Recession-Hard/Soft Landing

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary The Dollar Rises During Recessions At 106.5, the dollar DXY index is certainly pricing in a recession deeper than during the Covid-19 crisis. The dollar tends to rise during recessions and only peaks when a global economic recovery is in sight (Feature Chart). One caveat: contrary to conventional wisdom, US economic data is deteriorating relative to the rest of the world. Historically, that has been a negative for the greenback. The key question facing investors is if markets are entering a riot point. That is a high probability. Historically, high volatility supports the dollar. As such, our recommended stance on the dollar is neutral over the next few months. Our highest conviction bets are short EUR/JPY and long Swiss franc trades. Valuations tend to matter when most investors least expect them to. On this basis, we are negative the dollar on a 12-to-18 month time horizon. Place a limit sell on CHF/SEK at 10.76.   TRADES* INITIATION DATE PERCENT RETURNS Short EUR/JPY 2022-07-21 2.73% Bottom Line: Stand aside on the dollar for now. Continue to opportunistically play trades at the crosses. Short EUR/JPY bets make sense as a volatility hedge.   Chart 1Any Dollar Bears Left? In our conversations with clients, it is rare to find a dollar bear these days. One barometer is price action – the dollar DXY index is up 18% from its 2021 lows. More instructively, net long speculative positions are near a multi-decade high (Chart 1). In our meetings, we sense a specter of capitulation among fundamental dollar bears, as the macroeconomic environment becomes more uncertain. For chart enthusiasts, the DXY index staged a classic breakout, and the next technical level is closer to the 2002 highs near 120. We doubt the DXY index will hit this level, as significant headwinds are building. It is true that as markets increasingly price in the probability of a recession, especially in Europe, the dollar will be bought. But as we argue below, the dollar has already priced in a recession, deeper than was the case in 2020 (or admittedly, at any time since the end of the Bretton Woods system). This suggests that investors with a relatively benign economic backdrop should be fading any strength in the dollar. In other words, if your bet on a recession is low odds, fade dollar strength relatively to your colleagues. As such, our recommended stance on the dollar is neutral over the next few months, but bearish for investors with a longer-term horizon. For today, our highest conviction bets are short EUR/JPY and long Swiss franc trades. The US Dollar And Global Growth Chart 2The Dollar Tracks Global Growth There are many important drivers of the US dollar. One is the path for global growth. If global activity is going to slow meaningfully, then as a countercyclical currency, the dollar tends to rise in that environment. The dollar has been closely correlated (inversely) to the trend in global PMIs, industrial production, and other measures of global growth (Chart 2). Across the world, global growth is slowing (Chart 3). Most manufacturing PMIs in the developed world peaked in the middle of last year. In the developing world, China’s zero Covid-19 policy has nudged many PMIs close to the 50 boom/bust level. As a rule of thumb, you do not want to be short the greenback when global industrial activity is slowing. That is the bull case. Chart 3AGlobal Growth Is Slowing In Developed Markets Chart 3BGrowth Is Also Soft In Emerging Markets The good news for dollar bears is that most of this information is already priced in. Looking back at recessions since the 1970s, the dollar is pricing in one of the most anticipated slowdowns in history (Chart 4). This alone is not a reason to turn bearish on the greenback, but it is a red flag towards the consensus view. In general, currencies are a relative game. The dollar tends to rise 10%-to-15% during recessions. We are already there, with the DXY index up 18% since the 2021 lows. It is also important to gauge how the US is faring relative to the rest of the world. Quite simply, US economy economic activity is deteriorating vis-à-vis its trading partners. This is visible in the Citigroup economic surprise indices, but also via a simple chart of relative PMIs (Chart 5). Historically, that has been a negative for the greenback outside of recessions. Chart 4The Dollar Overshoots During Recessions Chart 5US Economic Momentum Is Deteriorating The US Dollar And Interest Rates The Fed hiked interest rates by 75bps this week. This was as expected but given what the Bank of Canada delivered on July 13th, a 100bps hike was a whisper number in our books. More importantly, interest rate differentials (real and nominal) are increasingly moving against the US. As we go to press, 10-year bond yields are 2.67% in the US, but 2.62% in Canada, 3.41% in New Zealand, and even 3.1% in Australia. Chart 6The Euro And Relative Interest Rates The key point is that the market consensus is centered around the Fed being the most hawkish central bank. That will face a critical test in the next few months, if the world enters a recession. This is especially true in the euro area. The market is pricing that interest rates in the eurozone will be 200bps lower next year, relative to the US (Chart 6). The historical spread between US and German 2-year yields has been 83 bps. If Europe indeed enters a deep recession, then that is already priced in the euro. If we get any green shoots in economic growth, then the euro is poised for a coiled-spring rebound. The market is also pricing in that US interest rates will peak next year, relative to other G10 economies (Chart 7). This could happen in one of two ways: The Fed turns more dovish and/or non-US growth loses steam, leading to lower interest rates outside the US. It is difficult to forecast how the economic scenario will evolve, but from an investor’s standpoint, the dollar has already overshot the level implied by relative interest rates (Chart 8). Chart 7US Short Real Yields Are Attractive Chart 8The Dollar Has Overshot Rate Fundamentals A Short Note On USD Valuations Valuations usually get little respect, especially over the last few years. The bull market in the dollar from 2011 to 2022 coincided with higher real interest rates in the US relative to the rest of the developed world. That said, a rising trade deficit (imports > exports) requires a lower exchange rate to boost competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, or less spending to reduce the trade deficit. Therefore, the natural adjustment mechanism for countries running wide trade deficits will have to be the exchange rate. Quite simply, rising deficits are a symptom of an overvalued exchange rate. Within a broad spectrum of developed and emerging market currencies, the US dollar is overvalued on a real effective exchange rate basis (Chart 9 and 10). While valuations tend to matter less until they trigger a tipping point, such inflections usually occur with a shift in animal spirits, especially when investors start to worry about huge external imbalances. Chart 9The Dollar Is Overvalued Chart 10The Dollar Is One Of The Most Expensive Currencies In the US, these imbalances are already starting to spark a shift. The US trade deficit has deteriorated. The basic balance in the US (the sum of the current account and foreign direct investment) is deteriorating. The dollar tends to decline on a multi-year basis when the basic balance peaks and starts deteriorating. It is remarkable that at a time when real rates are quite negative in the US, the dollar is the most overvalued in decades on a simple PPP model basis. This is a perfect mirror image of the dollar configuration at the start of the bull market in 2010, where the dollar was cheap and real rates were more supportive. According to economic theory, a currency should adjust to equalize returns across countries. In the early 80s, an expensive dollar was supported by very positive real rates. The subsequent dollar declines thereafter also coincided with falling real interest rates. If global growth shifts from relative strength in the US to overseas, interest rate differentials will tilt in favor of non-US markets. That will be solace for dollar bears. Conclusions In financial markets, it pays to be humble but also to be bold. Our recommended stance on the DXY (and by association, the euro and cable) is to stay on the sidelines. Our highest conviction trade is to short EUR/JPY. With the drop in commodity prices, resource-related currencies are becoming interesting, a topic we will discuss in upcoming bulletins. But momentum is your friend for now, which suggests prudence.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

The Global Investment Strategy service tactically downgraded equities in February but then upgraded them in May. The decision to upgrade equities to overweight in May was clearly premature, as stocks fell significantly in June. However, the rally in July has brought stocks back above the level where we upgraded them. Hence, we are using this opportunity to shift our recommended equity allocation back to neutral. While our base case forecast still foresees no recession in the US over the next 12 months, the risks to this view have increased. In Europe, we see a recession as more likely than not. China’s economy will remain under pressure due to Covid lockdowns, a shift in global spending away from manufactured goods, and a weakening property market. Even if the US avoids a recession, this could prove to be a bittersweet outcome for stocks: While earnings will hold up, the Fed is unlikely to cut rates next year, as markets are currently discounting. Real bond yields, which have already risen steeply this year, will rise further, weighing on equity valuations.  Time to Take Some Chips Off the Table The consensus view among investors these days seems to be that the US is heading into a recession (or may already be in one), which will cause stocks to fall during the remainder of the year as earnings estimates are slashed. Looking out to 2023, most investors expect stocks to recover as the Fed begins to cut rates. I have the opposite view. While the risks to growth have increased, the US will probably avoid a recession over the next 12 months. This will allow stocks to rise modestly from current levels into year-end. However, as we enter 2023, it will become obvious that the Fed has no reason to cut rates. This could cause stocks to give up some of their gains, thus producing a fairly flat profile for equities over a 12-month horizon. In past reports, we have argued that the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – is higher than widely believed in the US. The nice thing about a high neutral rate is that it insulates the economy from tighter monetary policy: Even if the Fed raises rates to 3.8% next year, as the dots are currently forecasting, that will only put rates in the middle of our fair value range of 3.5%-to-4% for the US neutral rate. The downside of a high neutral rate is that eventually, investors will need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. The 10-year TIPS yield has already increased from -0.97% at the start of the year to +0.36% today. It will rise to 1%-to-1.5% by the middle of 2023. A higher-than-expected neutral rate also raises inflation risks because it could cause the Fed to inadvertently keep monetary policy too loose. Inflation is likely to fall significantly over the coming months as supply-chain bottlenecks ease. However, this decline in inflation could sow the seeds of its own demise: As inflation falls, real wage growth – which is now negative – will turn positive. Rising real wages will booster consumer confidence and spending. A reacceleration in inflation in the second half of next year could prompt the Fed to start hiking rates again in late 2023, thus producing a recession not in 2022 but in 2024. Outside the US, the outlook is more challenging. In Europe, a recession is more likely than not in the second half of the year. We expect the recession to be fairly short-lived, with European governments moving aggressively to mitigate the fallout from gas shortages through various income support schemes for the private sector. Chinese growth should rebound in the second half of the year. However, the specter of future lockdowns, the shift in global spending away from manufactured goods towards services, and the weakening property sector will continue to weigh on activity. We will have much more to say about this view change early next week. In the meantime, please review our report from last week entitled “The Downside Of A Soft Landing” for further color on some of the points made in this short bulletin. Tomorrow, my colleague Ritika Mankar will be sending you a Special Report making the case that the US economy’s ability to spawn mega-sized companies may become increasingly compromised over the next decade.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn & Twitter.

Executive Summary Peak Fed Funds? The bond market is priced for a fed funds rate that will peak in February 2023 at 3.44% before trending down. We survey several interest rate cycle indicators and conclude that the market’s expected peak is too low and occurs too early. These indicators include: the unemployment rate, financial conditions, PMIs, the yield curve and housing starts. We also update our default rate forecast and are now looking for the default rate to rise to between 4.7% and 5.9% during the next 12 months. While our default rate forecasts imply a reasonably attractive 12-month junk bond valuation, we hesitate to turn too bullish on high-yield given that the next peak in the default rate is still not in sight. Bottom Line: We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being, though we will be looking for opportunities to reduce duration in the second half of this year. Similarly, we recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to junk bonds but will recommend reducing exposure if spreads rally back to average 2017-19 levels. Feature Last week’s report presented three conjectures about the US economy.1 One of those was that a recession will be required to get inflation back to 2%. But when will that recession occur? The question of timing is a vital one for bond investors. Are we on the cusp of recession right now? If so, then bond investors should extend portfolio duration in anticipation of Fed rate cuts and a return to 2% inflation. Conversely, if the recession is delayed, interest rates probably move higher before the cycle ends and investors should consider reducing portfolio duration. This week’s report addresses the topic of timing the next recession and discusses the implications for bond portfolio construction. Timing The Interest Rate Cycle From a bond market perspective, the question of whether the economy is in recession is less important than whether the Fed is hiking or cutting rates. Therefore, for the purposes of this report we will define a “recession” as an economic slowdown that is significant enough for the Fed to start cutting interest rates. Chart 1Peak Fed Funds? Now, let’s start by looking at what sort of interest rate cycle is priced in the market. The overnight index swap curve is currently discounting a peak fed funds rate of 3.44% (Chart 1). It is also priced for that peak to occur in 7 months, or by February 2023 (Chart 1, bottom panel). As bond investors, the question we must ask is whether this pricing seems reasonable. To do so, we will perform a survey of different indicators that have strong track records of sending signals near the peaks of interest rate cycles. Unemployment The first indicator we’ll look at is the unemployment rate. Economist Claudia Sahm has shown that a recession always occurs when the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate rises to 0.5% above its trailing 12-month minimum.2 Table 1 dispenses with the moving average and simply shows the deviation of the unemployment rate from its trailing 12-month minimum on the dates of first Fed rate cuts since 1990. We see that the Fed has typically started to cut rates once the unemployment rate is 0.3-0.4 percentage points off its low. The exception is 2019 when the unemployment rate was only 0.1% off its low, but when inflation was below the Fed’s 2% target. Table 1Unemployment And Inflation When The Fed Starts Easing At 3.6%, the unemployment rate is currently at its cycle low. Based on the numbers shown in Table 1, this means that we should only expect the Fed to cut interest rates if the unemployment rises to at least 3.9% or 4.0%. We say “at least” because it’s also important to note that the inflation picture is a lot different today than it was during the periods shown in Table 1. With inflation so much higher, it is reasonable to think that the Fed will tolerate a greater increase in the unemployment rate before pivoting to rate cuts. Looking ahead, initial unemployment claims appear to have bottomed for the cycle and changes in initial claims are highly correlated with changes in the unemployment rate (Chart 2). That said, the trend in claims is currently consistent with a leveling-off of the unemployment rate, not a large increase. Financial Conditions Second, we turn to financial conditions. Fed officials often assert that monetary policy works through its impact on broad financial conditions. Therefore, it’s not too surprising that rate cuts tend to occur only after the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index has moved into restrictive territory. Currently, despite the Fed’s dramatic hawkish shift, the index still shows financial conditions to be accommodative (Chart 3). Chart 2Jobless Claims Moving Higher Chart 3Financial Conditions   The same caveat we applied to the unemployment rate applies to financial conditions. As long as inflation is above the Fed’s target, it’s highly likely that the Fed will be comfortable with financial conditions that are somewhat restrictive. Therefore, the Fed may not pivot as soon as the Goldman Sachs index moves above 100, as has been the pattern in the recent past. Yield Curve Third, we note that an inverted Treasury curve almost always precedes the start of a Fed rate cut cycle, and the Treasury curve is certainly inverted today (Chart 4). The logic behind this indicator is somewhat circular in the sense that an inverted Treasury curve simply tells us that the market anticipates Fed rate cuts. If data emerge to suggest that Fed rate cuts will be postponed, then the Treasury curve could re-steepen. It’s for this reason that the Treasury curve often inverts well in advance of an economic recession and Fed rate cuts. We explored the relationship in more detail in a recent Special Report.3 Chart 4Interest Rate Cycle Indicators Chart 5Manufacturing PMIs PMIs Typically, the ISM Manufacturing PMI is below 50 by the time of the first Fed rate cut (Chart 4, panel 3). Currently, the ISM Manufacturing PMI is a healthy 53.0, but it has been falling quickly and trends in regional PMI surveys suggest that it will dip below 50 within the next few months (Chart 5). Interestingly, both the ISM and regional PMI surveys show that manufacturing supplier delivery times have come down a lot (Chart 5, panel 2). This gives some hope that goods inflation will trend lower during the next few months, as is our expectation. Recently, there’s also been an unusual divergence between the employment components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys. The New York and Philadelphia Fed surveys are showing strength in their employment components. Meanwhile, the ISM employment figure is below 50 (Chart 5, bottom panel). This divergence likely boils down to labor shortages that complicate how firms are responding to the employment question in the surveys. For example, despite the sub-50 employment figure, the latest ISM release noted that “an overwhelming majority of panelists […] indicate that their companies are hiring.”4 Housing In a recent report, we developed a rule of thumb that says that Fed rate cuts typically don’t occur until after the 12-month moving average of housing starts falls below the 24-month moving average.5 That indicator is coming down, but it still has a lot of breathing room before it dips into negative territory (Chart 4, bottom panel). That same report also outlined that we see the housing market slowdown proceeding in three stages. First, higher mortgage rates will suppress housing demand. This is already happening at a rapid pace as indicated by trends in mortgage purchase applications and existing home sales (Chart 6A). Second, lower housing demand will push up inventories and send prices lower. This has not yet shown up in the data (Chart 6B). Finally, once lower prices and higher inventories sufficiently disincentivize construction, we will see a marked deterioration in housing starts. Currently we see that housing starts have dipped, and homebuilder confidence has plummeted, but starts still haven’t decisively broken their uptrend (Chart 6C). Chart 6AHousing Demand Chart 6BPrices & Inventories Chart 6CBuilding Activity Putting It All Together To make sense of all the different indicators that could signal a Fed pivot toward rate cuts, we turn to our Fed Monitor. The Fed Monitor is a composite indicator that includes many of the individual indicators we have already examined in this report, as well as some others. The Fed Monitor is constructed so that a positive reading suggests that the Fed should be hiking rates and a negative reading suggests the Fed should be cutting rates. As can be seen in Chart 7, the Monitor is currently deep in positive territory. Chart 7Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Money The Fed Monitor consists of three main sub-components, an economic growth component, an inflation component and a financial conditions component (Chart 7, bottom 3 panels). We see that the economic growth component of the Monitor is consistent with a neutral Fed policy stance – neither hikes nor cuts - and financial conditions point to a mildly restrictive stance. However, unsurprisingly, the inflation component is the highest it has been since the early-1980s and this is applying a ton of upward pressure to the Monitor. While our Fed Monitor is not a perfect indicator, it does speak to the tradeoff between inflation and economic growth that we have already hinted at in this report. Specifically, the Monitor illustrates that as long as inflation remains elevated it will take a significant deterioration in economic growth and financial conditions before the overall Monitor recommends a dovish Fed pivot. To us, this argues for a higher and later peak in the fed funds rate than is currently priced in the curve. Bottom Line: The peak fed funds rate that is currently priced in the market for 2023 is too low, and the funds rate will also likely peak later than what is priced in the curve. That said, falling inflation and economic growth concerns will probably keep a lid on bond yields during the next few months. We advise investors to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being, but to look for opportunities to reduce exposure. We will consider reducing our recommended portfolio duration stance to ‘below-benchmark’ if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation reverts to our estimate of its 4%-5% underlying trend. Timing The Default Rate Cycle The interest rate cycle is not the only important one for bond investors. The default rate cycle is also crucial for spread product allocations because default trends are responsible for a significant amount of the volatility in corporate bond spreads. In this section we consider the outlook for corporate defaults and high-yield bond performance. We model the trailing 12-month speculative grade default rate using gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) and C&I lending standards (Chart 8). Conservatively, if we assume 5% corporate debt growth for the next 12 months and corporate profit growth of between -10% and -20%, our model projects that the default rate will rise to between 4.7% and 5.9% (Chart 8, top panel). It’s notable that, like us, banks are also preparing for an increase in corporate defaults by raising their loan loss provisions (Chart 8, panel 2). Meanwhile, job cut announcements – another reliable indicator of corporate defaults – still don’t point to a higher default rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8The Default Rate Has Troughed Interestingly, our model’s conservative projections suggest that in 12 months the default rate will be lower than its typical recession peak. Given today’s cheap junk valuations, this sort of analysis is encouraging a lot of people to turn bullish on high-yield bonds. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread This line of reasoning is not totally unfounded. Using the same forecasted default rate scenarios from Chart 8 along with an assumed 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, we calculate that the excess spread available in the junk index after subtracting 12-month default losses is between 136 bps and 208 bps. This is below the historical average (Chart 9), but still above the 100 bps threshold that often delineates between junk bond outperformance and underperformance versus duration-matched Treasuries.6 More specifically, Chart 10 shows the relationship between our default-adjusted spread and high-yield excess returns versus Treasuries for each calendar year going back to 1995. We see that, in general, there is a positive relationship between spread and returns and that excess returns are more often positive than negative whenever the default-adjusted spread is above 100 bps. However, Chart 10 also shows periods when a pure analysis of junk bond performance based on the 12-month default-adjusted spread didn’t pan out. The year 2008 is a prime example. The default-adjusted spread came in at 249 bps for 2008, above the historical average. However, junk spreads widened dramatically in 2008 and excess returns were dismal. Chart 10The Default-Adjusted Spread And High-Yield Returns The reason the default-adjusted spread valuation framework failed in 2008 is that while the default rate only moved up to 4.9% in 2008, it wasn’t done increasing for the cycle. In fact, the rise in the default rate accelerated in 2009 until it hit 14.6% in November of that year. So, while default losses were low compared to the starting index spread in 2008, junk index spreads widened sharply in 2008 as the market prepared for worse default losses in 2009. The lesson we draw from the 2008 example is that even if the junk bond market is attractively priced relative to expected default losses on a 12-month horizon, unless we can forecast a peak in the default rate it is unwise to be overly bullish on high-yield bonds. Even if a recession doesn’t occur within the next 6-12 months, it will likely occur within the next 12-24 months. In that environment, investors are unlikely to realize the full potential of today’s attractive 12-month junk bond valuations. Chart 11Junk Spreads The bottom line is that we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield within US fixed income portfolios for now. Junk spreads are elevated compared to past rate hike cycles and could tighten during the next few months as inflation converges to its underlying 4%-5% trend. That said, we will not turn outright bullish on junk bonds until we can reasonably forecast a peak in the default rate. In the meantime, a sell on strength strategy is more appropriate. We will reduce our recommended allocation to high-yield bonds if the average index spread tightens to its average 2017-19 level (Chart 11) or once inflation converges with its underlying 4%-5% trend. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Conjectures About The US Economy”, dated July 19, 2022. 2     https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Sahm_web_20190506.pdf 3    Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. 4    https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/reports/ism… 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 6    For a more complete analysis of the link between the default-adjusted spread and excess high-yield returns please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds,” dated April 12, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary The odds of a recession in the US are lower than widely perceived. The probability of a recession is higher in Europe, although this week’s partial resumption of gas flows through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, along with increased use of coal-fired power plants, should soften the blow. Chinese growth should rebound in the second half of the year. However, the specter of future lockdowns, the shift in global spending away from manufactured goods towards services, and the weakening property sector will continue to weigh on activity. With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, it is increasingly likely that the authorities will open up a firehose of stimulus. Fading recession risks will buoy stocks in the near term. However, a brighter economic outlook also means that the Fed, and several other central banks, may see little need to cut policy rates in 2023, as the markets are currently discounting. The end result is that government bond yields will rise from current levels, implying that stock valuations will not return to last year’s levels even if a recession is averted. After Rapidly Raising Rates, Markets Expect Some DM Central Banks To Start Easing Next Year Bottom Line: We recommend a modest overweight on global equities for now but would turn neutral if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050.   Dear Client, I am delighted to announce that Ritika Mankar, CFA, has joined the Global Investment Strategy team. Ritika will be writing occasional special reports on a variety of topical issues. Next week, she will make the case that the US economy’s ability to spawn mega-sized companies may become increasingly compromised over the next decade. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist The Case for a Soft Landing in the US Chart 1Cyclicals Underperformed Defensives As Recession Risks Intensified Over the last few months, investors have become concerned that the Fed and many other central banks will need to engineer a recession in order to bring inflation down to more comfortable levels. While these fears have abated over the past trading week, they still continue to dominate market action (Chart 1). We place the odds of a US recession at about 40%. This is arguably more optimistic than the consensus view. According to Bank of America, the majority of fund managers saw recession as likely in this month’s survey. Not surprisingly, investors consider recession to be a major risk for equities over the next 12 months (Chart 2). Chart 2Many Investors Now See Recession As Baked In The Cake Even if a recession does occur, we have contended that it will likely be a mild one, perhaps so mild that it will be difficult to distinguish it from a soft landing. A number of things make a soft landing in the US more probable than in the past: Labor supply has scope to increase. The labor participation rate is still 1.2 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, two-thirds of which is due to decreased participation among workers under the age of 55 (Chart 3). The share of workers holding multiple jobs is also below its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4). The number of multiple job holders has been rising briskly lately. That is one reason why job growth in the payroll survey – which double counts workers if they hold more than one job – has been stronger than job growth in the household survey. Increased labor supply would obviate the need for the Fed to take drastic actions to curtail labor demand in its effort to restore balance to the labor market. Chart 3Labor Supply Has Scope To Rise Chart 4The Number Of Multiple Job Holders Is Still Below Pre-Pandemic Levels A high level of job openings creates a moat around the labor market. There are almost two times as many job openings as there are unemployed workers in the US (Chart 5). Many firms are likely to pull job openings before they cut jobs in response to a slowing economy. A high level of job openings will also allow workers who lose their jobs to find employment more quickly than usual, thus limiting the rise in so-called frictional unemployment. It is worth noting that the job openings rate has declined from a record 7.3% in March to a still-high 6.9% in May, with no change in the unemployment rate over this period. Chart 5A High Level Of Job Openings Creates A Moat Around The Labor Market A steep Phillips curve implies that only a modest increase in unemployment may be necessary to knock down inflation towards the Fed’s target. Just as was the case in the 1960s, the Phillips curve has proven to be kinked near full employment (Chart 6). Unlike in the late 1960s, however, when rising realized inflation caused long-term inflation expectations to reset higher, expectations have remained well anchored this time around (Chart 7). Chart 6The Phillips Curve Is Kinked At Very Low Levels Of Unemployment Chart 7Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Well Anchored   The unwinding of pandemic and war-related dislocations should push down inflation. A recent study by the San Francisco Fed estimates that about half of May’s PCE inflation print was the result of supply-side disturbances (Chart 8). While the ongoing war in Ukraine and the threat of another Covid wave in China will continue to unsettle global supply chains, these problems should fade over time. Falling inflation would allow real wages to start rising again. This would bolster confidence, making a soft landing more likely (Chart 9). Chart 8Supply Factors Explain Half Of The Increase In Prices Over The Past Year Chart 9Positive Real Wage Growth Will Bolster Consumer Confidence A lack of major financial imbalances makes the US economy more resilient to economic shocks. As a share of disposable income, US household debt is 34 percentage points below its 2008 peak (Chart 10). Relative to net worth, household debt is at multi-decade lows. About two-thirds of mortgages carry a FICO score above 760 compared to only one-third during the housing bubble (Chart 11). Non-mortgage consumer credit also remains in good shape, as my colleague Doug Peta elaborated in this week’s US Investment Strategy report. While corporate debt has risen over the past decade, the ratio of corporate debt-to-assets today is still below where it was during the 1990s. Moreover, thanks to stronger corporate profitability, the interest coverage ratio is near an all-time high (Chart 12).   Chart 10AUS Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (I) Chart 10BUS Household Debt Is Not Especially High Anymore (II) Chart 11FICO Scores For Residential Mortgages Have Improved Considerably Since The Pre-GFC Housing Bubble Chart 12Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Decent Shape Chart 13Tight Supply Limits The Downside Risks To Housing Just like the US does not suffer from major financial imbalances, it does not suffer from any major economic imbalances either. The homeowner vacancy rate is near a record low, which should put a floor under residential investment (Chart 13). Outside of investment in intellectual property, which is not especially sensitive to the business cycle, nonresidential investment is still below pre-pandemic levels and not much above where it was as a share of GDP during the Great Recession (Chart 14). Spending on consumer durable goods has retraced four-fifths of its pandemic surge, with little ill-effect on aggregate employment (Chart 15). Chart 14Outside Of IP, Nonresidential Investment Is Still Low Chart 15Spending On Durable Goods Has Been Normalizing Without Derailing The Economy Europe: A Deep Freeze Will Likely Be Avoided Chart 16Russia Can Potentially Cause Significant Economic Damage In The EU If It Closes The Taps The macroeconomic picture is less benign outside the US. Four years ago, German diplomats laughed off warnings that their country had become dangerously dependent on Russian energy. They are not laughing anymore. German industry, just like industry across much of Europe, is facing a major energy crunch. The IMF estimates that output losses associated with a full Russian gas shutoff over the next 12 months could amount to as much as 2.7% of GDP in the EU (Chart 16). In Central and Eastern Europe, output could shrink by 6%. Among the major economies, Germany and Italy are the most at risk. Fortunately, Europe is finally stepping up to the challenge. The highly ambitious REPowerEU plan seeks to displace two-thirds of Russian gas by the end of 2022. The plan does not include any additional energy that could be generated by increased usage of coal-fired power plants, a strategy that the European political establishment (including the German Green Party!) has only recently begun to champion. It is possible that EU leaders felt the need to generate a crisis mentality to justify the decision to burn more coal. Dire warnings about how Europe is prepared to ration gas also send a message to Russia that the EU is ready to suffer in order to thwart Putin’s despotic regime. Whether Europe actually follows through is a different story. It is worth noting that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline resumed operations this week after Germany received, over Ukrainian objections, a repaired turbine from Canada. The resumption of partial flows through the pipeline, along with increased fiscal support for households and firms, reduces the risks of a “deep freeze” recession in Europe. The unveiling of the ECB’s new Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) this week should also help anchor sovereign credit spreads across the euro area. While the exact conditions under which the TPI will be engaged have yet to be fleshed out, we expect the terms to be fairly liberal, reflecting not only the lessons learned from last decade’s euro debt crisis, but also to serve as a powerful bulwark against Putin’s efforts to destabilize the EU economy. China: Government’s Growth Target Looks Increasingly Unrealistic Stronger growth in China would help European exporters (Chart 17). Chinese real GDP grew by just 0.4% in the second quarter from a year earlier as the economy was battered by Covid lockdowns. Activity should pick up in the second half of the year, but at this point, the government’s 5.5% growth target looks completely unachievable. The specter of future lockdowns, the shift in global spending away from manufactured goods towards services, and the weakening Chinese property sector are all weighing on the economy (Chart 18). Chart 17European Exporters Would Welcome A Stronger Chinese Economy The authorities will likely seek to stimulate the economy by allowing local governments to bring forward $220 billion in bond issuance that had been originally slated for 2023. The problem is that land sales – the main source of local government revenue – have collapsed. Worried about the ability of local governments to service their obligations, both retail investors and banks have shied away from buying local government debt. Chart 18A Slowing Property Market And Covid Lockdowns Have Been Weighing On The Chinese Economy Meanwhile, the inability of property developers to secure adequate financing to complete construction projects has left a growing number of home buyers in the lurch. In most cases, these properties were purchased off-the-plan. Understandably, home buyers have balked at the prospect of having to make mortgage payments on properties that they do not possess.  With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, it is increasingly likely that the authorities will open up a firehose of stimulus, including increased assistance for property developers and banks, as well as income-support measures for households. While such measures will not address China’s myriad structural problems, they will help keep the economy afloat. Equity Valuations in a Soft-Landing Scenario A few weeks ago, the consensus view was that stocks would tumble in the second half of the year as the global economy fell into recession but would then rally in 2023 as central banks began lowering rates. We argued the opposite, namely that stocks would likely rebound in the second half of the year as the economy outperformed expectations but would then face renewed pressure in 2023 as it became clear that the Fed and several other central banks had no reason to cut rates (Chart 19). Chart 19After Rapidly Raising Rates, Markets Expect Some DM Central Banks To Start Easing Next Year Chart 20Real Rates Have Jumped This Year In a baseline scenario where a recession is averted, we argued that the S&P 500 could rise to 4,500 (60% odds). In contrast, we noted that the S&P 500 could fall to 3,500 in a mild recession scenario (30% odds) and to 2,900 in a deep recession scenario (10% odds). It is worth stressing that even at 4,500, the S&P 500 would still be 11% lower in real terms than it was on January 4th. At the stock market’s peak in January, the 10-year TIPS yield stood at -0.91%, while the 30-year TIPS yield stood at -0.27%. Today, they stand at 0.58% and 0.93%, respectively (Chart 20). If real rates do not return to their prior lows, it is unlikely that equity valuations will return to their prior highs. This limits the upside for stocks, even in a soft-landing scenario. The sharp rally in stocks over the past week has priced out some of this recession risk, moving equity valuations closer towards what we regard as fair value. As we noted last week, we will turn neutral on equities if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050. As we go to press, we are only 1.3% from that level.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on         LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores    

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary The TIPS Market Foresees A Sharp Deceleration In Inflation TIPS breakevens are pointing to a rapid decline in US inflation over the next two years. If the TIPS are right, the Fed will not need to raise rates faster than what is already discounted over the next six months. Falling inflation will allow real wages to start rising again. This will bolster consumer confidence, making a recession less likely. The surprising increase in analyst EPS estimates this year partly reflects the contribution of increased energy profits and the fact that earnings are expressed in nominal terms while economic growth is usually expressed in real terms. Nevertheless, even a mild recession would probably knock down operating earnings by 15%-to-20%. While a recession in the US is not our base case, it is for Europe. A European recession is likely to be short-lived with the initial shock from lower Russian gas flows counterbalanced by income-support measures and ramped-up spending on energy infrastructure and defense. We are setting a limit order to buy EUR/USD at 0.981. Bottom Line: Stocks lack an immediate macro driver to move higher, but that driver should come in the form of lower inflation prints starting as early as next month. Investors should maintain a modest overweight to global equities. That said, barring any material developments, we would turn neutral on stocks if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050. US CPI Surprises to the Upside… Again        Investors hoping for some relief on the inflation front were disappointed once again this week. The US headline CPI rose 1.32% month-over-month in June, above the consensus of 1.1%. Core inflation increased to 0.71%, surpassing consensus estimates of 0.5%. The key question is how much of June’s report is “water under the bridge” and how much is a harbinger of things to come. Since the CPI data for June was collected, oil prices have dropped to below $100/bbl. Nationwide gasoline prices have fallen for four straight weeks, with the futures market pointing to further declines in the months ahead. Agriculture and metals prices have swooned. Used car prices are heading south. Wage growth has slowed to about 4% from around 6.5% in the second half of last year. The rate of change in the Zillow rent index has rolled over, albeit from high levels (Chart 1). The Zumper National Rent index is sending a similar message as the Zillow data.  All this suggests that inflation may be peaking. The TIPS market certainly agrees. It is discounting a rapid decline in US inflation over the next few years. This week’s inflation report did little to change that fact (Chart 2). Chart 1Some Signs That Inflation Has Peaked Chart 2Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly Over The Next Few Years TIPS Still Siding with Team Transitory If the TIPS market is right, this would have two important implications. First, the Fed would not need to raise rates more quickly over the next six months than the OIS curve is currently discounting (although it probably would not need to cut rates in 2023 either, given our higher-than-consensus view of where the US neutral rate lies) (Chart 3). The second implication is that real wages, which have declined over the past year, will start rising again as inflation heads lower. Falling real wages have sapped consumer confidence. As real wage growth turns positive, confidence will improve, helping to bolster consumer spending (Chart 4). To the extent that consumption accounts for nearly 70% of the US economy – and other components of GDP such as investment generally take their cues from consumer spending – this would significantly raise the odds of a soft landing.  Chart 3The Fed Is Signaling That It Will Raise Rates To Almost 4% In 2023 Chart 4Positive Real Wage Growth Will Provide A Boost To Consumer Confidence Chart 5Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well Anchored Of course, the TIPS market could be wrong. Bond traders do not set prices and wages. Businesses and workers, interacting with each other, ultimately determine the direction of inflation. Yet, the view of the TIPS market is broadly in sync with the view of most households and businesses. Expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey has risen since the pandemic began, but at about 3%, it is close to where it was for most of the period between 1995 and 2015 (Chart 5). As we pointed out in our recently published Third Quarter Strategy Outlook, and as I discussed in last week’s webcast, the fact that long-term inflation expectations are well anchored implies that the sacrifice ratio – the amount of output that must be forgone to bring down inflation by a given amount — may be quite low. This also raises the odds of a soft landing. Investors Now See Recession as the Base Case Our relatively sanguine view of the US economy leaves us in the minority camp. According to recent polling, more than 70% of US adults expect the economy to be in recession by year-end. Within the investment community, nearly half of retail traders and three-quarters of high-level asset allocators expect a recession within the next 12 months (Chart 6). Chart 6Many Investors Now See Recession As Baked In The Cake Reflecting the downbeat mood among investors, bears exceeded bulls by 20 points in the most recent weekly poll by the American Association of Individual Investors (Chart 7). A record low percentage of respondents in the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations believes stocks will rise over the next year (Chart 8). Chart 7Bears Exceed The Bulls By A Wide Margin Chart 8Households Are Pessimistic On Stocks Resilient Earnings Estimates Admittedly, while sentiment on the economy and the stock market has soured, analyst earnings estimates have yet to decline significantly. In fact, in both the US and the euro area, EPS estimates for 2022 and 2023 are higher today than they were at the start of the year (Chart 9). What’s going on? Part of the explanation reflects the sectoral composition of earnings. In the US, earnings estimates for 2022 are up 2.4% so far this year. Outside of the energy sector, however, 2022 earnings estimates are down 2.2% year-to-date and down 2.9% from their peak in February (Chart 10). Chart 9US And European EPS Estimates Are Up Year-To-Date Another explanation centers on the fact that earnings estimates are expressed in nominal terms while GDP growth is usually expressed in real terms. When inflation is elevated, the difference between real and nominal variables can be important. For example, while US real GDP contracted by 1.6% in Q1, nominal GDP rose by 6.6%. Gross Domestic Income (GDI), which conceptually should equal GDP but can differ due to measurement issues, rose by 1.8% in real terms and by a whopping 10.2% in nominal terms in Q1. Chart 10Soaring Energy Prices Have Boosted Earnings Estimates How Much Bad News Has Been Discounted? Historically, stocks have peaked at approximately the same time as forward earnings estimates have reached their apex. This time around, stocks have swooned well in advance of any cut to earnings estimates (Chart 11). At the time of writing, the S&P 500 was down 25% in real terms from its peak on January 3. Chart 11Unlike In Past Cycles, Stocks Peaked Well Before Earnings This suggests that investors have already discounted some earnings cuts, even if analysts have yet to pencil them in. Consistent with this observation, two-thirds of investors in a recent Bloomberg poll agreed that analysts were “behind the curve” in responding to the deteriorating macro backdrop (Chart 12). Chart 12Most Investors Expect Analyst Earnings Estimates To Come Down Nevertheless, it is likely that stocks would fall further if the economy were to enter a recession. Even in mild recessions, operating profits have fallen by about 15%-to-20% (Chart 13). That is probably a more severe outcome than the market is currently discounting. Chart 13Even A Mild Recession Could Significantly Knock Down Earnings Estimates Subjectively, we would expect the S&P 500 to drop to 3,500 over the next 12 months in a mild recession scenario where growth falls into negative territory for a few quarters (30% odds) and to 2,900 in a deep recession scenario where the unemployment rate rises by more than four percentage points from current levels (10% odds). On the flipside, we would expect the S&P 500 to rebound to 4,500 in a scenario where a recession is completely averted (60% odds). A probability-weighted average of these three scenarios produces an expected total return of 8.3% (Table 1). This is enough to warrant a modest overweight to stocks, but just barely. Barring any material developments, we would turn neutral on stocks if the S&P 500 were to rise above 4,050. Table 1A Scenario Analysis For The S&P 500 What’s the Right Framework for Thinking About a European Recession? Whereas we would assign 40% odds to a recession in the US over the next 12 months, we would put the odds of a recession in Europe at around 60%. With a recession in Europe looking increasingly probable, a key question is what the nature of this recession would be. The pandemic may provide a useful framework for answering that question. Just as the pandemic represented an external shock to the global economy, the disruption to energy supplies, stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, represents an external shock to the European economy. In the initial phase of the pandemic, economic activity in developed economies collapsed as millions of workers were forced to isolate at home. Over the following months, however, the proliferation of work-from-home practices, the easing of lockdown measures, and ample fiscal support permitted growth to recover. Eventually, vaccines became available, which allowed for a further shift to normal life. Just as it took about two years for vaccines to become widely deployed, it will take time for Europe to wean itself off its dependence on Russian natural gas. Earlier this year, the IEA reckoned that the EU could displace more than a third of Russian gas imports within a year. The more ambitious REPowerEU plan foresees two-thirds of Russian gas being displaced by the end of 2022. In the meantime, some Russian gas will be necessary. Canada’s decision over Ukrainian objections to return a repaired turbine to Germany for use in the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline suggests that a full cutoff of Russian gas flows is unlikely. Chart 14The Euro Is 26% Undervalued Against The Dollar Based On PPP During the pandemic, governments wasted little time in passing legislation to ease the burden on households and businesses. The European energy crunch will elicit a similar response. Back when I worked at the IMF, a common mantra in designing lending programs was that one should “finance temporary shocks but adjust to permanent ones.” The current situation Europe is a textbook example for the merits of providing income support to the private sector, financed by temporarily larger public deficits. The ECB’s soon-to-be-launched “anti-fragmentation” program will allow the central bank to buy the government debt of Italy and other at-risk sovereign borrowers without the need for a formal European Stability Mechanism (ESM) program, provided that the long-term debt profile of the borrowers remains sustainable. Get Ready to Buy the Euro All this suggests that Europe could see a fairly brisk rebound after the energy crunch abates. If the euro area recovers quickly, the euro – which is now about as undervalued against the dollar as anytime in its history (Chart 14) – will soar. With that in mind, we are setting a limit order to buy EUR/USD at 0.981.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on  LinkedIn & Twitter   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary China's Unemployment Over the past week we have been visiting clients along the US west coast. In this report we hit some of the highlights from the most important and frequently asked questions. Xi Jinping is seizing absolute power just as the country’s decades-long property boom turns to bust. He will stimulate the economy but Chinese stimulus is less effective than it used to be. The US and Israel are underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, the Middle East will begin to unravel again. The UK’s domestic instability is returning, with Scotland threatening to leave the union. Brexit, the pandemic, and inflation make a Scottish referendum a more serious risk than in the past. Shinzo Abe’s assassination makes him a martyr for a vision of Japan as a “normal country” – i.e. one that is not pacifist but capable of defending itself. Japan’s rearmament, like Germany’s, points to the decline of the WWII peace settlement and the return of great power competition. Bottom Line: Investors need a new global balance to be achieved through US diplomacy with Russia, China, and Iran. That is not forthcoming, as the chief nations face instability at home and a stagflationary global economy. Feature The world is becoming less stable as stagflation combines with great power competition. Global uncertainty is through the roof. From a macroeconomic perspective, investors need to know whether central banks can whip inflation without triggering a recession. From a geopolitical perspective, investors need to know whether Russia’s conflict with the West will expand, whether US-China and US-Iran tensions will escalate in a damaging way, and whether domestic political rotations in the US and China this fall will lead to more stable and productive economies. China: What Will Happen At The Communist Party Reshuffle? General Secretary Xi Jinping will cement another five-to-10 years in power while promoting members of his faction into key positions on the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. By December Xi will roll out a pro-growth strategy for 2023 and the government will signal that it will start relaxing Covid-19 restrictions. But China’s structural problems ensure that this good news for global growth will only have a fleeting effect. China’s governance is shifting from single-party rule to single-person rule. It is also shifting from commercially focused decentralization to national security focused centralization. Xi has concentrated power in himself, in the party, and in Beijing at the expense of political opponents, the private economy, and outlying regions like Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang. The subordination of Taiwan is the next major project, ensuring that China will ally with Russia and that the US and China cannot repair or deepen their economic partnership. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyWill China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Xi and the Communist Party began centralizing political power and economic control shortly after the Great Recession. At that time it became clear that a painful transition away from export manufacturing and close relations with the United States was necessary. The transition would jeopardize China’s long-term economic, social, political, and geopolitical stability. The Communist Party believed it needed to revive strongman leadership (autocracy) rather than pursuing greater liberalization that would ultimately increase the odds of political revolution (democratization). The Xi administration has struggled to manage the country’s vast debt bubble, given that total debt standing has surged to 287% of GDP. The global pandemic forced the government to launch another large stimulus package, which it then attempted to contain. Corporate and household deleveraging ensued. The property and infrastructure boom of the past three decades has stalled, as the regime has imposed liquidity and capital requirements on banks and property developers to try to avoid a financial crisis. Regulatory tightening occurred in other sectors to try to steer investment into government-approved sectors and reduce the odds of technological advancement fanning social dissent. China’s draconian “zero Covid” policy sought to limit the disease’s toll, improve China’s economic self-reliance, and eliminate the threat of social protest during the year of the twentieth party congress. But it also slammed the brakes on growth. China is highly vulnerable to social instability for both structural and cyclical reasons. Chinese social unrest was our number one “Black Swan” for this year and it is now starting to take shape in the form of angry mortgage owners across the country refusing to make mortgage payments on houses that were pre-purchased but not yet built and delivered (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Mortgage Payment Boycott The mortgage payment boycott is important because it is stemming from the outstanding economic and financial imbalance – the property sector – and because it is a form of cross-regional social organization, which the Communist Party will disapprove. There are other social protests emerging, including low-level bank runs, which must be monitored very closely. Local authorities will act quickly to stop the spread of the mortgage boycott. But unhappy homeowners will be a persistent problem due to the decline of the property sector and industry. China’s property sector looks uncomfortably like the American property sector ahead of the 2006-08 bust. Prices for existing homes are falling while new house prices are on the verge of falling (Chart 2). While mortgages only make up 15% of bank assets, and household debt is only 62% of GDP, households are no longer taking on new debt (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Falling Property Prices​​​​​​ Chart 3China's Property Crisis​​​​​​ Chart 4China's Unemployment Most likely China’s property sector is entering the bust phase that we have long expected – if not, then the reason will be a rapid and aggressive move by authorities to expand monetary and fiscal stimulus and loosen economic restrictions. That process of broad-based easing – “letting 100 flowers bloom” – will not fully get under way until after the party congress, say in December. Unemployment is rising across China as the economy slows, another point of comparison with the United States ahead of the 2008 property collapse (Chart 4). Unemployment is a manipulated statistic so real conditions are likely worse. There is no more important indicator. China’s government will be forced to ease policy, creating a positive impact on global growth in 2023, but the impact will be fleeting. Bottom Line: The underlying debt-deflationary context will prevail before long in China, weighing on global growth and inflation expectations on a cyclical basis. Middle East: Why Did Biden Go And What Will He Get? President Biden traveled to Israel and now Saudi Arabia because he wants Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab members of OPEC to increase oil production to reduce gasoline prices at the pump for Americans ahead of the midterm elections (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia True, fears of recession are already weighing on prices, but Biden embarked on this mission before the growth slowdown was fully appreciated and he is not going to lightly abandon the anti-inflation fight before the midterm election. Biden also went because one of his top foreign policy priorities – the renegotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – is falling apart. The Iranians do not want to freeze their nuclear program because they want regime survival and security. While Biden is offering a return to the 2015 deal, the conditions that produced the deal are no longer applicable: Russia and China are not cooperating with the US and EU to isolate Iran. Russia is courting Iran, oil prices are high and sanction enforcement is weak (unlike 2015). The Iranians now know, after the Trump administration, that they cannot trust the Americans to give credible security guarantees that will last across parties and administrations. The war in Ukraine also underscores the weakness of diplomatic security guarantees as opposed to a nuclear deterrent. Hence the joint US and Israeli declaration that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The good news is that this kind of joint statement is precisely what needed to occur – the underscoring of the red line – to try to change Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s calculus regarding his drive to achieve nuclear breakout. In 2015 Khamenei gave diplomacy a chance to try to improve the economy, stave off social unrest, prepare the way for his eventual leadership succession process, and secure the Islamic Republic. The bad news is that Khamenei probably cannot make the same decision this time, as the hawkish faction now runs his government, the Americans are unreliable, and Russia and China are offering an alternative strategic orientation. The Saudis will pump more oil if necessary to save the global business cycle but not at the beck and call of a US president. The drop in oil prices reduces their urgency. The Americans can reassure the Saudis and Israel as long as the deal with Iran is not going forward. That looks to be the case. But then the US and Israel will have to undertake joint actions to underline their threat to Iran – and Iran will have to threaten to stage attacks across the region so as to deter any attack. Bottom Line: If a US-Iran deal does not materialize at the last minute, Middle Eastern instability will revive and a new source of oil supply constraint will plague the global economy. We continue to believe a US-Iran deal is unlikely, with only 40% odds of happening. Europe: Will Russia Turn Back On The Natural Gas? Russia’s objective in cutting off European natural gas is to inflict a recession on Europe. It wants a better bargaining position on strategic matters. Therefore we assume Russia will continue to squeeze supplies from now through the winter, when European demand rises and Russian leverage will peak. If Russia allows some flow to return, then it will be part of the negotiating process and will not preclude another cutoff before winter. It is possible that Russia is merely giving Europe a warning and will revert back to supplying natural gas. The problem is that Russia’s purpose is to achieve a strategic victory in Ukraine and in negotiations over NATO’s role in the Nordic countries. Russia has not achieved these goals, so natural gas cutoff will likely continue. Russia also hopes that by utilizing its energy leverage – while it still has it – it will bring forward the economic pain of Europe’s transition away from reliance on Russian energy. In that case European countries will experience recession and households will begin to change their view of the situation. European governments will be more likely to change their policies, to become more pragmatic and less confrontational toward Russia. Or European governments will be voted out of power and do the same thing. Other states could join Hungary in saying that Europe should never impose a full natural gas embargo on Russia. Russia would be able to salvage some of its energy trade with Europe over the long run, despite the war in Ukraine and the inevitable European energy diversification. In recent months we highlighted Italy as the weakest link in the European chain and the country most likely to see such a shift in policy occur. Italy’s national unity coalition had lost its reason for being, while the combination of rising bond yields and natural gas prices weighed on the economy. The Italian bond spread over German bunds has long served as our indicator of European political stress – and it is spiking now, forcing the European Central Bank to rush to plan an anti-fragmentation strategy that would theoretically enable it to tighten monetary policy while preventing an Italian debt crisis (Chart 6). The European Union remains unlikely to break up – Russian aggression was always one of our chief arguments for why the EU would stick together. But Italy will undergo a recession and an election (due by June 2023 but that could easily happen this fall), likely producing a new government that is more pragmatic with regard to Russia so as to reduce the energy strain. Chart 6Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy’s political turmoil shows that European states are feeling the energy crisis and will begin to shift policies to reduce the burden on households. Households will lose their appetite for conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukrainians, especially if Russia begins offering a ceasefire after completing its conquest of the Donetsk area. If Russia expands its invasion, then Europe will expand sanctions and the risk of further strategic instability will go up. But most likely Russia will seek to quit while it is ahead and twist Europe’s arm into foisting a ceasefire onto Ukraine. Bottom Line: A change of government in Italy will increase the odds that the EU will engage in diplomacy with Russia in the coming year, if Russia offers, so as to reach a new understanding, restore natural gas flows, and salvage the economy. This would leave NATO enlargement unresolved but a shift in favor of a ceasefire in Ukraine in 2023 would be less negative for European assets and the euro. UK: Who Will Replace Boris Johnson? Last week UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson fell from power and now the Conservative Party is engaging in a leadership competition to replace him. We gave up on Johnson after he survived his no-confidence vote and yet it became clear that he could not recover in popular opinion. The inflation outburst destroyed his premiership and wiped away whatever support he had gained from executing Brexit. In fact it reinforced the faction that believed Brexit was the wrong decision. Going forward the UK will be consumed with domestic political turmoil as the cost of stagflation mounts, and geopolitical turmoil as Scotland attempts to hold a second independence referendum, possibly by October 2023. Global investors should focus primarily on Scotland’s attempt to secede, since the breakup of the United Kingdom would be a momentous historical event and a huge negative shock for pound sterling. While only 44.7% of Scots voted for independence in 2014, now they have witnessed Brexit, Covid-19, and stagflation, producing tailwinds for the Scots nationalist vote (Chart 7). Chart 7Forget Bojo's Exit, Watch Scotland There are still major limitations on Scotland exiting, since its national capabilities are limited, it would need to join the European Union, and Spain and possibly others will threaten to veto its membership in the European Union for fear of feeding their own secessionist movements. But any new referendum – including one done without the approval of Westminster – should be taken very seriously by investors. Bottom Line: Johnson’s removal will only marginally improve the Tories’ ability to manage the rebellion brewing in the north. A snap election that brings the Labour Party back into power would have a greater chance of keeping Scotland in the union, although it is not clear that such a snap election will happen in time to affect any Scottish decision. The UK faces economic and political turmoil between now and any referendum and investors should steer clear of the pound. (Though we still favor GBP over eastern European currencies). Britain will remain aggressive toward Russia but its ability to affect the Russian dynamic will fall, leaving the US and EU to decide the fate of Russian relations. Japan: What Is The Significance Of Shinzo Abe’s Assassination? Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a lone fanatic with a handmade gun. The significance of the incident is that Abe will become a martyr for a certain vision of Japan – his vision of Japan, which is that Japan can become a “normal country” that moves beyond the shackles of the guilt of its imperial aggression in World War II. A normal country is one that is economically stable and militarily capable of defending itself – not a pacifist country mired in debt-deflation. Abe stood for domestic reflation and a proactive foreign policy, along with the normalization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). True, economic policy can become less dovish if necessary to deal with inflation. Some changes at the Bank of Japan may usher in a less dovish shift in monetary policy in particular. But monetary policy cannot become outright hawkish like it was before Abe. And Abe’s fiscal policy was never as loose as it was made out to be, given that he executed several hikes to the consumption tax. Japan’s structural demographic decline and large debt burden will continue to weigh on economic activity whenever real rates and the yen rise. The government will be forced to reflate using monetary and fiscal policy whenever deflation threatens to return. Debt monetization will remain an option for future Japanese governments, even if it is restrained during times of high inflation. Chart 8Shinzo Abe's Legacy ​​​​​​​ This is not only because Japanese households will become depressed if deflation is left unchecked but also because economic growth must be maintained in order to sustain the nation’s new and growing national defense budgets. Japan’s growing need for self defense stems from China’s strategic rise, Russia’s aggression, and North Korea’s nuclearization, plus uncertainty about the future of American foreign policy. These trends will not change anytime soon. Indeed the Liberal Democratic Party’s popularity has increased under Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who will largely sustain Abe’s vision. The Diet still has a supermajority in favor of constitutional revision so as to enshrine the self-defense forces (Chart 8). And the de facto policy of rearmament continues even without formal revision. Bottom Line: Any Japanese leader who attempts to promote a hawkish BoJ, and a dovish JSDF, will fail sooner rather than later. The revolving door of prime ministers will accelerate. As Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe opened up the reliable pathway, which is that of a dovish BoJ and a hawkish foreign policy. This is important for the world, as well as Japan, because a more hawkish Japan will increase China’s fears of strategic containment. The frozen conflicts in Asia will continue to thaw, perpetuating the secular rise in geopolitical risk. We remain long JPY-KRW, since the BoJ may adjust in the short term and Chinese stimulus is still compromised, but that trade is on downgrade watch. Investment Takeaways Russia’s energy cutoff is aimed at pushing Europe into recession so as to force policy changes or government changes in Europe that will improve Russia’s position at the negotiating table over Ukraine, NATO, and other strategic disputes. Hence Russia is unlikely to increase the natural gas flow until it believes it has achieved its strategic aims and multiple veto players in the EU will prevent the EU from ever implementing a full-blown natural gas embargo. Chinese stimulus cannot be fully effective until it relaxes Covid-19 restrictions, likely beginning in December or next year when Xi Jinping uses his renewed political capital to try to stabilize the economy. However, China’s government powers alone are insufficient to prevent the debt-deflationary tendency of the property bust. The Middle East faces rising geopolitical tensions that will take markets by surprise with additional energy supply constraints. The implication is continued oil volatility given that global growth is faltering. Once global demand stabilizes, the Middle East’s turmoil will add to existing oil supply constraints to create new price pressures. The odds are not very high of the Federal Reserve achieving a “soft landing” in the context of a global energy shock and a stagflationary Europe and China.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark index by +24bps in Q2/2022, improving the year-to-date outperformance to a solid +72bps. The Q2 outperformance came entirely from the credit side of the portfolio (+35bps), led by underweights to US investment grade corporates (+28bps) and EM hard currency debt (+24bps). The rates side of the portfolio was down slightly (-11bps), with gains from underweights in US and UK inflation-linked bonds (a combined +24bps) helping offset the hit from overweights to German and French government bonds (a combined -30bps). Looking ahead, we continue to see more defensive positioning in growth-sensitive credit sectors like US investment grade corporate bonds and EM hard currency debt, rather than duration management, as providing the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios over the latter half of 2022. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Bottom Line: In our model bond portfolio, we are maintaining an overall neutral duration stance and a moderate underweight of spread product versus developed market sovereign bonds. We are, however, reducing the recommended tilts in inflation-linked bonds by upgrading US TIPS to neutral and downgrading Canadian linkers to neutral. Feature Dear Client, We are about to take a mid-summer publishing break, as this humble bond strategist moves his family into a new home in a new city. Next week, you will be receiving a report written by BCA Research’s Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift. The following week, there will be no Global Fixed Income Strategy report published. Our next report will be published on July 26, 2022. Regards, Rob Robis Bond investors are running out of places to hide to avoid losses in 2022. The total return on the Bloomberg Global Aggregate index (hedged into USD) in the second quarter of this year was -4%, nearly matching the -6% loss seen in Q1. No sector, from government bonds to corporate debt to emerging market credit, could avoid the damage caused by hawkish central bankers belated responding to the worst bout of global inflation since the 1970s. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Global inflation rates will soon peak, led by slowing growth of goods prices and commodity prices. However, inflation will remain well above central bank targets across the bulk of the developed world, supported by more domestic sources like services prices, housing costs and wages. This will limit the ability for important central banks like the Fed and ECB to quickly pivot in a more dovish direction to support weakening growth – and bail out foundering bond markets. With that backdrop in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the second quarter of 2022. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months, as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2022 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: All About Credit Chart 1Q2/2022 Performance: Gains From Defensive Credit Positioning The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was -4.3%, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +24bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -11bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +35bps. In our previous quarterly portfolio performance review in April, we noted that the greater opportunities to generate outperformance for fixed income investors would come from more defensive allocations to spread product, rather than big directional moves in government bond yields. That forecast largely panned out, as global credit markets moved to price in the growing risk of a deep economic downturn. Declining nominal government bond yields provided some modest relief at the end of June, with markets modestly pricing out some of the rate hikes discounted over the next year amid deepening global recession fears. While we maintained a neutral stance on overall portfolio duration during the quarter, we did benefit from the fact that the decline in global bond yields in late June was concentrated more in lower inflation expectations than falling real yields. Thus, our underweight positioning in inflation-linked bonds, focused on the US and UK, helped add a combined +25bps of outperformance versus the benchmark (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2022 Overall Return Attribution The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector in our model portfolio are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2022 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2022 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US investment grade Industrials (+19bps) Underweight UK index-linked Gilts (+15bps) Underweight US TIPS (+9bps) Underweight US investment grade Financials (+7bps) Underweight US MBS (+6bps) Underweight US Treasuries with maturities beyond ten years (+6bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight euro area investment grade corporates (-19bps) Overweight German government bonds with maturities beyond ten years (-14bps) Overweight French government bonds with maturities beyond ten years (-8bps) Overweight UK Gilts with maturities beyond ten years (-6bps) Overweight US CMBS (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2022. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2022 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. That pattern largely held true in Q2/2022, especially at the tail ends of the chart. During a quarter where all the major asset classes in our portfolio lost money on a hedged and duration-matched basis, we outperformed by selectively underweighting the worst performers within the credit side of the benchmark portfolio universe. Notably, we were underweight EM USD-denominated Sovereigns (-1099bps), EM USD-denominated corporates (-816bps) and US investment grade corporates (-686bps) on the extreme right side of the chart. Some of our key overweight positions did relatively well, led by overweights in US CMBS (-148bps), Australian government bonds (-288bps) and euro area investment grade corporates (-378bps), all of which were on the left side of Chart 4. One of our key recommendations throughout the first half of 2022 - overweighting German government bonds (-517bps) and French government bonds (-657bps) versus underweighting US Treasuries (-283bps) - performed poorly in Q2. This was due to investors rapidly pricing in a far more aggressive series of ECB rate hikes than we expected, resulting in some convergence of US-European bond yield differentials. Importantly, core European bond yields have pulled back substantially over the last month, and by much more than US yields have declined. Most notably, the 2-year German yield, which began Q2 at minus-7bps and hit a peak of 1.2% on June 14, has now fallen all the way back to 0.4% as this report went to press. The 2-year US-Germany yield differential has already widened by 35bps in the first week of July, suggesting that our overweight core Europe/underweight US allocation is already contributing positively to the model bond portfolio returns for Q3. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +24bps – a positive result coming largely from underweight positions in US corporate bonds, EM spread product and inflation-linked bonds in the US and UK. Future Drivers Of Model Bond Portfolio Returns Just as in Q2/2022, the performance of the model bond portfolio in Q3/2022 will be driven more by relative allocations between countries and spread product sectors, rather than big directional moves in bond yields or credit spreads. Overall Duration Exposure Chart 5A More Stable Backdrop For Global Bond Yields In terms of portfolio duration, we still see a stronger case for global bond yields to be more rangebound than trending, especially in the US. There has already been a major downward adjustment to global bond yields via lower inflation expectations and reduced rate hike expectations. A GDP-weighted average of major developed market 10-year inflation breakevens has already fallen from an April 2022 peak of 281bps to 216bps (Chart 5). That aggregate breakeven is now back to the levels that began 2022, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered a surge in global energy prices. We anticipate that additional declines in global inflation expectations – and the associated reductions in central bank rate hike expectations – will be harder to achieve over the latter half of 2022. “Stickier” inflation from services, housing costs and wages will remain strong enough to keep overall inflation rates above central bank targets, even as decelerating goods and commodity price inflation act to slow headline inflation rates. Our Global Duration Indicator, which is comprised of growth indicators like the ZEW expectations index for the US and Europe as well as our own global leading economic indicator, has fallen substantially and is signaling a decline in global bond yield momentum once realized inflation rates peak (Chart 6). Chart 6Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum​​​​​​ Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral We see that as signaling more of a sideways action in bond yields over the next six months, rather than a big downward move, especially in the US. Thus, we are keeping the duration of the model bond portfolio close to that of the benchmark index (Chart 7). Government Bond Country Allocation We are sticking with our view that, for countries with active central banks (i.e. everyone but Japan), favoring markets where interest rate expectations are above plausible estimates of neutral policy rates should lead to outperformance from country allocation. In Chart 8, we show 10-year bond yields and 2-years-forward 1-month Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates for the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia. The shaded regions in the chart represent estimates of the range of neutral policy rates. In the case of the US, rate expectations and Treasury yields are now below the upper level of the range of neutral fed funds rates estimates, between 2-3%, taken from the latest set of FOMC economic projections. Hence, we are sticking with an underweight stance on US Treasuries with yields offering less protection against the Fed following through on its current guidance and lifting the funds rate into restrictive territory above 3%. In the other countries, rate expectations are above the range of neutral rate estimates, which suggests that bond yields have a bit more protection against hawkish central bank actions. That leads us to stay overweight core Europe, the UK and Australia in the government bond portion of the model bond portfolio. We are only keeping Canada at neutral, however, as we suspect that the Bank of Canada is more willing than other central banks to follow the Fed’s lead on taking rates to a restrictive level to help bring down elevated Canadian inflation. For other countries, we are staying neutral on Italian government bond exposure, for now, and underweight Japan (Chart 9). Chart 8Favor Countries Where Markets Expect Above-Neutral Rates​​​​​​ Chart 9Underweight JGBs, Stay Neutral Italy (For Now)​​​​​​ For Italy, we await news from the July 21 ECB meeting on the details of a proposal to help support Italian bond markets in the event of additional yield increases or spread widening versus Germany. It is clear from the history of the past decade that Italian bond returns suffer when the ECB is either hiking rates or slowing the growth of its balance sheet (top panel). In other words, it is difficult to recommend overweighting Italian bonds without the support of easy ECB monetary policy. Chart 10Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations For Japan, our recommendation is strictly related to our view on the move in overall global bond yields. The Bank of Japan is bucking the worldwide trend to tighten monetary policy because core Japanese inflation remains weak. This makes Japanese government bonds (JGBs) a good place for bond investors to “hide out” in when global bond yields are rising. Given our view that global bond yield momentum will slow – in line with the signal from our Global Duration Indicator – we do not see a strong cyclical case for overweighting low-yielding JGBs. On inflation-linked bonds, we are maintaining a cautious overall stance, with commodity prices decelerating, realized inflation momentum set to soon peak and central banks signaling more tightening ahead (Chart 10). This week, we are closing out our lone overweight recommendation on inflation-linked bonds in Canada, where we downgrading to neutral (3 out of 5, see the model bond portfolio table on page 24).2 At the same time, we are neutralizing our underweight stance on US TIPS, moving the allocation to neutral. We still see shorter-term TIPS breakevens as having downside from here, but longer-maturity breakevens have already made enough of a downward adjustment, in our view. Global Spread Product Turning to credit markets, we are maintaining our moderately cautious view on the overall allocation to credit versus government bonds. Slowing global growth momentum and tightening global monetary policy is not an environment where credit spreads can narrow, especially for growth-sensitive credit like corporate bonds and high-yield (Chart 11). Having said that – the spread widening seen in US and European corporate bond markets has introduced a better valuation cushion into spreads. Our preferred measure of spread product valuation – the historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spread – shows that investment grade spreads in the euro area are now in the top quartile (85%) of its history on a risk-adjusted basis (Chart 12). US investment grade spreads are now up into the second quartile (64%), which is a big improvement from the start of 2022 but not as much as seen in Europe. Chart 11Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit​​​​​ Chart 12Corporate Spread Valuations Have Improved In The US & Europe​​​​​ European credit spreads likely need to be wide as a risk premium against the numerous risks the region is facing right now – slowing growth, an increasingly hawkish ECB, soaring energy prices and the lingering uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine war. However, a lot of bad news is now discounted in European spreads and, as a result, we are maintaining our overweight stance on European investment grade corporates, especially versus US investment grade where we remain underweight. High-yield spreads on both sides of the Atlantic look more attractive on a 12-month breakeven spread basis, but also on a default-adjusted spread basis (Chart 13). Assuming a moderate increase in the high-yield default rates in the US and Europe - consistent with a sharp slowing of economic growth but no deep recession - the current level of high-yield spreads net of expected default losses over the next year is above long-run averages. It is too soon to move to an overweight stance on high-yield, with the Fed and ECB set to tighten more amid ongoing growth uncertainty, but given the improved valuation cushion we see a neutral allocation to junk in both the US and Europe as appropriate in our model portfolio. Chart 13Junk Spreads Offer Value If Recession Can Be Avoided Finally, we remain comfortably underweight emerging market USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt. The backdrop is poor for emerging market bond returns, given slowing global growth, softening commodity prices, a tightening Fed and a strengthening US dollar (Chart 14). Chart 14Staying Cautious On EM Debt Exposure​​​​​​ Summing It All Up The full list of our recommended portfolio allocations can be seen in Table 2. The portfolio enters the second half of 2022 with the following high-level characteristics: Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Chart 15Overall Portfolio Allocation: Underweight Spread Product Vs Governments the overall duration exposure remains at-benchmark (i.e. neutral) the portfolio has an underweight allocation to overall spread products versus government bonds, equal to four percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 15) the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility in excess of that of the benchmark, is 77bps – below our self-imposed 100bps tracking error limit (Chart 16) the portfolio now has a yield below that of the custom benchmark index, equal to -31bps on a currency-unhedged basis but a more modest “carry gap” of -10bps on a USD-hedged basis given the gains from hedging into USD (Chart 17). Chart 16Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate​​​​​​ Chart 17Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark​​​​​​ Bottom Line: Looking ahead, our model bond portfolio performance will continue to be driven by the same factors in Q3/2022 as in the previous quarter: the relative performance of US bonds versus European equivalents for both government debt and corporate bonds, and the path for emerging market credit spreads. Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making the modest changes to our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Canada, which can be seen in the tables on pages 23-24, we now turn to our regularly quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 3A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 3B). Table 3AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 3BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. In the current environment, our scenarios center around the pace of global growth. Base Case (Slow Global Growth) Global growth momentum slows substantially, with firms cutting back on hiring and investing activity due to slowing corporate profit growth. An outright recession is avoided because softening energy prices help ease the drag on real spending power for consumers. China introduces more monetary and fiscal stimulus measures to boost growth. Global inflation peaks and eases on the back of slowing growth of goods prices and commodity prices, but the floor on inflation in the US and other developed markets is higher than central bank inflation targets due to sticky domestic price pressures. The Fed continues to hike at every policy meeting in H2/2022. There is a very mild bear flattening of the US Treasury curve, but with longer-term yields remain broadly unchanged over the full six month scenario period with the Fed not hiking by more than currently discounted. The Brent oil price retreats by -10%, the US dollar modestly appreciates by 2%, the VIX stays close to current levels at 28 and the fed funds rate reaches 3.25% by year-end. Resilient Growth Scenario Consumer spending surprises to the upside in the US and even Europe, as softer momentum of energy prices eases the relentless downward pressure on real incomes. Labor demand remains sold across the developed world, particularly with firms reluctant to do mass layoffs because of a perceived scarcity of quality labor. China enacts more policy stimulus with growth likely to fall below 2022 government targets. The Fed is forced to be more aggressive on rate hikes, given resilient US growth and inflation staying well above the Fed’s 2% target. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens into outright inversion, but with Treasury yields rising across the curve. The Brent oil price rises +20%, the VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +3% thanks to a more aggressive Fed that lifts the funds rate to 3.75% by year-end. Recession Scenario A toxic combination of contracting corporate profits and negative real income growth drags the major developed economies into outright recession. Global inflation rates slow rapidly from current elevated levels, fueled by a rapid decline in commodity prices, but remain above central bank targets making it hard for the Fed and other major central banks to pivot dovishly to support growth. Chinese policymakers belatedly act to ease monetary and fiscal policy, but not by enough to offset the slow response from developed market policymakers. The Treasury curve moderately bull-steepens, although the absolute decline in nominal Treasury yields is relatively modest as the Fed will not pivot quickly to signaling policy easing with inflation still likely to remain above 2%. The Brent oil price falls -20%, the VIX index soars to 35, the US dollar depreciates by -3% (as lower US rates win out over slowing global growth) and the Fed pushes the funds rate to 2.75% before pausing after September. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 4A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 4B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 18 and Chart 19, respectively. Table 4AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 4BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 18Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​ Chart 19US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​​ Given our neutral overall duration stance, the return scenarios will be driven by mostly by the credit side of the portfolio. In the recession scenario where Treasury yields decline, there is a modest projected outperformance from the rates side of the portfolio coming through the underweight to low-beta JGBs. In all scenarios, financial market volatility is expected to stay at, or above, current levels as central banks will be unable to ease policy, even in the event of an actual recession, because of lingering high inflation. Thus, the return on the credit side of the model portfolio will be the main driver of performance, delivering a range of excess return outcomes between +47bps and +60bps. Bottom Line: The model bond portfolio should benefit in H2/2022 from the ongoing cautious stance on global spread product, focused on underweights to US investment grade corporates and EM hard currency debt.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     We are also closing out our Canadian breakeven widening trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations*

In this <i>Strategy Outlook</i>, we present the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights We now recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds. We still believe that the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but we are less convinced that this is true than we were a few months ago. The fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand in the form of a sharp decline in real wages – are currently present or soon will be. In addition, the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Headline inflation has seemingly been a more impactful driver of long-term inflation expectations than core measures, implying that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints in order to contain rising inflation expectations. That would be clearly negative for economic growth and is potentially recessionary in nature. We see no compelling signs of an acceleration in European or Chinese growth that could act as a ballast to support the global economy. The European energy situation is worsening, China’s post-lockdown rebound has so far been tepid, and market-based indicators of Chinese economic growth are deteriorating. The US equity market is not priced for a typical “income-statement” recession induced by monetary policy. We expect the S&P 500 to fall to 3100 in a recession scenario, driven mostly by declining earnings. In a recession scenario, we do not expect long-maturity government bond yields to fall enough to offset a likely increase in the equity risk premium. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we soon see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Downgrading Risky Assets To Neutral Every month, BCA strategists hold a house view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. As highlighted in a recent Special Alert from our Global Investment Strategy service,1 BCA strategists voted at our June meeting to change our House View to a neutral asset allocation stance towards equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. Table I-1We Now Recommend More Conservative Positioning Than We Did In May The view of the Bank Credit Analyst service is in line with the consensus of BCA strategists on this issue, and we consequently recommend a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds (Table I-1). We noted in our April report2 – when the S&P 500 index stood at 4530 – that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and that investors should maintain at most a very modest overweight toward equities in a global multi-asset portfolio. A formal downgrade to neutral is thus not a large change in our recommended positioning, but it reflects what we view as a legitimate increase in the odds of a US recession over the coming year. It is not yet our view that a US recession is a probable outcome, but it is important to distinguish between one’s forecast of the economic outlook and the appropriate investment strategy. The unique inflationary pressure created by the COVID-19 pandemic has created a large confidence interval around our forecast, underscoring that an aggressive stance towards risky assets is not warranted. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. But as we will discuss below, that slowdown will have to materialize soon in order for us to recommend an overweight risky asset stance. Reviewing Our Previously Constructive View On US Economic Growth Chart I-1Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Concerns about a potential US recession have been growing since the Fed’s hawkish pivot in November, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previously, these concerns centered around two core issues: the aggressive pace at which the Fed communicated it would raise the policy rate, and the fact that the 2-10 yield curve flattened sharply in the first quarter and finally inverted (based on closing prices) on April 1st (Chart I-1). We had pushed back against those concerns, for several reasons. Our deeply-held view is that recessions typically occur when a significant shock to aggregate demand emerges against the backdrop of tight monetary policy. Sometimes the debt-service and credit demand impact of high interest rates itself is the shock. In other cases, recessions have been triggered in an environment of restrictive monetary policy by a sudden change in key input costs (such as oil prices), the bursting of a financial asset bubble, or a major shift in fiscal spending (typically following a period of war). But the core point is that recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is easy, even when shocks to aggregate demand occur. We abstract here from special cases such as the recession that occurred during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. That event saw the introduction of government policies that purposely arrested economic activity, which in our view would have caused a recession under any conceivable fiscal and/or monetary policy alignment. As a business cycle indicator, the yield curve is significant for investors because it essentially represents the bond market’s assessment of the monetary policy stance. The 2-10 yield curve inversion in early April occurred, in part, because of the speed at which the Fed signaled it would raise interest rates, but also because the 10-year Treasury yield stood just under 2.4% at the point of inversion. This level of long-maturity bond yields reflected the view of both the Fed and most investors that the neutral rate of interest permanently fell following the 2008/2009 global financial crisis (GFC), a view that we have argued against in several previous reports.3 As such, the first reason we pushed back against earlier recessionary concerns is that we believe that the natural/neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed and investors believe (even though we warned that a recessionary scare was quite likely). Chart I-2A Large Portion Of Currently Elevated Inflation Is Due To Supply-Side And Pandemic-Related Factors The second reason that we had pushed back against recessionary concerns was our view that a meaningful portion of currently elevated US inflation is a function of supply-side and pandemic-related factors that will eventually abate. Chart I-2 highlights credible estimates showing that roughly half of the year-over-year change in the headline PCE deflator is the result of supply-side factors, versus 40-50% for core inflation. It has been and remains our view that a substantial portion of these supply-side and pandemic-related factors will dissipate as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, with several price categories likely to deflate outright. Chart I-3Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Finally, we have argued in several reports that US goods spending has been well above-trend and is likely to slow, but also that services spending is far too low and is likely to rise. Chart I-3 highlights that close to $3 trillion in excess savings have accrued during the pandemic, which formed because of a combination of rising disposable income and falling services spending. We noted that the continued transition of the US and global economies towards a post-pandemic state would boost services spending, providing (an admittedly atypical) source of support for overall aggregate demand.   Why The Odds Of A US Recession Have Increased We still believe that the US will more likely than not avoid a recession over the coming year, but it is true that the strength of all three of the arguments presented above has weakened. Regarding the stance of monetary policy, Charts I-4 and I-5 highlight that it is still true that the Fed funds rate and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain below our estimate of the neutral rate (nominal potential GDP growth). However, Chart I-6 highlights that the sharp rise in consumer price inflation has caused a substantial reduction in real wage growth, which certainly constitutes a non-monetary aggregate demand shock. Chart I-4The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are Chart I-5Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand...       Chart I-6...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages Panel 2 of Chart I-4 also shows that the 30-year mortgage rate in the US is now at neutral levels, in contrast to government bond yields and the US policy rate. Chart I-7 highlights that our models for US home sales and starts, featured in last month’s report,4 are still not pointing to a severe slowdown in the housing market. However, the fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means that it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand – are currently present or soon will be. On the question of services spending acting as a support for US economic growth as goods spending slows, we continue to believe that services spending will recover back towards its pre-pandemic trend – funded by excess savings that accrued during the pandemic. However, Chart I-8, presented by my colleague Arthur Budaghyan in a recent Emerging Markets Strategy report,5 underscores the extent of the wealth destruction that has occurred because of the joint effect of falling stock and bond prices. At least some of the services-boosting effect of excess savings will likely be blunted by a negative wealth effect stemming from these financial market losses, especially since the remaining excess savings in the US are likely held by middle-to-upper income households – who are the disproportionate holders of publicly-traded financial assets. Chart I-7No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present Chart I-8A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic   On the inflation front, the May CPI release – and the Fed’s reaction to it – underscores that the US economy is at risk of a recession unless supply-side inflation dissipates quickly. Chart I-9 highlights that the May CPI release directly contradicted the view that the monthly rate of change in inflation has peaked. In addition, Chart I-10 presents a breakdown of the percent change in May’s headline consumer price index, with each bar in the chart representing the contribution of that category to headline CPI rising faster than 4% (annualized). The note next to each bar highlights our view of the main driver of that price category, and the color of the bars denotes how probable it is that we will soon see a significant easing in price pressure. Chart I-9The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative Chart I-10Some Elements Of Outsized CPI Will Dissipate Soon. Others May Not.     The chart makes it clear that certain price categories that have been strongly contributing to outsized headline inflation are likely to peak or even turn deflationary over the next few months. Gasoline and fuel oil inflation is clearly being driven by the trend in crude oil prices, which in our view will likely be flat for the rest of the year. In addition, motor vehicles and parts inflation continues to be driven by the impact of supply-chain shortages on vehicle production. Over the past year, the volume of industrial production of motor vehicle assemblies has averaged just 83% of its pre-pandemic level, which we noted in last month’s report now finally seems to be normalizing (Chart I-11). And while airlines have experienced legitimate cost increases due to rising fuel prices and COVID-related labor shortages, panel 2 of Chart I-11 highlights that real airfares have risen well above their pre-pandemic level. This underscores that a moderation in airfares is quite likely over the coming several months. However, Chart I-10 also highlights that there are several price categories that are less likely to ease quickly. Outsized food and energy services inflation has recently been tied to natural gas prices, given that natural gas is used to generate electricity and is a key element used in the production of fertilizer. Chart I-12 highlights that food inflation has been strongly correlated with the producer price index for pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals, and that there is no sign yet of the latter abating. Despite the fact that global wheat prices have recently been falling, the recent increase in European natural gas prices is likely to exacerbate US food inflation, as fertilizer is used to produce all major planted crops. In addition, European energy insecurity has created an even stronger link between the US and European natural gas markets than what prevailed prior to the Ukrainian war, because of what is likely to be permanently higher LNG demand from Europe. Chart I-11Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Chart I-12Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time   On top of what is likely to be persistent food and energy services inflation, shelter inflation is likely to stay elevated for some time – a point highlighted by my esteemed former colleague, Martin Barnes, in Section 2 of this month’s report. The unemployment rate and house prices are the two main drivers of shelter inflation, and the effect of the latter clearly lags because owner’s equivalent rent is a surveyed measure. The fact that mortgage rates have risen so significantly points to a meaningful slowdown in house price appreciation and possibly even mild deflation, so shelter inflation will eventually slow. The Federal Reserve has made it clear, however, that they are now focused on quickly bringing down consumer prices, even at the cost of a recession. The justification for the Fed’s impatience comes straight from the Modern-Day Phillips Curve, which we discussed in great detail in our January 2021 Special Report.6 Economic theory dictates that inflation should be “normal” when the economy is in equilibrium – defined as economic growth in line with potential growth, no economic/labor market slack, and no supply-side shocks affecting prices. In the minds of many investors, “normal” inflation means the central bank’s target for inflation, but that is not necessarily the case. The experience of the 1970s highlighted that “normal” inflation is the rate that is expected by households and firms, and that the Fed will only succeed at achieving target inflation under normal economic conditions if inflation expectations are consistent with its target. The Fed’s failure to prevent inflation expectations from shifting higher on a structural basis led to two debilitating recessions in the early 1980s, and a prolonged period over which the Fed had to maintain comparatively tight monetary policy. This is a mistake that the Fed does not want to make again. Chart I-13Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Consistent with that view, Jerome Powell made it clear during the June FOMC meeting press conference that the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Powell implicitly referenced the University of Michigan’s 5-10 year median household inflation expectations survey during the press conference, which we have described in several previous reports as one of the most important macro data series for investors to monitor. The final reading for June came in materially lower than what was suggested by the preliminary report, but they were already at risk of a breakout even before the June release. In addition, Chart I-13 highlights that it is headline inflation (not core) that appears to be the main driver of rising long-term household inflation expectations, which raises a troubling point. If the Fed decides that inflation expectations need to be quickly reined in even at the cost of a higher unemployment rate, that decision implies that it is headline inflation that needs to return rapidly towards the Fed’s target, not just core. Given that some price categories shown in Chart I-10 are likely to be sticky for some time, and that the chart accounted for deviations in headline inflation from 4% (which itself is above the Fed’s target), the implication is that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints. That would be clearly negative for economic growth, and is potentially recessionary in nature. As a final point, it is not just the potential for future economic weakness that concerns us. The US economy was already slowing prior to the Fed’s hawkish pivot and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and important indicators for economic activity continue to deteriorate. Chart I-14 highlights that the S&P Global US manufacturing and services PMIs fell meaningfully in June, and Chart I-15 highlights that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator continues to deteriorate. In fact, the Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and the bottom panel of Chart I-15 highlights that four consecutive month-over-month declines have all essentially been associated with a recession. 2006 seemingly stands out as an exception to this rule, but given the fact that the housing market downturn began two years before the recession officially started, we simply regard this as an early recessionary signal rather than a false one. Chart I-14The US Is Losing Economic Momentum Chart I-15The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal     No Help From Europe Or China An overweight stance towards global equities might still be warranted in the face of a significant slowdown in US economic activity if economic growth in Europe or China were accelerating. However, the European outlook has been strongly tied to natural gas flows from Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, which tightened meaningfully in June in response to Europe’s oil ban, the looming expansion of NATO, and Europe’s success at replenishing its amount of natural gas in storage. Russia has not fully weaponized its natural gas exports and its actions so far have fallen well short of a complete cutoff, but prices have risen close to 70% over the past month, forcing Germany to trigger the alert level of its emergency gas plan. Aside from the negative impact that higher natural gas prices will have on headline inflation globally, this is obviously incrementally negative for European economic activity. Chart I-16 highlights that the German IFO business climate indexes have led the S&P Global Germany PMI lower over the past few months, and that they imply further manufacturing weakness. And while the services climate index for Germany ticked higher, it remains meaningfully below the levels that prevailed last summer and implies a deterioration in German services activity over the coming few months. In China, we see no compelling signs of a sustainable pickup in economic activity that will provide a ballast to slowing growth in the DM world. We have seen a bounce back in some activity indicators following the significant easing of restrictions in Shanghai and Beijing (Chart I-17). These indicators, however, are still quite weak, and it is likely that China will experience significant further COVID outbreaks over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-16Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Chart I-17China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid   While Chinese stocks have been rallying in absolute terms over the past few weeks, Chart I-18 highlights that this is essentially the only positive market-based signal about the pace of economic activity in China. The chart highlights that our market-based China Growth Indicator has experienced a renewed down leg, and that the diffusion index never rose above the boom/bust line earlier this year. The recent decline in industrial metals prices is also not a positive market-based signal for Chinese economic activity (Chart 19). Some investors have argued that weak metals prices reflect growth concerns outside of China, but even if that is the case, it implies that China’s reopening will not be forceful enough to offset slowing global ex-China growth. Chart I-18Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears   Has The US Equity Market Already Priced In A Recession? One very important question for investors to answer is how much further downside is likely to occur for US equities in the event of a US recession. At its worst point in mid-June, the S&P 500 fell close to 24% from its early January high, and many investors have since questioned whether the US equity market is already priced for a potential contraction in output. Chart I-20The S&P 500 Is Not Currently Priced For A US Recession We disagree with this perspective, and believe that the S&P 500 would fall close to 3100 in a typical recession scenario. Chart I-20 presents a range of estimates for the S&P 500 based on a Monte Carlo approach, using what we believe are feasible ranges for the US equity risk premium, real 10-year government bond yields, and the extent of the decline in 12-month forward earnings per share. The chart shows that the equity market only has a positive return at the 5th percentile, which can be interpreted as just a 5% chance that the US equity market has already priced in the impact of a recession. Charts I-21 and I-22 highlight the range of possible outcomes that we used when modeling the likely decline in stock prices in a recession scenario. We assume that the equity risk premium, defined here as the difference between the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield and 10-year TIPS yields, rises on average to its early-March level in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We assume that both 10-year nominal Treasury yields and 10-year breakeven inflation rates fall to 2%, reflecting an expectation that 10-year TIPS yields will not return to negative territory in a recessionary scenario. Finally, we expect that S&P 500 forward EPS will decline by 15% from current levels, which is in line with the historical average decline in 12-month trailing operating EPS during recessions. Chart I-21We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario Chart I-22We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession     One key takeaway from our analysis is that the likely recessionary equity market decline projected by our approach is fairly close to our estimate of the likely decline in earnings. One potential pushback against our view that earnings will fall in line with what usually occurs during recessions is the fact that nominal revenue growth may only mildly contract or may not contract at all in a recession that is occurring due to high rates of inflation (and thus higher prices charged by firms). Chart I-23 highlights that 12-month trailing S&P 500 sales per share growth never turned negative in the 1970s, even following the 1970 and 1974 recessions. Chart I-23Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... There are two counterpoints to this argument. First, the current risk of a recession mostly stems from the Fed’s determination not to repeat the mistakes that it made during the 1970s, meaning that inflation expectations are unlikely to rise to the level that they did during that period in advance of a recession. That implies that actual inflation, and thus corporate pricing power, will come down significantly during a recession. Second, even in a scenario in which a recession occurs and S&P 500 revenue growth contracts less aggressively than it has during previous recessions, Chart I-24 highlights that the mean-reversion risks to earnings from falling profit margins are quite high. The chart shows that even if profit margins were merely to return to their pre-pandemic levels during a recession (which would actually be a comparatively mild decline given the historical behavior of margins during recessions), it would imply close to a 20% contraction in earnings if sales per share growth were flat. Given this, we feel that our assumption of a 10-20% decline in earnings per share in a recessionary scenario is reasonable. Chart I-24But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts There is another important takeaway from our analysis, which is that the decline in bond yields that will occur in a recessionary scenario will likely be more than offset by a rise in the equity risk premium. Another potential pushback against our view that the US equity market has already priced in a recession is focused on our assumption that the 10-year US Treasury yield will only fall back to 2%, and that real 10-year yields will not return to negative territory. For some investors, this assumption seems far too high, given the structural decline in long-maturity bond yields over the past decade and the fact that the 10-year yield stood below 2% at the beginning of the year when the odds of a recession were lower than they are today. In response to this, we offer three points for structurally-bullish bond investors to consider. The first is that the decline in the nominal 10-year US Treasury yield to 0.5% in 2020 was extremely irregular and it occurred because of the extent of the essentially unprecedented economic weakness wrought by the pandemic. This is absolutely the wrong yield benchmark to use in a typical recession scenario, because the Fed’s response to the recession will be much less aggressive. The second point is related to the first, in that negative real 10-year government bond yields have been heavily driven by the secular stagnation narrative and the general view that the natural/neutral rate of interest has permanently fallen. We agree that the neutral rate of interest fell for a time following the global financial crisis, but we believe strongly that it rose in the latter half of the last economic expansion as US households aggressively deleveraged their balance sheets. Academic estimates of R-star, such as that derived from the previously popular (but now discontinued) Laubach-Williams model, continued to point to a low neutral rate from 2015-2019 because of the deflationary impact of an energy-driven decline in long-term inflation expectations on actual inflation, a factor that is clearly no longer present. Chart I-25We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs Finally, we agree that the existence of the Fed’s asset purchase program has likely had some impact on the 10-year term premium over the past decade. We doubt that the Fed would resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in response to a conventional recession, implying that the term premium will not fall as low as it has over the past decade when growth slowed or contracted. Chart I-25 highlights one important reason for this. Since 2008, the Fed’s use of asset purchases has been part of a strategy to ease monetary policy further when the policy rate had already fallen to zero, to meet its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. The chart highlights that even just prior to the pandemic, a persistent gap existed between the headline and core PCE deflator and the level that would have prevailed if both deflators had grown at a 2% annual rate since the onset of the 2008 recession. The chart makes it clear that this gap will completely disappear within the next 12 months for both the headline and core deflator, if the recent pace of change in prices is sustained. In effect, Chart I-25 highlights that the entire post-GFC missed inflation-target era is almost over, which severely undercuts the idea that the Fed will resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in a recession scenario unless the contraction is very severe as it was in 2008 and 2020. We doubt that this will be the case if a recession does occur, implying that both a deeply negative term premium and a significant decline in the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield in a typical recession scenario is unlikely. Investment Conclusions Wayne Gretsky’s famous quotation, that he “skate[s] to where the puck is going, not where it has been” is often invoked by BCA strategists. Successful active investing requires anticipation rather than reaction, and it is legitimate for investors to ask whether downgrading risky assets at the current juncture represents the latter rather than the former. We are cognizant of that risk, but we are also mindful of the importance of capital preservation. When we wrote our annual outlook last year, we believed fairly confidently that inflation would peak and specifically that supply-side inflation would wane. We still believe that pandemic-related effects on consumer prices will eventually dissipate, and it is still possible that inflation is in the process of peaking. Recent evidence, however, about the pace of price advances, the clear impact that high inflation is having on real wage growth, and the Fed’s desire to see consumer prices fall quickly back toward its target, means that the cyclical economic outlook is now highly dependent on the speed at which prices normalize – not just whether it will occur. To us, that implies that investors need to have a high-conviction view that supply-side inflation will normalize soon in order to stay overweight risky assets, and that the Fed will look through elevated housing-related inflation that is likely to persist for several months. At least in the case of supply-side inflation, we think normalization is probable but we no longer have high conviction about the speed of adjustment. As such, we recommend that investors maintain no more than a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds, as part of an overall shift towards more defensive positions. In terms of other important asset class allocations, we recommend the following: Within a global equity portfolio, maintain a neutral regional allocation, a neutral stance toward cyclicals versus defensives, and a neutral stance towards small-cap stocks versus their large-cap peers. Modestly favor value stocks over growth stocks, as most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Within a fixed-income portfolio, a modestly short stance is warranted over the coming 6- to 12-months. Extremely stretched technical and valuation conditions point to a bearish view towards the US dollar over the coming 6- to 12-months, but USD will likely remain well-bid over the nearer-term. We are only likely to upgrade our cyclical USD call in a scenario in which we recommend underweighting global equities within a multi-asset portfolio. As noted above, financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 30, 2022 Next Report: July 28, 2022 II.  Inflation Whipsaw Ahead Dear Client, This month’s Special Report has been written by Martin Barnes, BCA’s former Chief Economist. Martin, who retired from BCA Research last year after a long and illustrious career, discusses the long-run outlook for inflation. The views expressed in this report are his, and may not be consistent with those of the Bank Credit Analyst or other BCA Research services. But Martin’s warning of future stagflation is sobering, and I trust you will find his report both interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Overly stimulative policies meant that inflation was set to rise even before the disruptions caused by the pandemic and Ukraine conflict. Inflation should decline sharply over the coming year in response to weaker economic growth and an easing in supply problems. But it will be a temporary respite. Central banks will not have the stomach to keep policy tight enough for long enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. Price pressures will return as economies bottom and the environment will become one of stagflation. Financial assets will rally strongly when inflation fears subside but subsequent stagflation will not be bullish for markets. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once defined price stability as existing when “households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions”. Until recently, that state of affairs was the case for much of the past 30 years and for many, inflation was quiescent during their entire working lives. But inflation is now back as a huge issue and there is massive debate and uncertainty about whether it will be a temporary or lasting problem. I lean toward the latter view. Major changes in the economic and/or financial environment more often are identified in hindsight than in real time. It is easier to attribute large trend deviations to temporary factors than to make bold predictions about structural shifts. Obviously, the pandemic and conflict in Ukraine have had a significant impact on the near-term inflation picture via massive supply-side disruptions and represent temporary events. Thus, inflation will retreat from current elevated levels as those disruptions diminish. But the conditions for higher inflation were already in place before those two unfortunate events occurred. Specifically, central banks have been erring on the side of stimulus for several years and they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. Inflation has moved from a non-issue to the most important factor driving markets. Over the next year, the next big surprise might be how fast inflation retreats and investors and policymakers will then breathe a big sigh of relief. However, this will prove to be a temporary respite because it will not take long for inflation to move back up and remain stubbornly above central bank targets. In other words, a whipsaw is in prospect over the next few years as inflation goes from up, to down, and to up again. The Current Inflation Problem The biggest increases in consumer prices have occurred in areas most affected by supply problems, with energy attracting the most attention. Nevertheless, in most countries, inflation has risen across the majority of goods and services. The core inflation rate (i.e. consumer prices excluding food and energy) in the G7 economies climbed from 2% to 4.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean measure of US consumer price inflation has spiked dramatically higher, consistent with a broad-based acceleration in inflation.7 The rise in underlying inflation is a bigger problem in the US, UK and Canada than in Japan or the Euro Area. Chart II-2 shows current core inflation rates relative to the target rate of 2% pursued by most central banks. That geographical divergence will be touched on later and in the meantime, the focus will be on the US situation. Chart II-1A Broad-Based Pickup In Inflation Chart II-2The US, UK And Canada Have A Bigger Inflation Problem   The latest US inflation data for a range of goods and services is shown in Table II-1. The table shows the three- and six-month annualized changes in prices because 12-month rates can be affected by a base effect given the impact of pandemic-related shutdowns and disruptions a year ago. Also, a comparison of the three- and six-month rates shows if momentum is building or fading. The trends are not encouraging in that momentum has accelerated, not diminished in many key areas. Table II-1Selected Inflation Rates In The US CPI Even if the data show a moderation in core inflation in the months ahead, it is important to note that rent inflation – the CPI component with the biggest weight – is seriously underestimated. This is one of the few items where prices are collected with a lag and real estate industry reports highlight that rent inflation is running at double-digit rates in the major cities. According to one report, average rents nationally increased by more than 25% in the year to May.8 The CPI data will eventually catch up with reality, providing at least a partial offset to any inflation improvements in other areas. Another problem for inflation is the acceleration in wage growth against the backdrop of an unusually tight labor market. Currently, the number of unfilled vacancies is almost twice the number of unemployed and it is thus no surprise that wage growth has picked up sharply (Chart II-3). The Atlanta Fed’s measure of annual wage inflation has risen above 6%, its highest reading since the data began in 1997. Wage growth is unlikely to suddenly decline absent a marked rise in the unemployment rate. There is much debate about whether the US economy is on the verge of recession, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of whether the technical definition of recession is met (at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), the pace of activity is set to slow sharply. Plunging consumer and business confidence, contracting real incomes and a peaking in housing activity all point to a significant weakening in growth, even if the labor market stays healthy (Chart II-4). Chart II-3A Very Tight US Labor Market Chart II-4The US Economy Is In Trouble   Softer economic growth eventually will take the edge off inflationary pressures in many goods and services. Combined with an easing in supply-side disruptions, the inflation rate is certain to decline in the coming year, even if oil prices move higher in the short run. Currently, the Fed is talking tough about dealing with inflation and there is little doubt that further rate hikes are on the way. However, policymakers will have little stomach for inflicting enough economic pain to completely squeeze inflation out of the system. Once there are clear signs of a significant economic slowdown, the Fed will back off quickly. What Causes Inflation Anyway? Economics 101 teaches that prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service exceeds supply, then prices will rise to bring things back into balance. Seems simple enough but, unfortunately, this leaves many unanswered questions. How much must prices rise and for how long in order to restore balance? What if there are structural impediments to supply? What if there are monopolies in key commodities or services? What if policy interferes with the operation of market-clearing solutions? And, finally, what measure of inflation should we be looking at? Chart II-5Inflation Is A 'Modern' Issue For much of economic history, deflation was just as prevalent as inflation, with the latter only being a problem during periods of war (Chart II-5). As the pre-WWII world pre-dated fiat money, automatic stabilizers (e.g. the welfare state), and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, economies were prone to regular depressions that served to wash out financial and economic excesses and any inflationary pressures. But those days are long gone and free market forces should not be expected to keep inflation under wraps. I rather like the simple explanation of inflation’s roots as being “too much money chasing too few goods”. In that sense, the control of inflation lies firmly at the door of central banks. In the “old days” (i.e. before the 1990s), it was possible to use the growth in the money supply to gauge the stance of policy because there was a fairly stable and predictable relationship between monetary and economic trends. That all ended when financial deregulation and the explosion in non-bank financial activities meant that monetary trends ceased to be a reliable indicator of economic growth and inflation. As a result, the Fed stopped setting monetary growth targets more than 20 years ago and since then, money supply data has rarely been mentioned in FOMC discussions. Chart II-6A Simple Measure Of The Monetary Stance Fortunately, all is not lost. The gap between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth is a reasonably good proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Conditions are easy when rates are persistently below GDP growth and vice versa when they are above. As can be seen in Chart II-6, rates were below GDP growth during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when inflation rose sharply. And inflation fell steadily in the 1980s into the first half of the 1990s when the Fed kept interest rates above GDP growth. And look at what has happened in the past decade: rates have been significantly below GDP growth, suggesting an aggressively easy monetary stance. It was only a matter of time before inflation picked up, even without the recent supply-side disruptions. The FOMC’s latest projections show long-run growth of 3.8% in nominal GDP while the fed funds rate is expected to average only 2.5%. That implies a continued accommodative stance, yet inflation is forecast to be in line with the 2% target. That all seems very unlikely. Fed policymakers spend a lot of time trying to figure out the level of the equilibrium real interest rate – the level consistent with steady non-inflationary economic growth. It would be very helpful to have this number but coming up with an accurate measure is a largely futile exercise. It cannot be measured empirically and its estimation requires a lot of assumptions, explaining why there is no broad agreement on what the right number is. I think there is a case for the simpler approach of using the nominal growth in GDP as a proxy for where rates should be in normal circumstances. As noted above, that suggests monetary policy was excessively accommodative for an extended period. If US Policy Was Too Easy, Why Was Inflation Low For So Long? The Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation is the change in the personal consumption deflator, excluding food and energy. In the 25 years to 2019, inflation by this measure averaged only 1.7%, compared to the Fed’s desired level of 2%. Thus, even though the level of interest rates implied very accommodative policy over that period, inflation remained tame. This leads to an important caveat. The stance of monetary policy plays the key role in driving inflation, but it is not everything. Offsetting forces on inflation (in both directions) can mute or even swamp the impact of policy. There were several disinflationary forces in operation during the past 25 years. Specifically: In the second half of the 1990s, the explosive growth of the internet and accompanying boom in technology spending led to a marked pickup in productivity growth. The entry of China into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 unleashed a wave of offshoring and downward pressure on traded goods prices. A series of deflationary shocks hit the US and global economy including the 1998 financial crisis in South-East Asia and Russia, the bursting of the tech bubble after 2000, and of course the global financial meltdown in 2007-09. Unstable economic conditions undermined labor’s bargaining power, keeping a tight lid on wage growth. This was highlighted by the dramatic decline in labor’s share of income after 2000. Importantly, the above forces are no longer in place and in some cases are reversing. The key technological advances of the past decade have not been particularly good for productivity. Indeed, one could argue that the activities of most so-called FANG stocks – especially those involved in social media - have had a negative impact on productivity. Time spent on FaceBook, Twitter and Netflix do not have obvious benefits for increased economic efficiency. Chart II-7Globalization In Retreat Even before the pandemic’s impact on supply chains, there were signs that globalization had peaked (Chart II-7). Indeed, BCA first suggested in 2014 that globalization was running out of steam. More recently, the interruption to supply chains has highlighted the downside of relying excessively on overseas production for key goods such as semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals. Onshoring rather than offshoring will become more common with higher prices being the cost for greater control over supply. Globalization is not dead, but, at the margin, it no longer is a powerful source of disinflation. US import prices from China are back to their highest level in a decade after falling steadily during the eight years to 2020. The inflationary impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine via supply-side disruptions are more than offsetting any disinflationary effects of softer economic growth. In other words, they have represented stagflationary rather than deflationary shocks. Finally, with regard to income shares, the pendulum has swung more in favor of labor. Demographic trends (e.g. slow growth in the working-age population) suggest that the labor market will remain relatively tight in the years ahead, notwithstanding short-term weakness as the economy slows. Profit margins are likely to weaken and labor’s share of income will rise. The bottom line is that easy money policies will no longer be offset by a number of powerful external forces that served to keep consumer price inflation under wraps in the pre-pandemic period. And this raises another important point. If monetary policy is too easy, then it will show up somewhere, even if consumer price inflation is under control. There Is More Than One Kind Of Inflation Inflation most commonly refers to the change in the prices of consumer goods and services. That is understandable because consumer spending accounts for more than half of GDP in the major developed economies (and almost 70% in the US). And because consumers are the ones who vote, it is the inflation rate that politicians care most about. However, there are other kinds of inflation. If there are structural impediments to increased consumer prices, then excessively easy monetary policy most likely will show up in higher asset prices. This is a very different kind of inflation because it is welcomed by the owners of assets and by politicians. Nobody is happy to face higher prices for the goods and services they buy, but asset owners love the wealth-boosting effect of higher prices for homes and shares.  Consumer inflation may have been subdued in the pre-pandemic decade, but the same is not true for asset prices. During the period that the Fed ran accommodative policies, there were several periods of rampant asset inflation such as the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s, the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the bond bubble of 2016-2020. And both equity and home prices surged in response to monetary stimulus triggered by the pandemic. Central banks may fret about the potential financial stability implications of surging asset prices, but in practice they do not act to curb them. Policymakers argue that it is hard to determine when an asset bubble exists and even when one is obvious, monetary policy is a crude tool to deal with it. If rising asset prices occur alongside an economy that is characterized by stable growth and moderate inflation, then acting to burst a bubble could inflict unnecessary economic damage. That is an understandable position, but it means ignoring the longer-term problems that occur when bubbles inevitably burst. This was highlighted by the economic and financial chaos after the US housing bubble burst in 2007. The reality is that central banks have been forced to rely more heavily on asset inflation as a source of monetary stimulus. An easing in monetary policy affects economic conditions in three primary ways: boosting credit demand and supply, raising asset prices, and lowering the exchange rate.9 Historically, the credit channel was by far the most important. BCA has written extensively about the Debt Supercycle and the role of monetary policy in fueling ever-rising levels of private sector indebtedness (see the Appendix for a brief description of the Debt Supercycle). Chart II-8No Releveraging Cycle In Household Debt The environment changed dramatically after the 2007-09 financial meltdown. The collapse of the credit-fueled housing bubble drove a stake through the heart of the household sector’s love affair with debt. The ratio of household debt to income peaked in early 2009 and ten years later it was back to the levels of 2001 (Chart II-8). Even an extended period of record low interest rates has failed to trigger a new leveraging cycle. If the Fed can’t persuade consumers and businesses to fall back in love with debt, then it must rely on the other two transmission channels for monetary policy – asset prices and the exchange rate. And the Fed really has limited control over the latter channel given that it also depends on the actions of other central banks. The deleveraging of the household sector in the post-2009 period could have been very bearish for the economy, but the Fed’s easy money policies underpinned the stock market, allowing household net worth to revive. There was an explosive rise in household net worth in 2020-21 as surging house prices added to stock market gains. Between end-2019 and end-2021, the household sector’s direct holdings of equities plus owner’s equity in real estate increased in value by around $20 trillion, equal to more than one year’s personal disposable income. The recent decline in equity prices has reversed some of the gains, but net worth remains elevated by historical standards. The bottom line is that it was wrong to suggest that the Fed’s accommodative stance did not create inflation. Consumer price inflation was tame in the pre-pandemic period, but there was lots of asset inflation and that gathered pace in 2020 and 2021. There was always going to be some leakage of this into more generalized inflation but this was accelerated by the double whammy of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Strange Case Of Japan If higher inflation in the US has seemed inevitable, how can one explain the situation in Japan? In contrast to other developed countries, Japan’s annual core inflation rate was only 0.2% in May. While this was an increase from the average -1.3% rate in the prior six months, it is impressive given the country’s continued highly stimulative monetary policy and the same exposure to supply disruptions as elsewhere. Most importantly, Japan has suffered structural deflation for so long that inflation expectations are totally dormant for both consumers and businesses. In other words, raising prices is seen as a desperate measure and something to be avoided. Japan’s poor demographics may also have played a role. A sharply declining labor force and rapidly aging population are disinflationary rather than inflationary influences and help reinforce the corporate sector’s reluctance to raise prices. While Japan seems an outlier, it is worth noting that core inflation also has remained relatively subdued in many European countries. For the overall Euro area, the latest core inflation rate is 3.8%, well below that of the US and UK. Two common features of the higher inflation countries are that they tended to have more aggressively-easy fiscal policies in recent years and greater asset inflation – especially in real estate. Unfortunately, inflation expectations and business pricing behavior in the US and other Anglo-Saxon economies have not followed Japan’s example. Employees have become more aggressive in demanding higher wages, and most companies have no problem in passing on higher costs to their customers. The UK is facing a wave of public sector strikes over pay the likes of which have not been seen for decades. The Outlook Chart II-9A Peaking In Supply Problems? Inflation may prove sticky over the next few months, but as noted earlier, it should move significantly lower over the coming year. Crude oil prices have risen by around 75% in the past year and that pace of rise cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, while shipping rates remain historically high, they are down sharply from earlier peaks (Chart II-9). Together with a revival in Chinese exports, this suggests some easing in supply chain problems. And as mentioned above, the pace of economic activity is set to slow sharply. But a return to pre-pandemic inflation levels is not in the cards. The Fed currently is talking tough and further rate hikes are on the way. But the tightening will end as soon as it becomes clear that the economy is heading south. A deep recession is not likely because there are not the worrying imbalances such as excessive consumer debt or inventories that typically precede serious downturns. However, policymakers will not take any risks and policy will return quickly to an accommodative stance, even though inflation is unlikely to return to the desired 2% level. On a positive note, inflation may be the highest in 40 years in many countries, but we are not facing a return to the destructive high-inflation environment of the 1970s. Inflation back then was institutionalized and a self-feeding cycle of higher wages and rising prices was deeply embedded. I was working as an economist for BP in London in the 1970s and remember receiving large quarterly pay rises just to compensate for inflation. In the absence of inflation-accounting practices, companies seriously underestimated the destruction that inflation was creating to balance sheets and profitability, making them complacent about the problem. Moreover, there were not the same global competitive pressures that exist today. Inflation in the US likely will form a new base of 3% to 4% over the medium term, with occasional fluctuations to 5% or above. An environment of stagflation is in prospect: growth will not be weak enough to suppress inflation and not strong enough to allow the Fed to maintain a restrictive stance. This puts the Fed in a difficult spot as it will be reluctant to admit defeat by raising the inflation target from its current 2%, even though that level will be out of reach in practical terms. A counter view is that I am too pessimistic by underestimating the disinflationary effects of technological advances. A sustained improvement in productivity would certainly help lower inflation but how likely is this? Technological advances are occurring all the time, but in recent years they largely have been incremental in nature and it is hard to think of any new breakthrough productivity-enhancing technologies. There is a difference between new technologies that simply represent better ways to do existing tasks (3D printing would fall into that category) and general purpose technologies that completely change the way economies operate (e.g. electricity and the internet). While businesses are still exploiting the benefits of the digital world, we await innovations that will trigger a new sustained upsurge in productivity. A game changer would be the development of unlimited cheap energy (cold fusion?) but that does not seem likely any time soon. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind about the potential for productivity to surprise on the upside, despite my current skepticism. Chart II-10Inflation Expectations Spike Higher What does all this mean for the markets? Not surprisingly, shifts in market expectations for future inflation are highly correlated with the current rate and have thus spiked higher in recent months, hurting both bonds and stocks (Chart II-10). Obvious inflation hedges would be inflation-protected bonds and resources, but neither group currently is attractively priced. The good news is that the current panic about inflation is setting the scene for a buying opportunity in both stocks and bonds. The exact timing is tricky to predict but both stocks and bonds will rally strongly later this year when inflation expectations retreat as it becomes clear that the economy is weakening and the Fed softens its hawkish tones. The bad news is that this bullish phase will not last much more than a year because a re-emergence of inflationary pressures will bring things back to earth. The long-run outlook is one of stagflation and that will be a tough environment for financial assets. Martin H. Barnes Former Chief Economist, BCA Research mhbarnes15@gmail.com   Appendix: A Primer On The Debt Supercycle The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance-sheet liquidity and rise in indebtedness during the post-WWII period. Economic expansions have always been associated with a buildup of leverage. However, prior to the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as the welfare state and deposit insurance, balance-sheet excesses tended to be fully unwound during economic downturns, albeit at the cost of severe declines in activity. The pain of the Great Depression led governments to intervene to smooth out the business cycle, and their actions were given legitimacy by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Fiscal and monetary reflation, together with the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy, but the downside was that balance-sheet imbalances and financial excesses built up during each expansion phase were never fully unwound. Periodic "cyclical" corrections to the buildup of debt and illiquidity occurred during recessions, but these were never enough to reverse the long-run trend. Although liquidity was rebuilt during a recession, it did not return to its previous cyclical high. Meanwhile, the liquidity rundown during the next expansion phase established new lows. These trends led to growing illiquidity, and vulnerability in the financial markets. The greater the degree of illiquidity in the economy, the greater is the threat of deflation. Thus, the bigger that balance-sheet excesses become, the more painful the corrective process would be. So, the stakes became higher in each cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to reflate demand, by whatever means were available. The Supercycle process was driven over time by the building tension between rising underlying deflationary risks in the economy, and the ability of policymakers to create inflation. The Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic and financial meltdown, with the authorities reaching the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more leverage. This forced the government to leverage itself up instead, representing the Debt Supercycle's final inning. III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators paint a bearish picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is now at its weakest in almost three decades and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still overvalued, albeit less so than they were last year. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have now broken down very significantly, and are not yet providing a contrarian buy signal. The odds of a US recession over the next 12 months have recently risen, and we now recommend a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being significantly revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are still too rosy. Although earnings growth is still likely to be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. Within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should stay modestly short duration. The increase in commodity prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cooled, and prices are now rolling over significantly on the back of global growth concerns. Our composite technical indicator has dropped meaningfully, indicating that commodities are now no longer overbought. Our base-case view is that oil prices have peaked, but there some risk to that view given the current geopolitical situation. In addition, the recent rise in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation could remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals, but metals prices are likely to decline further until recessionary concerns abate. US and global LEIs have rolled over significantly and are now edging towards negative territory. The Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and four consecutive month-over-month declines have historically been associated with a recession. Our global LEI diffusion index has bottomed, but we are not convinced that this heralds a major upturn in the LEI itself. 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 Content 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 Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop   ECONOMY: 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 Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert "Hard Or Soft Landing? BCA Strategists Debate The Question," dated June 21, 2022, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see Emerging Markets Strategy "A Conversation With Ms. Mea: Navigating An Inflation Storm," dated June 16, 2022, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     This trimmed mean measure excludes the top 8% of CPI components with the largest monthly price gains and the bottom 8% with the smallest monthly gains. 8     Rent.com, https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/, June 2022. 9    A fourth channel can be via a psychological boost to business and consumer confidence, but this can cut both ways if an easing in policy is interpreted as a sign of worsening economic conditions rather than as a reason for optimism.

Executive Summary There has never been a modern era recession or sharp slowdown in which the oil price did not collapse. In a recession, the massive destruction of oil demand always overwhelms a tight supply. Across the last six recessions, the median collapse in the oil price was -60 percent, with the best case being -30 percent, and the worst case being -75 percent. Hence, in the coming recession, the oil price is likely headed to $55, with the best case being $85, and the worst case being $30. Investors should short oil, or short oil versus copper. Equity investors should underweight the oil sector versus basic resources and/or industrials and/or banks, and underweight oil-heavy equity markets such as Norway. Fractal trading watchlist: Oil versus industrials, and oil versus banks. Oil Didn’t Get The ‘Everything Sell-Off’ Memo Bottom Line: There has never been a modern era recession or sharp slowdown in which the oil price did not collapse, and this time will be no different. Feature We have just witnessed a rare star-alignment. The near-perfect line up of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in the heavens is a spectacular sight for the early birds who can star gaze through clear skies. And it is a rare event, which last happened in 2004. But investors have just witnessed an even rarer star-alignment. The ‘everything sell-off’ in stocks, bonds, inflation-protected bonds, industrial metals, and gold during the second quarter has happened in only one other calendar quarter out of almost 200. Making it a ‘1 in a 100’ event, which last happened way back in 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1The ‘Everything Sell-Off’ In 2022… Chart I-2...Last Happened In 1981 As we detailed in our previous reports Markets Echo 1981 When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession and More On 2022-23 = 1981-82 And The Danger Ahead, a once-in-a-generation conjugation connects the ‘1 in a 100’ everything sell-offs in 1981 and 2022. The conjugation is inflation fears, exacerbated by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, and countered by aggressive rate hikes, morph into recession fears. The 1981-82 episode is an excellent blueprint for market action through 2022-23. This makes the 1981-82 episode an excellent blueprint for market action through 2022-23, and we refer readers to the previous reports for the implications for stocks, bonds, equity sectors, and currencies. Oil Didn’t Get The ‘Everything Sell-Off’ Memo But one major investment didn’t get the ‘everything sell-off’ memo. That major investment is crude oil. Even within the commodity space, oil is the outlier. In the second quarter, industrial commodity prices have collapsed: copper, -20 percent; iron ore -25 percent; tin, -40 percent; and lumber, -40 percent. Yet the crude oil price is up, +7 percent, and the obvious explanation is the Russia/Ukraine war (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Oil Didn't Get The 'Everything Sell-Off' Memo The Russia/Ukraine war is an important part of the 2022/1981 once-in-a-generation conjugation. In 1981, just as now, the full-scale invasion-led war between two major commodity producing neighbours – Iraq and Iran – disrupted commodity supplies, and thereby added fuel to an already red-hot inflationary fire. When Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year, the oil price surged by 25 percent. Remarkably, when Iraq invaded Iran in late 1980, the oil price also surged by 25 percent. But by mid-1981, with the global economy slowing, the oil price had given back those gains. Then, as the economy entered recession in early 1982, the oil price slumped to 15 percent below its pre-war level. If 2022-23 follows this blueprint, it would imply the oil price falling to $85/barrel (Chart I-4). Chart I-4If Oil Follows The 1981-82 Blueprint, It Will Tumble To $85 There Has Never Been A Recession In Which The Oil Price Did Not Collapse Everybody knows the narrative for the oil price surge this year. In what is putatively a very tight market, the embargo of Russian oil has removed enough supply to put significant upward pressure on the price. The trouble with this story is that Russian oil will find a buyer, even if it requires a discount. Moreover, with the major buyers being China and India, it will be politically and physically impossible to police secondary sanctions. The bottom line is that Russian oil will find its way into the market. There has never been a modern era recession or sharp slowdown in which the oil price did not collapse. But the bigger problem will come from the demand side of the equation when the global economy enters, or even just flirts with, a recession. Put simply, because of massive demand destruction, there has never been a modern era recession or sharp slowdown in which the oil price did not collapse (Chart I-5 - Chart I-10). Chart I-5In The Early 80s Recession, Oil Collapsed By -30 Percent Chart I-6In The Early 90s Recession, Oil Collapsed By -60 Percent Chart I-7In The 2000 Dot Com Bust, Oil Collapsed By ##br##-55 Percent Chart I-8In The 2008 Global Financial Crisis, Oil Collapsed By -75 Percent Chart I-9In The 2015 EM Recession, Oil Collapsed By ##br##-60 Percent Chart I-10In The 2020 Pandemic, Oil Collapsed By ##br##-75 Percent Furthermore, as we explained in Oil Is The Accessory To The Murder, a preceding surge in the oil price is a remarkably consistent ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’, tipping an already fragile economy over the brink into recession. Meaning that the oil price ends up in a symmetrical undershoot to its preceding overshoot. The result being a massive drawdown in the oil price in every modern era recession or sharp slowdown. Specifically: Early 80s recession: -30 percent Early 90s recession: -60 percent 2000 dot com bust: -55 percent 2008 global financial crisis: -75 percent 2015 EM recession: -60 percent 2020 pandemic: -75 percent What about the 1970s episode – isn’t this the counterexample in which the oil price remained stubbornly high despite a recession? No, even in the 1974 recession, the oil price fell by -25 percent.  Moreover, the commonly cited explanation for the elevated nominal price of oil through the 70s is a misreading of history. The popular narrative blames OPEC supply cutbacks related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israel war of October 1973.  As neat and popular as this narrative is, it ignores the real culprit: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil just to play catch up. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. In terms of gold, in which oil was effectively priced before 1971, the oil price was no higher in 1980 than in 1971! (Chart I-11) Chart I-11Priced In Gold, The Oil Price Was No Higher In 1980 Than in 1971! Shorting Oil And Oil Plays Will Be Very Rewarding For Patient Investors The four most dangerous words in investment are ‘this time is different’. Today, the oil bulls insist that this time really is different because of an unprecedented structural underinvestment in fossil fuel extraction. Leaving the precariously tight oil market vulnerable to the slightest uptick in demand, or downtick in supply. Maybe. But to reiterate, in a recession, the massive destruction of oil demand always overwhelms a tight supply. In this important regard, this time will not be different. Taking the median drawdown of the last six recessions of 60 percent, and applying it to the post-invasion peak of $130, it implies that, in the coming recession, oil will plunge to $55. In a recession, the massive destruction of oil demand always overwhelms a tight supply. Of course, this is the average of a range of recession outcomes, with the best case being $85 and the worst case being $30. Still, this means that patient investors who short oil can look forward to substantial gains. Alternatively, those who want a hedged position should short oil versus copper – especially as oil versus copper is now at the top of its 25-year trading channel (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Oil Versus Copper Is At The Top Of Its 25-Year Trading Channel Equity investors should underweight the oil sector versus basic resources (Chart I-13) and/or versus industrials and/or versus banks, and underweight oil-heavy stock markets such as Norway (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Underweight Oil Versus Basic Resources Chart I-14Underweight Oil-Heavy Stock Markets Such As Norway Suffice to say, these are all correlated trades. They will all work, or they will all not work. But to repeat, this time is never different. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental arguments to underweight oil plays, the spectacular recent outperformance of oil equities versus both industrials and banks has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structures that has reliably signalled previous turning points (Chart I-15). Chart I-15The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Industrials Is Exhausted We are adding oil versus banks to our watchlist, with this week’s recommendation being to underweight oil versus industrials, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss of 10 percent, with a maximum holding period of 6 months. Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Chart 1BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point   Chart 2Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 3CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 4US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 5CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 6Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 7The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 8The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 9FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 11The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 12The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 13Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 14German Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 15Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 16The Strong Downtrend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 17The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 18A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 19Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 20Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 21Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 22Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 23USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 24The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 25A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 26GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 27US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 28The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations