes: limited big government. The heyday of “limited government,” from President Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, has ended. But the new popular and elite consensus in favor of “Big Government” can be overrated – the US political system is defined by checks and balances that will limit the pace and magnitude of the big government trend, and at times even seem to reverse it. Hence investors should think of US fiscal policy and government role in the economy as limited big government. Political Implications Of Bipartisan Infrastructure President Biden’s approval rating has collapsed since this summer when he suffered from perceptions of incompetence on both the delta variant of COVID-19 and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Democratic infighting, which delayed the passage of his legislation, also hurt him (Chart 6). However, these are all passing narratives, with the exception of the incompetence narrative, which could become a lasting threat to Biden if not addressed. Biden’s signing of the infrastructure bill will stabilize his approval rating. Biden will probably end up somewhere between Presidents Obama and Trump. Voters will most likely upgrade their assessment of his handling of the economy over the coming year, at least marginally. But on foreign policy he will remain extremely vulnerable since he faces numerous immediate crises in coming years. American presidential disapproval has trended upwards since the 1950s of President Eisenhower. Disapproval peaks during recessions and wars. As the economy improves, Biden’s disapproval will fall, but foreign crises and wars are likely in today’s fraught geopolitical environment (Chart 7). A few opinion polls suggest that Republicans have taken the lead over the Democrats in generic opinion polling regarding support for the parties in Congress. These polls are outliers and may or may not become the norm over the next year. Democrats have fallen from their peaks but Republicans still suffer from significant internal divisions (Chart 8). Voters continue to identify mostly as political independents, with a notable downtrend in the share of voters who see themselves as Republicans or Democrats in recent years (Chart 9). Independent voters have marked leanings, right or left. While the leftward lean of independents has peaked, they are not leaning to the right. The infrastructure bill and even reconciliation bill will support Democratic identification. But the sharp rise in immigration, crime, and potentially persistent inflation will support Republicans. These last will become the critical political issues going forward. The democratic socialist or progressive agenda has already been checked by voters and Democrats can only double down on that agenda at their own peril. The infrastructure bill’s passage may give a boost to perceptions of Democratic odds of maintaining the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections – that question is still up in the air, even as the House is very likely to return to Republican control (Chart 10). Chart 9Independent Voters Still Rule An under-the-radar beneficiary of the bipartisan infrastructure bill is Congress itself. Since 2014, public approval of Congress has gradually recovered from historic lows. The level is still low, at 27%, but the upward trend is notable for suggesting that a fiscally active Congress gains popular approval (Chart 11). New social spending will also increase Congress’s image, first for “doing something,” and second for expanding the social safety net, which more than half of voters will approve.  Partisan gridlock after 2022 could reverse the trend, as Republicans may find or invent a reason to impeach President Biden in retribution for President Trump’s impeachments. But our best guess is that Congress will remain above its low point as long as fiscal support – limited big government – remains intact. Aggressive tax hikes or spending cuts, or a national debt default, could reverse the recovery of this institution. Investment Takeaways The infrastructure bill’s passage may have supported the recent rally in stocks but it is not the main driver. Infrastructure stocks had largely discounted the bill’s passage by spring and our BCA Infrastructure Basket has underperformed the broad market since then. In absolute terms, infrastructure stocks have reached new highs and show a rising trajectory (Chart 12). The infrastructure bill has not delivered as expected when it comes to sectors or investment styles. Cyclicals have outperformed defensives, as expected. But value stocks have hit new lows relative to growth stocks, contrary to our expectation this year (Chart 13). Chart 12Infrastructure Was Already Priced Chart 13Wall Street Looks Well Beyond Infrastructure External factors – namely China’s policy tightening and bumps in the global recovery – weighed on cyclicals and value plays, especially relative to Big Tech (Chart 14). Growth stocks have surged yet again on low bond yields, positive earnings surprises, and secular trends like innovation and digitization. The American economy looks robust as the year draws to a close. The service sector is recovering smartly from the delta variant. Non-manufacturing business activity is surging and new orders are exploding upward relative to inventories (Chart 15). Service sector employment has suffered from shortages. Chart 14External Factors Weigh On Infrastructure Plays Chart 15Service Sector Recovery Underway Inflation risks are trickling into consumer and voter consciousness as Christmas approaches and prices rise at the pump (Chart 16). The Democrats’ two big bills will mitigate the damage they face in next year’s midterm elections – the Senate is still in competition. But a persistent inflation problem will overwhelm their legislative accomplishments. Voters will connect the dots between large deficit spending and inflationary surprises (not to mention any Democratic changes that reinforce the extremely dovish stance of the Fed). The normal political cycle will count heavily against the Democrats in 2022 regardless of inflation. But voters simultaneously face historic spikes in immigration and crime – and the former, at least, will get worse and not better over the next 12 months. Predicting inflation is a mug’s game but wage growth suggests it will remain a substantial risk in 2022 – and the structural shift in favor of big government, even if it is limited big government due to the political cycle, is inflationary on the margin. Chart 16Voters Awakening To Inflation   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix  

Highlights Rate Hikes Are Coming – O/W Banks And Small Caps: Rampant inflation is changing investor expectations on the timing and speed of rate hikes. At present, the market is pricing in three rate hikes in 2022. Overweight sectors that outperform in a rising rates environment. Shortages Of Goods – O/W Semis: Overweight industries which are upstream in the supply chain, such as semiconductor manufacturers. They enjoy strong pent-up demand and significant pricing power. Transportation Bottlenecks – O/W Airfreight, Road And Rail: While skyrocketing transportation costs are a boost for most, they are a boon for ocean shipping lines, and US transport companies, such as truck lines and railways. Pent-Up Demand For Services – O/W Travel Complex: The ISM PMI Non-Manufacturing composite reading indicates that demand for services still exceeds demand for goods. Stay overweight Hotels, Restaurants, Entertainment and Professional Business Services. Underweight Airlines for now. US Consumers Are Feeling Poorer – This Will Weight On Profits: Real wages are not keeping up with prices, erasing American consumer purchasing power, thus putting a lid on corporate pricing power. This will hurt profits in the Consumer Discretionary sector, in addition to causing broad-based margin compression. Fundamentals Are Strong For Now: Companies delivered blockbuster Q3 2021 earnings results and peak margins. However, an unusually high percentage of companies (52.6%) were guiding lower. Rising labor costs, reduced productivity, and loss of corporate pricing power will lead to margin compression as early as 2022. Strong Equity Inflows Into Year-End: Late-in-year catchup pension contributions translate into strong inflows into US equities after the early fall hiatus. Buying on dips still offers downward protection from a major market pullback. Buybacks vs Dividends: Share buybacks are on the rise, seemingly displacing dividends as a means of returning cash to shareholders. For cash yield, focus on sectors known for using buybacks to disburse cash to shareholders: Technology and Financials. Reiterating Investment Positioning Overarching Macroeconomic Themes Rate Hikes Are Coming Taper Tantrum 2.0 rotation is running its course: Sectors and styles most adversely affected by rising rates, such as Consumer Staples, Communications, Services and Health Care have underperformed in October (Chart 1), while cyclicals, geared to rising rates, have outperformed. Growth/Technology has benefited from recent rate stabilization. Chart 2Market Is Pricing In Three Rate Hikes in 2022 Market now expects three rate hikes by the end of 2022: Rampant inflation is changing investor expectations on the timing and the speed of rate hikes. A month ago, the probability of two rate hikes in 2022 stood at around 55%. Now, the probability of three rate hikes is roughly 64% (Chart 2). The BCA house view is that the Fed will raise rates once in December 2022 – an outlook much more temperate than the market’s. Investment Implication: Banks, Small Caps and Cyclicals outperform in a rising rates environment (Table 1). Table 1Recent Performance Of Sectors In A Rising Rates Regime Shortages Of Goods   Shortages are ubiquitous. How do we make money from this theme? We choose industries that are positioned upstream in the supply chain; for example, we prefer Semis to Durable Goods (Chart 3). Manufacturers of chips face strong demand and significant pricing power, while durable goods manufacturers face shortages and have to pass higher input costs on to their customers, which constrains demand and sales growth. Of course, there is also another aspect contributing to the underperformance of durables: Purchases of goods have exceeded the pre-pandemic trend and turned. Over the past three months, semis outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 5%, while durables underperformed by 12%. Investment Implication: Stay overweight Semiconductors and Semiconductor Equipment, underweight Durable Goods (Table 2). Chart 3Demand for Chips Is BoomingTable 2Sectors Affected By Shortage: Recent Performance Pent-Up Demand for Services The ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI for October has come in at a record 66.7 (62 expected) (Chart 4A), and new orders are soaring at 70. These readings exceed the ISM Manufacturing PMI (60.8), suggesting that demand for services still exceeds demand for goods. Furthermore, spending on services is still below pre-pandemic levels, and the rebound is running its course (Chart 4B). We conclude that our “pent-up demand for services” investment theme still has legs. Chart 4AISM Services Is Soaring Chart 4BStill Strong Pent-up Demand For Services Investment Implication: Stay overweight Hotels, Restaurants, Entertainment and Professional Business Services (Table 3). Stay away from Airlines for now. Table 3Travel Complex: Recent Performance Transportation Bottlenecks Shipping costs continue their ascent (Chart 5). Over 100 ships are currently anchored in LA/Long Beach ports compared to almost immediate unloading before the pandemic. While rising transportation costs are denting the profit margins of a wide range of companies, from retailers to manufacturers, they are a boon for ocean shipping lines, and US transport companies, such as truck lines and railways. Case in point: A.P. Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest boxship operator, delivered $5.44B in quarterly profits last week – doubling its entire 2020 income, on the heels of the unprofitable years of 2018 and 2019.1 Profits of other freight operators are also surging. Investors take notice: After a stretch of underperformance, the S&P 500 Transportation Index outperformed the S&P 500 by 6.55% in October. Chart 5Shipping Costs Still Exorbitant Investment Implication: Continue overweight of Transportation Services, specifically Air Freight and Logistics, and Road and Rail (Table 4). Table 4Transportation: Recent Performance US Consumers Are Feeling Poorer Consumers are right to worry about inflation: Nominal wages increased by 4.5% Year-on-Year in October, the highest reading over the past 40 years. However, real wage growth is negative, i.e. it is not keeping up with prices, erasing American consumers’ buying power (Chart 6). According to a Gallup survey, upticks in citations of the deficit and inflation are largely responsible for an increase in mentions of any economic issue – from 16% in September to 24% in October.2 According to the Conference Board survey, consumers expect prices to rise by 7% over the next 12 months. Loss of purchasing power is bound to dampen consumer demand, as we have seen with demand for Consumer Durables and Autos which has collapsed due to shortages and sky-high prices. Corporate pricing power is waning: As a result of pressures on consumer purchasing power, US producers are reporting that they find it harder to raise prices. Looking ahead, companies will have to absorb price increases (Chart 7). Chart 6Wage Increases Are Not Keeping Up With Inflation Chart 7Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Investment Implication: Erosion of consumer pricing power will eventually harm the Consumer Discretionary sector and will lead to a broad-based margin compression. Fundamentals Peak margins are here: The confluence of rising wages, falling productivity, and reduced ability to raise prices translates into an impending margin squeeze. We forecast that the year-over-year margin change will be negative in 2022 (Chart 8). The Q3 2021 earnings season delivered blockbuster results so far with roughly two-thirds of the companies reporting, and results are striking. 83% of companies have beaten the street expectations with the average earnings surprise standing at 11% (Chart 9). Sales beats are only marginally worse: 77% of the companies have exceeded expectations with an average sales surprise of 3%. Quarter-on-quarter earnings growth is 0.25%, exceeding an expected 6% contraction. Compared to Q3 2019, EPS CAGR is 12%. These results indicate that street expectations were a low bar to clear. Forward guidance is concerning: Most companies commented that supply chain bottlenecks and soaring shipping costs are the major headwinds. Most companies have navigated a challenging economic environment swimmingly so far. However, looking ahead, waning pricing power, falling productivity, and rising costs will weigh on profitability. These factors are the ubiquitous reasons for negative guidance: 52.6% of companies are guiding lower for Q4 2021 (compare that to 32.7% in the previous quarter). Investment Implication: It is likely that the Q4 2021 earnings season disappoints. Sentiment Strong inflows into US equities after early fall hiatus. This can be explained by FOMO (fear of missing out), and lots of cash sitting on the sidelines, which many retail investors aim to park in US equities (Chart 10). Furthermore, historically, November and December have been characterized by robust equity inflows: Retail investors wait until the end of the year to reach clarity on their financial situation and to allocate funds to 401Ks, IRAs, and 529s. Investment Implication: Buying on dips still offers downward protection from a major market pullback. Chart 10Strong Inflows Into US Equities: Buying On Dip Is Still En Vogue Uses Of Cash Buybacks Replace Dividends: Share buybacks are on the rise again (Chart 11, Panel 1), seemingly displacing dividends as a means of returning cash to shareholders: The dividend payout ratio is flagging (Chart 11, Panel 2). From a corporate standpoint, dividends require a long-term commitment, while buybacks can be a “one-off,” lending more flexibility to corporate treasurers. Corporations also prefer buybacks as they reduce their share count and inflate earnings per share. Investment Implication: For cash yield, focus on sectors known for using buybacks to disburse cash to shareholders: Technology and Financials. Chart 11Buybacks Are Replacing Dividends   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   S&P 500 Chart 12Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 13Profitability Chart 14Valuations And Technicals Chart 15Uses Of Cash Cyclicals Vs Defensives Chart 16Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 17Profitability Chart 18Valuation And Technicals Chart 19Uses Of Cash Growth Vs Value Chart 20Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 21Profitability Chart 22Valuations And Technicals     Small Vs Large Chart 23Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart 24Profitability   Chart 25Valuations and Technicals Chart 26Uses Of Cash       Footnotes 1     WSJ, Supply-Chain Pain Is Maersk’s Gain as $5.44 Billion Profit Dwarfs Amazon, UPS, November 2, 2021. 2     Job Market Ratings Set Record, but Economic Confidence Slides (gallup.com), October 27, 2021.   Recommended Allocation

Special Report

Highlights We introduce our rotation graphs to assess the evolution of the relative trend and momentum of various assets. US equities remain on firm footing, but their weakening relative momentum suggests that investors may soon begin to rotate away from this market in favor of the Eurozone and EM. Cyclicals continue to dominate defensives, globally and in Europe. European value stocks are experiencing improving momentum, which suggests that a rotation out of growth equities is afoot. While European small-cap equities sport attractive fundamentals, rotational dynamics indicate it is still too early to overweight them aggressively. The energy crisis is a dominant driver of the relative sector performance in Europe and resulted in a massive shift in leadership from industrials to energy. As long as oil and natural gas act as a drag, industrials will lag. Financials are well supported. Swedish stocks have borne the brunt of the energy price spike, while Norwegian equities have been its main beneficiaries. The improvement in momentum of German stocks suggests that their relative underperformance will soon end. Spanish shares look attractive from a tactical perspective. Swiss industrials will need a recovery in EUR/CHF to outperform other European industrials. UK industrials will continue to outperform their continental competitors, while Spanish industrials have a window through which to shine. A rotation into UK financials may soon begin as their momentum improves. The darkest days for German financials are ending, while Spanish, Italian, and Swedish financials may soon witness a wave of underperformance. Spanish consumer discretionary equities are becoming more attractive compared to their European counterparts. While Dutch names continue to outperform other European tech equities, their softening momentum suggests investors are beginning to rotate out of this country. Spanish and German tech names offer an attractive diversification opportunity within the industry. Feature Methodology The combination of excess liquidity, large pools of fast money, elevated valuations across most securities, and the existence of the near-term momentum reversal effect encourage investors to rotate from one asset to the next in the hope of rapid profits. Measures to assess where each market stands in this rotational pattern can be useful for investors to catch these swings. In this optic, we introduce our rotation screener focused on equities. It is a simple tool that looks at whether a sector or a country is strengthening relative to its benchmark and whether this strength is happening at a faster or slower momentum. To measure each dimension, we use proprietary indicators of relative strength and momentum. Once each asset’s relative strength and relative momentum are established, we can position them in quadrants. We follow traditional terminology. The upper right quadrant denotes “Leading” assets, or securities that are outperforming their benchmark with strengthening momentum. The bottom right quadrant denotes “Weakening” assets, or securities that are outperforming their benchmark but with a deteriorating momentum. The bottom left quadrant denotes “Lagging” assets, or securities that are underperforming with decreasing momentum. Finally, the top left quadrant indicates “Improving” assets, or securities that are underperforming but with increasing momentum. Investors should move to overweight assets that are in the Improving quadrants and to underweight assets that are inching toward the “Lagging” from the “Weakening” quadrants. This method is very flexible and can be applied to sectors, countries, styles, and so on, as long as a benchmark is available to generate comparisons. In this report, we will analyze the following from a rotational perspective: global national markets, global cyclicals vs global defensive’s, European cyclicals vs European defensives, European sectors, European national markets, European financials, European consumer discretionaries, and European tech stocks. Global National Markets US equities have moved from the Leading quadrant to the Weakening one as they continue to outperform the global benchmark but with a decelerating momentum (Chart 1). This locates the US market in a risky position that could herald a period of underperformance, especially if global economic surprises accelerate. From a rotational perspective, US stocks could still experience another wave of outperformance over the coming weeks, as momentum has been firming over the past four weeks.   The Euro Area benchmark has fully moved from the Weakening quadrant in August to the Lagging one today. Investors should monitor Europe’s relative momentum closely, because a pick-up from here would push the Eurozone into Improving territory, a warning of an imminent trend change in European relative stock prices. Emerging markets have exited the Lagging zone and moved into the Improving quadrant. The move is far from decisive and remains at risk with Chinese credit growth still decelerating. The recent decline in steel prices in China suggests that construction activity in that economy continues to slow. Thus, as long as Chinese credit flows deteriorate, EM stocks will have trouble moving into the Leading quadrant. Cyclicals Vs Defensives Global defensive equities tried to move into the Leading quadrant at the end of the summer, but, ultimately, they plunged back into Lagging territory as global stocks recovered in October (Chart 2). Meanwhile, global cyclicals moved in the opposite trajectory, shifting from the Lagging quadrant to the Leading one over the past three months. Cyclicals continue to benefit from the general uptrend in the market. Even the recent decline in yields is doing little to boost the performance of defensive equities. The biggest risk to these stocks remains the Chinese economic slowdown. For now, this deterioration has not been large enough to compensate for the general vigour in profits and consumption in advanced economies. However, if inflation worries do not abate, then the Chinese slowdown will become more problematic for global cyclicals as it will raise the spectre of stagflation.  The rotational pattern for European cyclicals vs defensive stocks mimics that of global equities (Chart 3). However, European cyclicals are somewhat softer than their global equivalents, hurt by Europe’s greater exposure to the Chinese business cycle compared to the US’s exposure. European Investment Styles Over the past three months, European investment styles have begun a major shift. Value has moved from the Lagging quadrant to the Improving one, which suggests that flows could push value into the Leading quadrant (Chart 4). Moreover, growth has moved from the Leading quadrant to the weakening one, which created a similar dynamic as the decline in performance of the quality factor. This confirms that the rise in yields is beginning to favour a shift in style from growth to value. Meanwhile, small-cap stocks have tumbled into the Lagging quarter. We do expect attractive returns for European small-cap names over an 18- to 24-month investment horizon. However, we have not moved yet to overweight this sector of the market and rotational patterns confirm it is too early to do so safely. European Sectors Sectors have begun to make some important shifts in European markets (Chart 5). Tech has moved from the Leading quadrant to the weakening one. While the sector continues to outperform, it is doing so with a declining momentum, and it could soon move to the Lagging quadrant. This deteriorating price action must be monitored closely. Consumer discretionary names, which were strong performers that have become increasingly weak, have moved from the Weakening quadrant to the lagging one. However, their momentum is not deteriorating as much as it did nine weeks ago, which suggests a move to the Improving quadrant could soon be in the offing. Financials have greatly enjoyed the uptick in global yields. After a short passage through the Lagging quadrant, they have shifted into the Leading one. This suggests that the winds remain behind this sector, which we continue to overweight. Industrials and energy have become mirror images of one another, highlighting the negative impact on European economic activity and profitability of the recent surge in energy prices. The industrials have moved from the Leading quadrant to the lagging one, as the energy sector experienced the opposite direction of travel. This suggests that industrials will only recover their shine once the energy crisis abates, which will also hurt energy stocks. European National Markets The rotational pattern exhibited by European national markets bears their respective sectoral footprints (Chart 6). The tech-heavy Dutch market has moved from the Leading quadrant to the Weakening one, the industrials-focused Swedish market has fallen into the Lagging quadrant from the Weakening one and the Norwegian market has leapt out of Lagging into Leading territory. Hence, if the rotation out of tech deepens, The Netherlands will tumble directly into the Lagging zone, while an easing in energy prices will force Norway and Sweden to switch places on the back of a rotation out of energy into industrials. Germany is of particular interest. It is a well-diversified market that has become oversold. Moreover, as we wrote in September, its relative performance exhibits a significant discount to relative earnings. From a rotational perspective, Germany is moving to leave the Lagging quadrant; a durable shift into the Improving quadrant will sufficiently assuage traders into buying this market. This process will support our overweight position in German equities. Spain is another market we like on a tactical basis. Over the course of the past three months, it moved out of Lagging territory into the Improving zone. This price action supports our thesis that the large country-discount embedded across Spanish equity sectors is excessive and should soon dissipate. The main risk to this view would be another down leg in bond yields, which would hurt financials—a major weight in this market. Italy, too, is in the process of executing a full rotation, having exited the Weakening quadrant and moved into the Lagging one. Italian stocks have tried to punch their way into the Improving zone but have failed to do so. They will require higher yields to move out into the Improving zone durably because of the heavy financials weighting of Italian stocks. European Industrials Within European industrials, a rotational pattern is also evident (Chart 7). Swiss industrials have moved out of the Leading quadrant into the Lagging one as the Swiss franc continues to appreciate against the euro. The rising CHF imparts deflationary pressures into Switzerland and the SNB continues to build up its reserves. As a result, EUR/CHF will appreciate once EUR/USD finds a firmer footing. Thus, while it is too early to overweight Swiss industrials relative to those of the Eurozone, their oversold nature suggests that a rotation in favour of Swiss manufacturing businesses will soon take place. At the current juncture, Spanish industrials look appealing. They have moved out of the Lagging quadrant into the Improving one as the momentum of their relative performance improves. Additionally, they are close to moving into the leading territory. This picture is consistent with a narrowing of the discount embedded in all Spanish sectors since the pandemic broke out. Swedish industrials are also trying to exit the Lagging territory; their elevated RoE, and heavy sensitivity to the DM capex cycle indicate that they should move into the Leading quadrant in the coming weeks. UK industrials have remained in the Leading zone for the past three months, but their relative momentum is softening, which risks them being placed in the Weakening zone. The recent deterioration in GBP/EUR could provide a breath of fresh air, as it will improve the competitiveness of UK industrials compared to continental firms. Even then, for now, rotational dynamics do not flag an imminent problem for UK industrials. European Financials The clearest rotational pattern within European financials may be found in Sweden and the UK (Chart 8). Over the past three months, Swedish financials have fallen out of the Leading quadrant into the Weakening one, and they are inching closer toward the Lagging zone. This suggests that they could soon begin to underperform. Meanwhile, UK financials offer a mirror image as they exited the Lagging quadrant and moved into the improving one. They have yet to enter Leading territory, but seem close to doing so. The pessimism toward the UK is overdone right now. BCA’s Global Fixed-Income Strategy team expects the UK yield curve to steepen anew. UK financials would be prime beneficiaries of this dynamic. Italian and Spanish financials are also exhibiting some concerning moves lately. Both were in the Leading quadrant, but they have since shifted to the lagging one as peripheral spreads widened. Meanwhile, money seems to be moving into German financials, which have advanced from the Lagging quadrant to the Improving quadrant. While they are not as close to the Leading quadrant as their UK competitors, this shift warrants monitoring. European Consumer Discretionary Within the consumer discretionary space, most European countries have remained in their quadrant (Chart 9). Nonetheless, Spanish CD stocks have moved out of the Lagging zone into the Leading quadrant, while their Italian counterparts have recently entered the Weakening quadrant where they have joined French CDs. While both these countries’ consumer discretionary firms are witnessing weakening momentum, they remain in an upward trend against their European competitors. It is therefore too early to sell these countries within this industry. German Consumer discretionary equities are still in the Lagging quadrant, but they are trying to move into the Improving one, where UK CD names have remained for the past three months. European Tech The European tech sector is very much a story about The Netherlands versus the rest, due to the large size of the Dutch tech sector (Chart 10). For now, rotational patterns remain in favour of Dutch names; they have exited the Leading quadrant, but, while their momentum is weakening somewhat, they remain in a pronounced relative uptrend. A few small markets offer some promise. Over the past three months, both Spanish and German tech names have shifted from the Lagging quadrant into the Improving one. Their elevated momentum measures suggest that a shift into the Leading quadrant is imminent. As such, investors should consider switching some of their tech holdings into these two countries to diversify away from the Dutch behemoth.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Bank Credit Analyst

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, but data highlighting the economic consequences of the Delta wave grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, driven by lower car sales and a slowdown in services spending. The imminent vaccination of school-aged children, and signs that services activity and spending are increasing, will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Investors have the right bond view, but the wrong reason. Investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas it will likely do so because of a quicker return to maximum employment. Bond yields are likely to move higher over the coming year, but this will be driven by real yields, not inflation expectations. Once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and a gap between these two measures no longer makes sense. Stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. A benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis; stay overweight for now, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Feature Chart I-1The Waning Impact Of Delta Over the past month, the focus of investors has shifted from day-to-day developments to the consequences of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Chart I-1 highlights that, while an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction rates in advanced economies has recently inched higher, it remains below one and hospitalizations continue to trend lower in most major economies. UK hospitalizations have increased over the course of the month, but remain at a level that is a quarter of their January peak – despite an elevated pace of confirmed cases. In the US, both these cases and hospitalizations continue to fall, trends that are likely to be reinforced by the vaccination of children over the coming weeks. A 50-60% vaccination rate for school-aged children would increase the US vaccination rate by 4-5 percentage points. Vaccinating all children at this rate would increase the total vaccination rate by 7-8 percentage points. In combination with a meaningful level of natural immunity, the vaccination of children is likely to bring the US very close to, if not above, the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity (or “NAHRI”).1 The Delta Hangover While the circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, the economic consequences grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, as highlighted by yesterday’s advance release. Chart I-2 highlights that durable goods spending subtracted almost three percentage points from Q3 growth, and that most other components of GDP contributed less to growth in Q3 than in Q2. The significant slowdown in Q3 growth is disappointing, but several factors point toward the conclusion that it is not likely to be sustained: Chart I-3Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 The Delta wave very likely impacted services spending, which we have highlighted is likely to drive overall consumption over the coming year. Given the ongoing impact of semiconductor shortages on the availability of new cars, it is not surprising that a slowdown in services spending resulted in a significant slowdown in overall growth. After having declined significantly in Q3, Chart I-3 highlights that the US, UK, French, and Japanese October flash services PMI rose anew, underscoring that recent services weakness have been closely linked to the Delta variant of COVID-19 (whose impact is now waning). Chart I-3 also highlights that the US services PMI is currently at a level that has been historically consistent with solid real PCE growth. Finally, while it is true that manufacturing PMIs are being supported by supplier deliveries components, the October output component of the US Markit manufacturing index remained in expansionary territory, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and the UK (despite month-over-month declines in these components). Chart I-4 highlights that Q3’s real GDP reading was highly anomalous relative to the pace of jobs growth in the quarter, based on the relationship between the two since the global financial crisis. In quarters in which real GDP growth was 1% or less than implied by the trendline shown in Chart I-4, real GDP accelerated in the subsequent quarter 80% of the time. In conjunction with a pickup in services activity in October, this suggests that growth will be meaningfully stronger in Q4. Chart I-5Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Chart I-5 shows our global Nowcast indicator, alongside our global LEI. Our Nowcast indicator is a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global LEI are declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. The global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart I-5 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not a major cyclical downturn. The expectation of a slowdown in growth in Q3 has significantly raised concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation in the minds of many investors. We address this topic in depth in this month’s Special Report, and conclude that, while investors cannot rule out the possibility of stagflation, there are important differences that point toward a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We note in our report that the risk of stagflation can be monitored in real time by tracking the Misery Index, which is the sum of headline PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. Currently, the Misery Index is elevated relative to the average of the past 30 years, but it is meaningfully lower than it was during the latter half of the 1970s. This also underscores that true stagflation is only likely to occur if the unemployment rate rises, which means that the economic and financial market outlook over the coming year is strongly tied to the pace of jobs growth (even more so than usual). Table I-1 presents an industry breakdown of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, sorted by industries with the largest gap. The table highlights that leisure and hospitality, government, and education and health services jobs continue to account for two-thirds of the five million jobs gap, with the latter two largely reflecting the same effect: 60% of the government jobs gap is accounted for by state and local government education-related employment. Chart I-6Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate US education employment has been impacted by school and classroom closures, which we noted above are likely to end once school-aged children are vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-6 highlights that leisure and hospitality employment is clearly predicted by the US hotel occupancy rate, which wobbled over the past few months as a result of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Correspondingly, monthly growth in leisure and hospitality employment slowed in August and September. Taken together, the imminent vaccination of school-aged children and signs that services activity and spending are increasing will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. The Bond Market Outlook Chart I-7The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... A continued normalization of the labor market over the coming 6-12 months argues in favor of Fed rate hikes next year, which is a view that we have maintained for several months. Recently, investors have come to agree with us, by moving forward their expectations for the Fed funds rate (Chart I-7). However, Chart I-8 highlights that investors have the right view for the wrong reason. The chart highlights that US government bond yields have risen entirely due to inflation expectations and that real yields have fallen. This means that investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas we believe that they will do so because of a return to maximum employment. The implication for investors is that bond yields are still likely to rise over the coming year, but that higher yields are likely to occur alongside falling inflation expectations. This trend underscores that common hedges against inflation, such as precious metals and the relative performance of TIPS, are likely to underperform over the coming year. We have noted in previous reports that the fair value for long-maturity government bond yields implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections is not likely threatening for equity multiples, and certainly not for economic activity. A September 2022 rate hike, coupled with a pace of three hikes per year and a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, implies that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to 2.15% over the coming year, which would be only modestly higher than the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-8...But For The Wrong Reason Chart I-9Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year   However, once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and, while a gap between these two measures made sense in the years following the global financial crisis, this no longer appears to be the case. Chart I-10 highlights that real household mortgage liabilities began to contract sharply in 2006, and did not turn positive on a year-over-year basis until the end of 2016. It is likely that R-star was falling or weak during this period, but the correlation between the two series clearly shifted in the latter phase of the last economic cycle. Chart I-11 emphasizes this point by highlighting that the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s, underscoring the capacity that US consumers have to withstand higher interest rates. Chart I-10R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time Chart I-11Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates     We doubt that investor expectations for the terminal rate will rise significantly before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy, but it may happen. In addition, the Fed may begin raising interest rates next year as soon as late in the summer or early in the fall, which would locate the liftoff date within our 6-12 month investment time horizon. As such, our base case view is that a rise in interest rates over the coming year will not be threatening to the equity market, but this view may change at some point next year. Equities: Expect Modest Returns In 2022 A benign increase in long-maturity bond yields in 2022 suggests that equity multiples will neither contribute to, nor subtract from, equity returns. As such, return expectations for equities should be centered around expected earnings growth. Table I-2 presents consensus estimates for nominal GDP growth, S&P 500 revenue growth, and earnings growth for 2022. The table highlights that expectations for revenue growth estimates appear to be reasonable, given that bottom-up analysts continue to expect an expansion in profit margins next year. Chart I-12 highlights that margins have already risen back above their pre-pandemic high, and that this is true for both tech and ex-tech sectors. Chart I-12US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels We doubt that further increases in profit margins will be sustained next year. It is possible that margins will actually decline – a view that was recently espoused by our US Equity Strategy service.2 Risks to profit margins underscore that stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. Within the equity market, we remain of the view that even a benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Chart I-13 highlights that the rolling one-year correlation between relative global growth versus value stock prices and the US 10-year Treasury yield has become increasingly negative over time, which bodes well for value. We also continue to recommend that investors favor small over large caps and cyclicals over defensives, although cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis as they are closing in on their 2018 highs (Chart I-14). We think it is too early to position against cyclicals, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Chart I-13Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-14Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives   Investment Conclusions Next month’s report will feature BCA’s 2022 outlook, as well as a transcript of our recently held annual discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X (who joined his family office a couple of years ago). Our annual outlook will provide a detailed walkthrough of our views for the upcoming year, as well as answers to sobering questions raised by Mr. X and Ms. X about the longer-term outlook. For now, we recommend that investors stick with a pro-cyclical view, favoring the following assets: Global stocks over bonds A short-duration position within a government bond portfolio Speculative-grade corporate bonds within a credit portfolio Global ex-US stocks vs US, focused on DM ex-US Global value versus growth stocks Cyclicals versus defensives, and small versus large caps Major currencies versus the US dollar Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2021 Next Report: November 30, 2021 II. Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.3 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,4 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,5 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.6 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,7 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era 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 remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises appear to have peaked, but there is not yet any meaningful sign of waning forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we would continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yield. The US 10-Year Treasury yield remains above its 200-day moving average after failing to break meaningfully below it. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is likely. However, most of the recent move higher in government bond yields has occurred due to rising inflation expectations, whereas the increase in yields over the coming year will likely occur in real terms. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they are still overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, may weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see Section 1 of the September 2021 Bank Credit Analyst for a detailed discussion of the US immunity level. 2  Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 7  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

In a recent daily report, we analyzed relative performance of the S&P 500 sectors and styles under different US 10-year Treasury yield (UST10Y) regimes. Today we expand our analysis and map relative performance of the S&P 500 sectors and styles under the distinct US Treasury yield curve regimes, defined as a three-months change between 10-year and 2-year yields. To analyze sector and style performance by regime, we calculate contemporaneous three-months relative returns of sectors and styles. To summarize the results, we calculate median relative return of each sector/style in each regime. We subtract total period median to remove the sector and style biases in the long-term performance. In a flattening yield curve environment, Defensives, Quality, and Growth tend to outperform, as it indicates scarcity of growth. Accordingly, Real Estate, Technology, Utilities, and Communications Services also outperform. Yield curve steepening is usually associated with growth acceleration. This regime gives boost to more economically sensitive and capex intensive sectors and styles: Value, Small caps, and Cyclicals. Bottom Line: The shape of the US Treasury yield curve will be an important variable to monitor going forward, as it has a substantial effect on relative sector and style performance. ​​​​​​​

Dear Client, We are sending you our Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of 2021 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, October 7 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic Outlook: Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. Progress on the vaccination campaign, along with continued accommodative monetary and fiscal policies, should keep recession risks at bay for the foreseeable future. Global Asset Allocation: Remain overweight stocks. While the risk-reward profile for equities is not as appealing as it was last year, the TINA theme (“There Is No Alternative” to equities) will continue to resonate with investors. Equities: Favor cyclicals, small caps, value stocks, and non-US equities. Long EM is an attractive contrarian play. Fixed Income: Maintain slightly below average interest-rate duration exposure. The US 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 1.8% by the first half of next year. Spread product will continue to outperform high-quality government bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will resume its weakening trend as growth momentum rotates from the US to the rest of the world. The Canadian dollar will be the best performing DM currency during the remainder of the year. Commodities: Oil prices will remain firm, bucking market expectations of a decline. Metals may be at the cusp of a new supercycle. I. Macroeconomic Outlook Global Growth To Remain Above Trend Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. According to Bloomberg consensus estimates, real GDP in the G7 rose by 6.0% in Q3, down from 6.8% in Q2 (Table 1). G7 growth is expected to soften to 4.9% in Q4, mainly reflecting somewhat softer growth in Europe following a blistering third quarter which saw real GDP expand by more than 9% in the UK and the euro area. Table 1Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Well Into Next Year Not all countries have reached peak growth. Japan is projected to see faster growth in Q4, with GDP rising by 3.8% compared to 1.6% in Q3. Canadian growth should pick up from 4.5% in Q3 to 5.8% in Q4. Australia’s economy is projected to grow by 7.4% in Q4 after having contracted by 10.7% in Q3. Chinese growth is expected to accelerate to 5.9% in Q4 from 2.6% in Q3. Across almost all the major economies, growth should remain at an above-trend pace in 2022. G7 growth is expected to hit 4.1%, well above the trend rate of 1.4%. Usually when growth peaks, investors start to worry that a recession is around the corner. Given that growth is coming down from exceptionally high levels, this is not a major risk at the moment. Most Countries Are Easing Lockdown Restrictions Ten months after the first Covid vaccines became publicly available, 3.5 billion people, or 45% of the world’s population, have received at least one shot (Chart 1). At this point, most people in developed economies who want a vaccine have been able to receive one. Chart 1Nearly Half Of The World's Population Has Received At Least One Covid Vaccine Shot While vaccine availability in many emerging markets remains a problem, the situation is improving rapidly. India is currently vaccinating 7.5 million people per day. Over 45% of Indians have had at least one shot, something that would have seemed unfathomable just a few months ago. New medications are on the way. Just today, Merck announced a breakthrough pill that lowers the risk of hospitalization from Covid by 50%. Globally, the number of new daily cases has fallen from over 650,000 in August to 450,000 today. Lower case counts, along with increased vaccinations, have allowed most countries to loosen lockdown measures. Goldman’s Effective Lockdown Index has eased to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic (Chart 2). Chart 2Covid Restrictions Are Easing In Many Places Monetary Policy: The Slow March To Neutral As the pandemic recedes from view, central banks are starting to dial back monetary support. Last week, Norway became the first major developed economy to hike rates. New Zealand, having already ended QE, may raise rates before the end of the year. Other central banks are looking to normalize policy. The Bank of Canada has cut its asset purchases in half. The Reserve Bank of Australia has begun tapering asset purchases. The Swedish Riksbank has indicated that it will end asset purchases this year. The Fed will formally announce the tapering of asset purchases in November, while the Bank of England’s latest round of QE expansion will expire in December. The ECB, Swiss National Bank, and Bank of Japan remain firmly in the dovish camp. That said, the ECB has cracked open the exit door ever so slightly by announcing that it will stop buying assets through the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme in March (The ECB will continue to buy bonds under the existing Asset Purchase Programme, however). Taper Tantrum Redux? The prospect of Fed tapering has stoked worries of a replay of the 2013 Taper Tantrum. We think such worries are overstated. For one thing, tapering is not the same thing as tightening. The Fed will still be adding to the size of its balance sheet; it will simply be doing so at a diminished pace. Thus, tapering implies a slower pace of easing rather than outright tightening, a subtle but important distinction. Tapering could be regarded as tightening if, as in 2013, the very act of tapering sends a signal to investors that rate hikes are forthcoming. However, in the years following the Taper Tantrum, the Fed has gone out of its way to delink balance sheet policy from interest rate policy, stressing that the two are substitutes not complements.  The Fed is unlikely to start hiking rates until late 2022 or early 2023. It will probably take another year or two beyond then for interest rates to rise into restrictive territory, and even longer for the lagged effects of monetary policy to work their way through to the economy. There is an old saying: “Expansions don’t die of old age. They get murdered by the Fed.” The Fed will probably kill the expansion. However, the deed is unlikely to be committed until 2024 at the earliest, giving the bull market in stocks further scope to continue. Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight On the fiscal side, the IMF expects the aggregate cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to decline from 7.7% of GDP in 2021 to 3.7% of GDP in 2022, implying a negative fiscal impulse of 4% of GDP. Normally, such a negative fiscal impulse would weigh heavily on growth. However, since this fiscal tightening is set to occur against a backdrop of continued strong private domestic demand growth, the economic fallout should be limited. The absolute stance of fiscal policy also matters. While budget deficits will decline over the next few years, the IMF expects deficits to be larger in the post-pandemic period than they were before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 3Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight If anything, the IMF’s projections understate the likely size of future budget deficits as they do not incorporate any fiscal measures that have yet to be signed into law. These include the proposed $550 billion US infrastructure bill, an election-season stimulus package in Japan, and increased investment spending by what is likely to be a center-left coalition government in Germany. Chart 4Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Perhaps one of the most important, and largely overlooked, consequences of the pandemic is that the bond vigilantes have been banished into exile. Governments ran record budget deficits last year and bond yields fell anyway. Post-pandemic fiscal policy is likely to end up being structurally more expansionary than it was following the Global Financial Crisis. Plenty Of Dry Powder It should also be noted that not all the stimulus funds that have been disbursed have made their way into the economy. US households are currently sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to about 15% of annual consumption (Chart 4). About half of these excess savings stem from decreased spending on services during the pandemic. The other half stem from increased transfer payments – stimulus checks, unemployment insurance benefits, and the like. Some investors have expressed concern that these savings will remain idle. Among other things, they note that a record high share of households in the University of Michigan survey think that this is a bad time to be purchasing big-ticket items (Chart 5). Chart 5Consumers Are Deferring Purchases Of Big-Ticket Items In Anticipation Of Lower Prices Chart 6Improving Consumer Confidence Will Buoy Consumption We would downplay these concerns. A review of the evidence from the original CARES act suggests that households spent about 40% of the stimulus checks within three months of receiving them. That is a reasonably high number considering that precautionary savings typically rise during times of economic uncertainty. Despite the improvements in the economy, consumer confidence remains below pre-pandemic levels. There is a strong correlation between consumer confidence and household consumption (Chart 6). As confidence continues to recover, household spending should hold up well. As far as the reluctance to buy big-ticket items is concerned, we would paint this in a positive light. When households are asked why they are not in a rush to buy, say, a new automobile, they answer, quite rationally, that they expect prices to fall and availability to improve. Concerns over job security are far down on the list. In this sense, the market mechanism is doing what it is supposed to do: Supplying goods to those who are willing to pay up in order to get them immediately, while giving those with a bit more patience the opportunity to buy them later at a lower price.  Chart 7Firms Will Need To Maintain High Production To Replenish Inventories From a macro perspective, this means that demand for durable goods is unlikely to fall off a cliff anytime soon. There is enough pent-up demand around to ensure production stays buoyant well into next year. This is especially the case for autos, where nearly half of US shoppers have decided to defer purchases. And with inventory levels at record lows, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 7). It is difficult to see growth slowing dramatically in such an environment. Pandemic-Induced Inflation Spike Should Fade The willingness of households to postpone spending until supply has had a chance to catch up to demand should help mitigate inflationary pressures. It would be much worse if households thought that today’s high consumer goods prices presaged even higher prices down the road. Such a dynamic could easily unmoor inflation expectations, forcing the Fed into action. Despite the recent spike in inflation, household long-term inflation expectations have not increased that much. Inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey ticked up to 3% in September. While this is above the average level of 2.5% in 2017-2019, it is broadly within the range of expectations that prevailed between 1997 and 2014 (Chart 8). Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Chart 9Wages At The Bottom End Of The Distribution Are Rising Briskly Chart 10Strong Wage Growth In The Leisure And Hospitality SectorWages have risen briskly at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 9). The jump in wage growth in the leisure and hospitality sector – where workers have been given the unenviable task of enforcing mask mandates and other requirements – has been particularly pronounced (Chart 10). However, wage growth for high-skilled salaried employees has been flat-to-down. As a consequence, overall wage growth, as measured by the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, has moved sideways. Rising CPI inflation remains contained to only a few categories. Median CPI inflation registered 2.4% in August, below where it was in late 2019. Excluding vehicle prices, the level of the core CPI remains below its pre-pandemic trend line (Chart 11). Chart 11Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Core Inflation With And Without Autos Recent indications suggest that used car prices have peaked (Chart 12). Memory prices are trending lower, suggesting that the worst of the semiconductor shortage may be behind us (Chart 13). The Drewry World Container Index also inched lower this week for the first time in five months. Chart 12Used Car Prices Have Peaked Chart 13Memory Chip Prices Are Edging Lower In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. II. Feature: The Real Risk From China’s Property Market Chart 14The Demographic Turning Point In Japan And China Lehman Moment Or Japan Moment? The turmoil surrounding Evergrande, one of China’s largest property developer, has sparked fears that China is experiencing its own “Lehman moment”. Such worries are misplaced. The Chinese government has enough control over the domestic financial system to keep systemic risks in check. The more appropriate analogy is not with Lehman, but with Japan. The Japanese property bubble burst in the early 1990s, sending the country into a prolonged deflationary funk. As was the case in Japan three decades ago, Chinese property prices are very high in relation to incomes. Moreover, as was the case in Japan, China’s working-age population has peaked, which is likely to translate into lower demand for housing down the road (Chart 14). As it is, studies using night light data suggest that 20% of apartments are sitting vacant. Similar to Japan, debt has fueled China’s housing boom. Chinese property developers are amongst the most leveraged in the world (Chart 15). Households have also been borrowing aggressively: Mortgage debt has risen from around 15% of GDP in 2010 to 35% of GDP (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Leverage Ratios In China's Real Estate Sector Chart 16Mortgage Debt Has Been On The Rise In China Differences With Japan Despite the clear parallels between Japan in the early 1990s and China today, there are a number of key differences. First, Japan was already an advanced economy in the early 1990s. Today, labor productivity in China is still 40% of what it is in neighbouring South Korea (and 25% of what it is in the US). As productivity in China continues to rise, GDP will increase, even if the number of workers continues to shrink. As Chart 17 shows, China would need to grow by at least 6% per year over the next decade for output-per-worker to converge to South Korean levels by the middle of the century. It is easier to reduce leverage when incomes are growing quickly. Second, while real estate investment in China is still too high for what the country needs, it has been falling as a share of GDP since 2014 (Chart 18). This is not obvious from the monthly fixed asset investment data that investors track because this data counts land purchases as investment. Chart 17China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Construction Peaked Years Ago   Property developers have been buying land and holding on to it in anticipation that it will appreciate in value. This carry trade will end, but the impact on the real economy may be limited if, as is likely, the assets of bankrupt property developers end up being shuffled into quasi state-owned entities, allowing existing housing projects to continue. After all, if the goal of the government is to make housing more affordable, stopping construction would be precisely the wrong thing to do. Third, China has learned from Japan’s policy mistakes, especially when it comes to the appropriate role for government stimulus in the economy. Japan’s biggest mistake in the 1990s was not that it failed to listen to western experts, but that it listened to them too much. The whole narrative about how Japan could have revived its economy through “structural reforms” never made any sense. Japan’s problem was not one of poor resource allocation; it was one of inadequate demand: The property sector collapsed, leaving a big hole in GDP that needed to be filled. Shutting down “zombie companies” arguably made things worse, not better. Chinese Stimulus On The Way Standard debt sustainability equations imply that paradoxically, a country with a high debt-to-GDP ratio can run a larger primary budget deficit than a country with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.1  In China’s case, bond yields are well below nominal GDP growth, which gives the government significant fiscal leeway (Chart 19). The Ministry of Finance has expressed its intention to ramp up fiscal spending by increasing local government bond issuance. As of the end of August, local governments had used up only 50% of their annual debt issuance quota, compared to 77% at the same time last year and 93% in 2019. Increased bond issuance will allow local governments to trim their reliance on land sales to finance spending. For its part, the PBOC cut bank reserve requirements in July. In the past, cuts in reserve requirements have been a reliable predictor of faster credit growth (Chart 20). With credit growth back to its 2018 lows, there is little need for further actions to reduce lending. Chart 19Chinese Bond Yields Are Well Below Nominal GDP Growth Chart 20A Positive Sign For Credit Growth In China   Chart 21China Suffers From High Levels Of Inequality Rebalancing The Chinese Economy Over the long haul, China will need to encourage consumer spending in order to allow for the continued contraction of the construction industry without depressing overall employment. At 38% of GDP, China’s consumption share is one of the lowest in the world. A weak social safety net has forced Chinese households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. Rampant inequality has shifted income towards richer households which tend to save more than the poor (Chart 21). Sky-high home prices only amplified the need to save more to buy a flat. All this has depressed overall consumption. For all its faults, President Xi’s “common prosperity” campaign could help redress all three of these problems, ultimately creating a stronger and more balanced economy. In summary, while China does represent a risk to the global economy, the threat at the moment is not severe enough to warrant turning bearish on equities and other risk assets. III. Financial Markets   A. Portfolio Strategy Above-Trend Global Growth Will Support Equities Investors often express skepticism about the benefits of using macroeconomics as an input into their investment process. Charts 22 and 23 should dispel such doubts. The charts show that the business cycle is by far the most important driver of equity returns over medium-term horizons of 6-to-18 months. Chart 22The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (I) Chart 23AThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) Chart 23BThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) For the most part, the change in the value of the stock market is closely correlated with the level of economic growth. As noted earlier, global growth is peaking but at very high levels. This suggests that stock returns will be reasonably strong over the next 12 months, although not as strong as they were over the preceding 12 months. Higher Bond Yields Unlikely To Undermine The Stock Market Treasury yields have moved up since the conclusion of the FOMC meeting on September 22nd. The market narrative of a “hawkish surprise” does not make much sense to us. The yield curve usually flattens after a central bank delivers a hawkish surprise. That is what happened following the June FOMC meeting. This time around, the 2-10 curve has steepened by 13 basis points. Our sense is that the rise in bond yields mainly reflects the lagged effect from the decline in Covid cases, along with the realization that the pandemic-induced rise in inflation may be a bit stickier than previously believed. Equities often suffer some indigestion when bond yields rise. However, history suggests that as long as yields do not increase enough to imperil the economy, stocks usually end up recovering and reaching new highs (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover The 10-year Treasury yield has already risen halfway to our 2022H1 target of 1.8%. Any further upward move is likely to be more gradual than what has transpired over the past few weeks. As such, we expect the pressure on stocks to diminish. The fact that bearish sentiment in the AAII survey reached a one-year high this week suggests we may be nearing a bottom in stocks. Ultimately, TINA’s siren song will be impossible to resist. What Is The True ERP? While equity valuations are not cheap, they are not at extreme levels either. The MSCI All-Country World Index currently trades at 18-times forward earnings. Unlike in most years, analysts have been revising up earnings estimates this year, both in the US and abroad (Chart 24). This suggests the currently quoted forward PE ratios are not excessively optimistic. Chart 24Analysts Increased Earnings Estimates This Year Chart 25The Global Equity Risk Premium Is Elevated Relative to bonds, stocks still trade at a healthy discount. The forward earnings yield for the MSCI All-Country World index is 640 basis points above the global real bond yield (Chart 25). Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched, the implied equity risk premium (ERP) stands at 580 basis points. Amazingly, this is exactly where the US ERP stood in May 2008. The equity risk premium, as measured by the gap between the earnings yield and the real bond yield, will overstate the magnitude to which stocks are expected to outperform bonds if the PE ratio ends up falling over time. Nevertheless, for stocks to underperform bonds, PE multiples would need to fall by an implausibly large amount. For example, suppose US companies manage to grow real EPS by a modest 2.5% per year over the next decade. The US dividend yield is 1.3%. Assuming dividends rise in line with earnings, investors would receive a real total return of 3.8%. The 10-year TIPS yield is -0.9%. Thus, the US PE multiple would need to shrink by an average of 4.7% (3.8% plus 0.9%) per year over the next 10 years for stocks to underperform bonds on a real total return basis. This would take the US forward PE multiple down to 13. It is not unfathomable that the US PE multiple would fall this much. However, as a baseline scenario, it is too pessimistic. A more plausible baseline forecast would be a terminal PE multiple of 18. That would be consistent with a “true” ERP of 3%.   B. Equity Sectors, Regions, And Styles Favor Cyclicals, Value Stocks, And Small Caps As one might expect, cyclical equity sectors tend to outperform defensives in strong growth environments (Chart 26). The pandemic has exposed a shortage of industrial capacity across a wide range of industries from semiconductors to automobiles. US capital goods shipments have lagged orders for 18 straight months (Chart 27). Industrial stocks stand to benefit from increased capital spending. Materials and energy stocks will gain from strong commodity prices and a weaker US dollar (Chart 28). Chart 26Strong Growth Favors Cyclicals Chart 27US Capital Goods Shipments Have Lagged Orders   Chart 28Materials And Energy Stocks Will Gain From Strong Commodity Prices And A Weaker US Dollar Like cyclicals, value stocks do best during periods when global growth is strong and the US dollar is weak (Chart 29). Rising bond yields should help bank shares, which are heavily overrepresented in value indices (Chart 30). In contrast, tech shares, which are overrepresented in growth indices, usually struggle in rising yield environments. Value stocks are also cheap – three standard deviations cheap based on a simple composite valuation measure that compares price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yields (Chart 31). Chart 29Value Stocks Typically Do Well When The Dollar Is Depreciating Chart 30Higher Yields Are A Boon For Banks And A Bane For Tech   Chart 31Value Is Cheap Financials and industrials are overrepresented in US small caps indices, while tech and communication services are underrepresented (Table 3). Thus, it is not surprising that small caps usually outperform their large cap peers when growth is strong, the dollar is weakening, and bond yields are rising (Chart 32). Table 3Financials And Industrials Have A Larger Weight In US Small Caps Like value stocks, small caps are reasonably priced. The S&P 600 small cap index trades at 16-times forward earnings, compared to 17-times for the S&P 400 mid cap index and 21-times for the S&P 500 (Chart 33). Small cap earnings are also expected to grow by 30% over the next 12 months, easily beating mid caps (19%) and large caps (15%). BCA’s relative valuation indicator suggests that, compared to large caps, small caps are now as cheap as they were in the late 1990s (Chart 34). Chart 32US Small Caps Tend To Outperform When Growth Is Strong, The Dollar Is Weakening, And Bond Yields Are Rising   Chart 33US Small Caps Are Not Expensive Chart 34US Small Caps Are Attractive Relative To Large Caps Regional Equity Allocation: Better Prospects Outside The US Stock markets outside the US have more of a cyclical/value tilt (Table 4). Hence, they tend to fare best when global growth is strong and the dollar is weakening (Chart 35). Table 4Cyclicals Are Overrepresented Outside The US Chart 35Strong Growth And A Weaker Dollar Is Good For Non-US Stocks Probable tax changes could hurt the relative performance of US stocks. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect the Democrats to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to about 26%. Additional tax hikes are likely to apply to overseas earnings, something that will disproportionately affect tech companies. Non-US stocks are reasonably priced, trading at a forward PE ratio of 15. EM equities are especially cheap. They currently trade at a forward PE ratio of 13 (Chart 36). The EM discount to the global index is as large now as it was during the late 1990s. Chart 36AEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (I) Chart 36BEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (II) After a blistering period of rapid earnings growth during the 2000s, EM EPS has been trending sideways during the past decade (Chart 37). However, the combination of increased global capital spending and rising commodity prices should buoy EM profits in the years ahead. Improved performance from EM banks should also help. Chinese banks are trading at 4.2-times forward earnings, 0.5-times book, and sport a dividend yield of over 6% (Chart 38). Such valuations discount too much bad news. Chart 37AEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade(I) Chart 37BEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade (II)   Chart 38Chinese Banks: A Lot Of Bad News Is Discounted Chart 39Chinese Tech Stocks Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Outlook For Chinese Tech Stocks The regulatory crackdown on Chinese tech companies has weighed on the sector. Chinese tech stocks have underperformed their global tech peers by 46% since February (Chart 39). Chinese tech is 44% of the China investable index and 15% of the MSCI EM index. Thus, the outlook for Chinese stocks is relevant not just for China-focused investors, but for EM investors more broadly (especially those who invest in index products). The current crackdown bears some resemblance to the one in 2018, which saw Tencent lose $20 billion in market capitalization in a single day. Like other Chinese tech names, Tencent shares quickly recovered from that incident. Contrary to popular perception, the Chinese government has not launched an indiscriminate attack on tech companies. If anything, heightened geopolitical tensions have made it more important than ever for China to buttress its tech sector. Rather, what the government has done is restrain companies that it either perceives as working against the national interest (i.e., addictive video game makers and expensive after-school tutoring companies) or that have too much sway over the public. Private tech companies in sectors such as semiconductors or clean energy continue to receive government support. A plausible outcome is that China’s leading consumer-oriented internet companies will go out of their way to pledge allegiance to the Communist Party. If that were to happen, the Chinese government may allow them to operate normally, cognizant of the fact that it is easier to monitor a few large internet companies than many small ones. While such an outcome is far from assured, current valuations offer enough cushion to prospective investors. As we go to press, Alibaba is trading at 15.9-times 2021 earnings, Baidu is trading at 17.1-times earnings, and Tencent is trading at 27.1-times earnings. In comparison, the NASDAQ Composite trades at 31.9-times 2021 earnings.   C. Fixed Income Why Are Bond Yields So Low Even Though Inflation Is So High? While global bond yields have moved higher in recent days, they remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Investors are understandably puzzled about how today’s high inflation rates can coexist with such low bond yields. Two explanations stand out: First, despite the recent uptick in inflation expectations, investors still believe inflation will come down and stay down (Chart 40). In fact, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s comfort zone, suggesting that investors expect inflation to ultimately undershoot the Fed’s target. Chart 40AInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (I) Chart 40BInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (II) Chart 41The Market Thinks The Fed Will Raise Rates Only To 2% Second, and related to the point above, investors believe that the neutral rate of interest is very low. According to the New York Fed’s survey of market participants, investors think that the Fed will not be able to raise rates above 2% during the forthcoming tightening cycle (Chart 41). This is even lower than the terminal rate of 2.5% that the Fed foresees. When the Federal Reserve first introduced the dot plot back in 2012, it believed the neutral rate was 4.25%. If the neutral rate really is this low, then monetary policy is not as hyperstimulative as is often asserted. In that case, a 10-year yield of 1.5% would be entirely appropriate given that it will take a few years for rates just to reach 2%. Indeed, an even lower yield could be justified on the grounds that there is a high probability that the economy will be hit by an adverse shock over the next decade, requiring a return to zero rates and more QE. Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration Our view is that the neutral rate is higher than most market participants believe. The end of the household deleveraging cycle in the US, structurally looser fiscal policy, and the exodus of well-paid baby boomers from the labor market will all deplete national savings, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. If a central bank underestimates the neutral rate, it is liable to keep interest rates too low for too long. This could cause inflation to rise more than anticipated, putting further upward pressure on bond yields. It will take some time for the market’s view to converge to our view (provided we are correct, of course!). Investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis hook, line, and sinker. Thus, they will require plenty of evidence that the Fed can raise rates without strangling the economy. We expect the US 10-year yield to move to 1.8% by early next year, warranting a moderately below-benchmark duration stance. US Treasuries have a higher beta than most other government bond markets (Chart 42). Treasury yields tend to rise more when global bond yields are moving higher and vice versa. Given our expectation that global growth will remain solidly above trend over the next 12 months, fixed-income investors should underweight high-beta bond markets such as the US and Canada, while overweighting the euro area and Japan. Chart 42US Treasuries Have A Higher Beta Than Most Other Government Bond Markets Chart 43High-Yield Spreads Are Pricing In A Default Rate Of More Than 3% Corporate Bonds: Favor High Yield Over Investment Grade BCA’s bond strategists see more upside for high-yield bonds than for investment grade. While high-yield spreads are quite tight, they are still pricing in a default rate of 3.15% (Chart 43). This is more than their fair-value default estimate of 2.3%-to-2.8%. It is also above the year-to-date realized default rate of 1.8%. Our bond team also sees USD-denominated EM corporate bonds as being attractively priced relative to domestic US investment-grade corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating.   D. Currencies And Commodities Fade Recent Dollar Strength The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). The US dollar has strengthened in recent weeks, spurred on by a more cautious tone to markets (the VIX is around 22, up from 16 in late August). As risk sentiment improves, the dollar will weaken. The composition of global growth also matters. Growth momentum is rotating from the US to the rest of the world. The dollar usually struggles when this happens (Chart 45). Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 45Growth Momentum Is Shifting Outside The US, Which Should Weigh On The Dollar Despite the uptick in US yields, short-term real rate differentials are heavily skewed against the dollar (Chart 46). The US trade deficit has surged over the past 16 months (Chart 47). Equity inflows have been financing the trade deficit, but these could tail off if US stocks start to lag their overseas peers. Chart 46Short-Term Real Rates Remain Skewed Against The Dollar Chart 47Widening Trade Deficit Is Dollar Bearish The US dollar remains pricey relative to its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measure of fair value (Chart 48). Speculators are also net long the dollar, making the dollar vulnerable to a positioning reversal (Chart 49). Chart 48The Dollar Is Expensive Based On PPP Chart 49Long Dollar Is Becoming A Crowded Trade Buy The Loonie Our favorite developed market currency going into the fourth quarter is the Canadian dollar. Unlike in most other major economies, Canadian growth has yet to peak. The Bank of Canada has been ahead of most other central banks in winding down QE and laying the groundwork for rate hikes. Chart 50Oil Prices To Remain Firm Firm oil prices should also help the loonie. One can be bullish on oil without expecting oil prices to rise very much. The oil curve is heavily backwardated (Chart 50). It suggests that the price of Brent will fall from $79 to $67 per barrel between now and the end of 2023. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent crude to average $75 and $80 per barrel in 2022 and 2023, respectively, with WTI trading $2-$4/bbl lower. The RMB Will Hold Its Ground We doubt that China will weaken the RMB in order to stimulate the economy. China’s export sector is already operating at peak capacity. A weaker currency would do little to boost output. Geopolitical concerns will also keep the yuan from depreciating. The trade relationship between China and the US remains frosty. A weaker yuan would only make matters worse. Perhaps more importantly, China wants the RMB to be a global reserve currency. Weakening the RMB would run counter to that goal. A New Supercycle In Metals? China consumes over half the world’s industrial metals. Thus, fluctuations in the Chinese economy tend to drive metals prices. There is a very strong correlation between the Chinese credit impulse and industrial metals prices (Chart 51). If Chinese credit growth picks up over the coming months, this should support metals. Aside from iron ore, it is quite striking that most metals prices have remained firm this year even as China has cut back imports (Chart 52). Copper prices are up 45% year-over-year despite the fact that Chinese imports of copper are down 40% during this period. Chart 51A Pickup In Chinese Credit Will Bode Well For Metals Chart 52China Cut Back On Imports Of Commodities This Year     As in the early 2000s, the combination of a multi-year period of underinvestment in new mining capacity and new sources of demand could set the stage for an extended bull market in the metals complex. The shift to electric vehicles will boost demand for many metals. The typical electric vehicle uses four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Many pundits argue that because Chinese growth is slowing, China will not need as much commodities as in the past. However, this argument ignores the fact that China is slowing from a very high base. As Chart 53 shows, China consumes five times as much industrial metals as it did in the 2000s. In absolute volume terms, China’s incremental annual increase in metal consumption is twice what it was in the 2000s. Thus, Chinese demand is likely to support the commodity market for years to come. Gold Facing Crosswinds Gold prices tend to correlate closely with real interest rates (Chart 54). This is not surprising since the real yield can be regarded as the “opportunity cost” of holding a yield-less asset such as gold. Chart 53Chinese Consumption Of Commodities Ballooned Over The Past Three Decades Chart 54Gold Prices Tend To Correlate Closely With Real Interest Rates What is somewhat surprising is that gold prices have dipped more than one would have expected based on the evolution of real yields. The US 10-year TIPS yield is only slightly higher than where it was in early August 2020, when the price of gold reached $2,067 per ounce. Although it is difficult to be certain, the shift in investor interest from gold to cryptos has probably depressed gold prices. Both gold and cryptos are seen as “fiat money hedges”. Our expectation is that tighter regulation will imperil the cryptocurrency market, causing some funds to flow back into gold. Nevertheless, with real yields likely to edge higher over the coming years, the upside for gold prices is limited.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores