BCA Indicators/Model

Executive Summary German GeoRisk Indicator Russia and Germany have begun cutting off each other’s energy in a major escalation of strategic tensions. The odds of Finland and Sweden joining NATO have shot up. A halt to NATO enlargement, particularly on Russia’s borders, is Russia’s chief demand. Tensions will skyrocket. China’s reversion to autocracy and de facto alliance with Russia are reinforcing the historic confluence of internal and external risk, weighing on Chinese assets. Geopolitical risk is rising in South Korea and Hong Kong, rising in Spain and Italy, and flat in South Africa. France’s election will lower domestic political risk but the EU as a whole faces a higher risk premium. The Biden administration is doubling down on its defense of Ukraine, calling for $33 billion in additional aid and telling Russia that it will not dominate its neighbor. However, the Putin regime cannot afford to lose in Ukraine and will threaten to widen the conflict to intimidate and divide the West. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 14.2% Bottom Line: Stay long global defensives over cyclicals. Feature Chart 1Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Drive Up Dollar The dollar (DXY) is breaking above the psychological threshold of 100 on the back of monetary tightening and safe-haven demand. Geopolitical risk does not always drive up the dollar – other macroeconomic factors may prevail. But in today’s situation macro and geopolitics are converging to boost the greenback (Chart 1). Global economic policy uncertainty is also rising sharply. It is highly correlated with the broader trade-weighted dollar. The latter is nowhere near 2020 peaks but could rise to that level if current trends hold. A strong dollar reflects slowing global growth and also tightens global financial conditions, with negative implications for cyclical and emerging market equities. Bottom Line: Tactically favor US equities and the US dollar to guard against greater energy shock, policy uncertainty, and risk-aversion. Energy Cutoff Points To European Recession Chart 2Escalation With Russia Weighs Further On EU Assets Russia is reducing natural gas flows to Poland and Bulgaria and threatening other countries, Germany is now embracing an oil embargo against Russia, while Finland and Sweden are considering joining NATO. These three factors are leading to a major escalation of strategic tensions on the continent that will get worse before they get better, driving up our European GeoRisk indicators and weighing on European assets (Chart 2). Russia’s ultimatum in December 2021 stressed that NATO enlargement should cease and that NATO forces and weapons should not be positioned east of the May 1997 status quo. Russia invaded Ukraine to ensure its military neutrality over the long run.1 Finland and Sweden, seeing Ukraine’s isolation amid Russian invasion, are now reviewing whether to change their historic neutrality and join NATO. Public opinion polls now show Finnish support for joining at 61% and Swedish support at 57%. The scheduling of a joint conference between the country’s leaders on May 13 looks like it could be a joint declaration of their intention to join. The US and other NATO members will have to provide mutual defense guarantees for the interim period if that is the case, lest Russia attack. The odds that Finland and Sweden remain neutral are higher than the consensus holds (given the 97% odds that they join NATO on Predictit.org). But the latest developments suggest they are moving toward applying for membership. They fear being left in the cold like Ukraine in the event of an attack. Russia’s response will be critical. If Russia deploys nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad, as former President Dmitri Medvedev warned, then Moscow will be making a menacing show but not necessarily changing the reality of Russia’s nuclear strike capabilities. That is equivalent to a pass and could mark the peak of the entire crisis. The geopolitical risk premium would begin to subside after that. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyLe Pen And Other Hurdles (GeoRisk Update) However, Russia has also threatened “military-political repercussions” if the Nordics join NATO. Russia’s capabilities are manifestly limited, judging by Ukraine today and the Winter War of 1939, but a broader war cannot entirely be ruled out. Global financial markets will still need to adjust for a larger tail risk of a war in Finland/Sweden in the very near term. Most likely Russia will retaliate by cutting off Europe’s natural gas. Clearly this is the threat on the table, after the cutoff to Poland and Bulgaria and the warnings to other countries. In the near term, several companies are gratifying Russia and paying for gas in rubles. But these payments violate EU sanctions against Russia and the intention is to wean off Russian imports as soon as possible. Germany says it can reduce gas imports starting next year after inking a deal with Qatar. Hence Russia might take the initiative and start reducing the flow earlier. Bottom Line: If Europe plunges into recession as a result of an immediate natural gas cutoff, then strategic stability between Russia and the West will become less certain. The tail risk of a broader war goes up. Stay cyclically long US equities over global equities and tactically long US treasuries. Stay long defense stocks and gold. Stay Short CNY At the end of last year we argued that Beijing would double down on “Zero Covid” policy in 2022, at least until the twentieth national party congress this fall. Social restrictions serve a dual purpose of disease suppression and dissent repression. Now that the state is doubling down, what will happen next? The economy will deteriorate: imports are already contracting at a rate of 0.1% YoY. The manufacturing PMI has fallen to 48.1  and the service sector PMI to 42.0, indicating contraction. Furthermore, social unrest could emerge, as lockdowns serve as a catalyst to ignite underlying socioeconomic disparities. Hence the national party congress is less likely to go smoothly, implying that investors will catch a glimpse of political instability under the surface in China as the year progresses. The political risk premium will remain high (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Risk Weighs On Stocks And Currency While Chairman Xi Jinping is still likely to clinch another ten years in power, it will not be auspicious amid an economic crash and any social unrest. Xi could be forced into some compromises on either Politburo personnel or policy adjustments. A notable indicator of compromise would be if he nominated a successor, though this would not provide any real long-term assurance to investors given the lack of formal mechanisms for power transfer. After the party congress we expect Xi to “let 100 flowers bloom,” meaning that he will ease fiscal, regulatory, and social policy so that today’s monetary and fiscal stimulus can work effectively. Right now monetary and fiscal easing has limited impact because private sector actors are averse to taking risk. Easing policy to boost the economy could also entail a diplomatic charm offensive to try to convince the US and EU to avoid imposing any significant sanctions on trade and investment flows, whether due to Russia or human rights violations. Such a diplomatic initiative would only succeed, if at all, in the short run. The US cannot allow a deep re-engagement with China since that would serve to strengthen the de facto Russo-Chinese strategic alliance. In other words, an eruption of instability threatens to weaken Xi’s hand and jeopardize his power retention. While it is extremely unlikely that Xi will fall from power, he could have his image of supremacy besmirched. It is likely that China will be forced to ease a range of policies, including lockdowns and regulations of key sectors, that will be marginally positive for economic growth. There may also be schemes to attract foreign investment. Bottom Line: If China expands the range of its policy easing the result could be received positively by global investors in 2023. But the short-term outlook is still negative and deteriorating due to China’s reversion to autocracy and confluence of political and geopolitical risk. Stay short CNY and neutral Chinese stocks. Stay Short KRW South Koreans went to the polls on March 9 to elect their new president for a five-year term. The two top candidates for the job were Yoon Suk-yeol and Lee Jae-myung. Yoon, a former public prosecutor, was the candidate for the People Power Party, a conservative party that can be traced back to the Saenuri and the Grand National Party, which was in power from 2007 to 2017 under President Lee Myung-bak and President Park Geun-hye. Lee, the governor of the largest province in Korea, was the candidate for the Democratic Party, the party of the incumbent President Moon Jae-in. Yoon won by a whisker, garnering 48.6% of the votes versus 47.8% for Lee. The margin of victory for Yoon is the lowest since Korea started directly electing its presidents. President-elect Yoon will be inaugurated in May. He will not have control of the National Assembly, as his party only holds 34% of the seats. The Democratic Party holds the majority, with 172 out of 300 seats. The next legislative election will be in 2024, which means that President Yoon will have to work with the opposition for a good two years before his party has a chance to pass laws on its own. President-elect Yoon was the more pro-business and fiscally restrained candidate. His nomination of Han Duck-soo as his prime minister suggests that, insofar as any domestic policy change is possible, he will be pragmatic, as Han served under two liberal administrations. Yoon’s lack of a majority and nomination of a left-leaning prime minister suggest that domestic policy will not be a source of uncertainty for investors through 2024. Foreign policy, by contrast, will be the biggest source of risk for investors. Yoon rejects the dovish “Moonshine” policy of his predecessor and favors a strong hand in dealing with North Korea. “War can be avoided only when we acquire an ability to launch pre-emptive strikes and show our willingness to use them,” he has argued. North Korea responded by expanding its nuclear doctrine and resuming tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles with the launch of the Hwasong-17 on March 24 – the first ICBM launch since 2017. In a significant upgrade of North Korea’s deterrence strategy, Kim Yo Jong, the sister of Kim Jong Un, warned on April 4 that North Korea would use nuclear weapons to “eliminate” South Korea if attacked (implying an overwhelming nuclear retaliation to any attack whatsoever). Kim Jong Un himself claimed on April 26 that North Korea’s nuclear weapons are no longer merely about deterrence but would be deployed if the country is attacked. President-elect Yoon welcomes the possibility of deploying of US strategic assets to strengthen deterrence against the North. The hawkish turn is not surprising considering that North-South relations failed to make any substantive improvements during President Moon’s five-year tenure as a pro-engagement president. South Koreans, especially Yoon’s supporters, are split on whether inter-Korean dialogue should be continued. They are becoming more interested in developing their own nuclear weapons or at the very least deploying US nuclear weapons in South Korea. Half of South Korean voters support security through alliance with the US, while a third support security through the development of independent nuclear weapons. The nuclear debate will raise tensions on the peninsula. An even bigger change in South Korea’s foreign policy is its policy towards China. President-elect Yoon has accused President Moon of succumbing to China’s economic extortion. Moon had established a policy of “three No’s,” meaning no to additional THAAD missiles in South Korea, no to hosting other US missile defense systems, and no to joining an alliance with Japan and the United States. By contrast, Yoon’s electoral promises include deploying more THAAD and joining the Quadrilateral Dialogue (US, Japan, Australia, India). Polls show that South Koreans hold a low opinion of all of their neighbors but that China has slipped slightly beneath Japan and North Korea in favorability. Even Democratic Party voters feel more negative towards China. While negative attitudes towards China are not unique to Korea, there is an important difference from other countries: the Korean youth dislike China the most, not the older generations. Negative sentiment is less tied to old wounds from the Korean war and more related to ideology and today’s grievances. Younger Koreans, growing up in a liberal democracy and proud of their economic and cultural success, have been involved in campus clashes against Chinese students over Korean support for Hong Kong democrats. Negative attitudes towards China among the youth should alarm investors, as young people provide the voting base for elections to come, and China is the largest trading partner for Korea. Korea’s foreign policy will hew to the American side, at risk to its economy (Chart 4). Chart 4South Korean Geopolitical Risk Rising Under The Radar President-elect Yoon’s policies towards North Korea and China will increase geopolitical risk in East Asia. The biggest beneficiary will be India. Both Korea and Japan need to find a substitute to Chinese markets and labor, which have become less reliable in recent years. South Korea’s newly elected president is aligned with the US and West and less friendly toward China and Russia. He faces a rampant North Korea that feels emboldened by its position of an arsenal of 40-50 deliverable nuclear weapons. The North Koreans now claim that they will respond to any military attack with nuclear force and are testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and possibly a nuclear weapon. The US currently has three aircraft carriers around Korea, despite its urgent foreign policy challenges in Europe and the Middle East. Bottom Line: Stay long JPY-KRW. South Korea’s geopolitical risk premium will remain high. But favor Korean stocks over Taiwanese stocks. Stay Neutral On Hong Kong Stocks Hong Kong’s leadership change will trigger a new bout of unrest (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong: More Turbulence Ahead On April 4, Hong Kong’s incumbent Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, confirmed that she would not seek a second term but would step down on June 30. John Lee, the current chief secretary of Hong Kong, became the only candidate approved to run for election, which is scheduled to be held on May 8. With the backing of the pro-Beijing members in the Election Committee, Lee is expected to secure enough nominations to win the race. Lee served as security secretary from when Carrie Lam took office in 2017 until June 2021. He firmly supported the Hong Kong extradition bill in 2019 and National Security Law in 2020, which provoked historic social unrest in those years. He insisted on taking a tough security stance towards pro-democracy protests. With Lee in power, Hong Kong will face more unrest and tougher crackdowns in the coming years, which will likely bring more social instability. Lee will provoke pro-democracy activists with his policy stances and adherence to Beijing’s party line. For example, his various statements to the news media suggest a dogmatic approach to censorship and political dissent. With the adoption of the National Security Law, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy faction is already deeply disaffected. Carrie Lam was originally elected as a popular leader, with notable support from women, but her popularity fell sharply after the passage of the extradition bill and National Security Law, as well as her mishandling of the Covid-19 outbreak. Her failure to handle the clashes between the Hong Kong people and Beijing damaged public trust in government. Trust never fully recovered when it took another hit recently from the latest wave of the pandemic. Putting another pro-Beijing hardliner in power will exacerbate the trend. Hong Kong equities are vulnerable not merely because of social unrest. During the era of US-China engagement, Hong Kong benefited as the middleman and the symbol that the Communist Party could cooperate within a liberal, democratic, capitalist global order. Hence US-China power struggle removes this special status and causes Hong Kong financial assets to contract mainland Chinese geopolitical risk. As a result of the 2019-2020 crackdown, John Lee and Carrie Lam were among a list of Hong Kong officials sanctioned by the US Treasury Department and State Department in 2020. Now, after the Ukraine war, the US will be on the lookout for any Hong Kong role in helping Russia circumvent sanctions, as well as any other ways in which China might further its strategic aims by means of Hong Kong. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on Hong Kong equities. Favor France Within European Equities French political risk will fall after the presidential election, which recommits the country to geopolitical unity with the US and NATO and potentially pro-productivity structural reforms (Chart 6). France is already a geopolitically secure country so the reduction of domestic political risk should be doubly positive for French assets, though they have already outperformed. And the Russia-West conflict is fueling a risk premium regardless of France’s positive developments. Chart 6France's Domestic Political Risk Will Subside But Russian War Will Keep Geopolitical Risk Elevated The French election ended with a solid victory for the political establishment as we expected. President Emmanuel Macron gaining 58% of the vote to Marine Le Pen’s 42%. Macron beat his opinion polling by 4.5pp while Le Pen underperformed her polls by 4.5pp. A large number of voters abstained, at 28%, compared to 25.5% in 2017. The regional results showed a stark divergence between overseas or peripheral France (where Marine Le Pen even managed to get over half of the vote in several cases) and the core cities of France (where Macron won handily). Macron had won an outright majority in every region in 2017. Macron did best among the young and the old, while Le Pen did best among middle-aged voters. But Macron won every age group except the 50 year-olds, who want to retire early. Macron did well among business executives, managers, and retired people, but Le Pen won among the working classes, as expected. Le Pen won the lowest paid income group, while Macron’s margin of victory rises with each step up the income ladder. Macron’s performance was strong, especially considering the global context. The pandemic knocked several incumbent parties out of power (US, Germany) and required leadership changes in others (Japan, Italy). The subsequent inflation shock now threatens to cause another major political rotation in rapid succession, leaving various political leaders and parties vulnerable in the coming months and years (Australia, the UK, Spain). Only Canada and now France marked exceptions, where post-pandemic elections confirmed the country’s leader. The Ukraine war constitutes yet another shock but it helped Macron, as Le Pen had objective links and sympathies with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Macron’s timing was lucky but his message of structural reform for the sake of economic efficiency still resonates in contemporary France, where change is long overdue – at least compared with Le Pen’s proposal of doubling down on statism, protectionism, and fiscal largesse. The French middle class was never as susceptible to populism as the US, UK, and Italy because it had been better protected from the ravages of globalization. Populism is still a force to be reckoned with, especially if left-wing populists do well in the National Assembly, or if right-wing populists find a fresher face than the Le Pen dynasty. But the failure of populism in the context of pandemic, inflation, and war suggests that France’s political establishment remains well fortified by the economic structure and the electoral system. Whether Macron can sustain his structural reforms depends on legislative elections to be held on June 12-19. Early projections are positive for his party, which should keep a majority. Macron’s new mandate will help. Le Pen’s National Rally and its predecessors may perform better than in the past but that is not saying much as their presence in the National Assembly has been weak. Bottom Line: France is geopolitically secure and has seen a resounding public vote for structural reform that could improve productivity depending on legislative elections. French equities can continue to outperform their European peers over the long run. Our European Investment Strategy recommends French equities ex-consumer stocks, French small caps over large caps, and French aerospace and defense.   Favor Spanish Over Italian Stocks Chart 7Italian And Spanish Political Risk Will Rise But Favor Spanish Stocks What about Spain? It is still a “divided nation” susceptible to a rise in political risk ahead of the general election due by December 10, 2023 (Chart 7). In the past few months, a series of strategic mistakes and internal power struggles have led to a significant decline in the popularity of Spain’s largest opposition party, the People’s Party. Due to public infighting and power struggle, Pablo Casado was forced to step down as the leader of the People’s Party on February 23, as requested by 16 of the party’s 17 regional leaders. It is yet to be seen if the new party leader, Alberto Nunez Feijoo, can reboot People’s Party. The far-right VOX party will benefit from the People Party’s setback. The latter’s misstep in a regional election (Castile & Leon) gave VOX a chance to participate in a regional government for the very first time. Hence VOX’s influence will spread and it will receive greater recognition as an important political force. Meanwhile the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) faces anger from the public amid inflation and high energy prices. However, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s decision to send offensive military weapons to Ukraine is widely supported among major parties, including even his reluctant coalition partner, Unidas Podemos. The People’s Party’s recent infighting gives temporary relief to the ruling party. The Russia-Ukraine issue caused some minor divisions within the government but they are not yet leading to any major political crisis, as nationwide pro-Ukraine sentiment is largely unified. The Andalusia regional election, which is expected this November, will be a check point for Feijoo and a pre-test for next year’s general election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, consisting about 17% of the seats in the congress (the lower house). The problem for Sanchez and the Socialists is that the stagflationary backdrop will weigh on their support over time. Bottom Line: Spanish political risk is likely to spike sooner rather than later, though Spanish domestic risk it is limited in nature. Madrid faces low geopolitical risk, low energy vulnerability, and is not susceptible to trying to leave the EU or Euro Area. Favor Spanish over Italian stocks. Stay Constructive On South Africa The political and economic status quo is largely unchanged in South Africa and will remain so going into the 2024 national elections. Fiscal discipline will weaken ahead of the election, which should be negative for the rand, but the global commodity shortage and geopolitical risks in Russia and China will probably overwhelm any negative effects from South Africa’s domestic policies. Rising commodity prices have propped up the local equity market and will bring in much-needed revenue into the local economy and government coffers. But structural issues persist. Low growth outcomes amid weak productivity and high unemployment levels will remain the norm. The median voter is increasingly constrained with fewer economic opportunities on the horizon. Pressure will mount on the ruling African National Congress (ANC), fueling civil unrest and adding to overall political risk (Chart 8). Chart 8South Africa's Political Status Quo Is Tactically Positive For Equities And Currency Almost a year has passed since the civil unrest episode of 2021. Covid-19 lockdowns have lifted and the national state of disaster has ended, reducing social tensions. This is evident in the decline of our South Africa GeoRisk indicator from 2021 highs. While we recently argued that fiscal austerity is under way in South Africa, we also noted that fiscal policy will reverse course in time for the 2024 election. In this year’s fiscal budget, the budget deficit is projected to narrow from -6% to -4.2% over the next two years. Government has increased tax revenue collection through structural reforms that are rooting out corruption and wasteful expenditure. But the ANC will have to tap into government spending to shore up lost support come 2024. Already, the ANC have committed to maintaining a special Covid-19 social-grant payment, first introduced in 2020, for another year. This grant, along with other government support, will feature in 2024 and possibly beyond. Unemployment is at 34.3%, its highest level ever recorded. The ANC cannot leave it unchecked. The most prevalent and immediate recourse is to increase social payments and transfers. Given the increasing number of social dependents that higher unemployment creates, government spending will have to increase to address rising unemployment. President Cyril Ramaphosa is still a positive figurehead for the ANC, but the 2021 local elections showed that the ANC cannot rely on the Ramaphosa effect alone. The ANC is also dealing with intra-party fighting. Ramaphosa has yet to assert total control over the party elites, distracting the ANC from achieving its policy objectives. To correct course, Ramaphosa will have to relax fiscal discipline. To this outcome, investors should expect our GeoRisk indicator to register steady increases in political risk moving into 2024. The only reason to be mildly optimistic is that South Africa is distant from geopolitical risk and can continue to benefit from the global bull market in metals. Bottom Line: Maintain a cyclically constructive outlook on South African currency and assets. Tight global commodity markets will support this emerging market, which stands to benefit from developments in Russia and China. Investment Takeaways Stay strategically long gold on geopolitical and inflation risk, despite the dollar rally. Stay long US equities relative to global and UK equities relative to DM-ex-US. Favor global defensives over cyclicals and large caps over small caps. Stay short CNY, TWD, and KRW-JPY. Stay short CZK-GBP. Favor Mexico within emerging markets. Stay long defense and cyber security stocks. We are booking a 5% stop loss on our long Canada / short Saudi Arabia equity trade. We still expect Middle Eastern tensions to escalate and trigger a Saudi selloff.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1   The campaign in the south suggests that Ukraine will be partitioned, landlocked, and susceptible to blockade in the coming years. If Russia achieves its military objectives, then Ukraine will accept neutrality in a ceasefire to avoid losing more territory. If Russia fails, then it faces humiliation and its attempts to save face will become unpredictable and aggressive. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights All four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to a three decade low, our Technical Indicator has broken into negative territory, our Valuation Indicator still signals extreme equity pricing, and our Speculation Indicator does not yet support a contrarian buy signal. Still, we do not expect a US recession over the coming year, which implies that S&P 500 revenue growth will stay positive. Nonrecessionary earnings contractions are rare, and are almost always associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. Our new profit margin warning indicator currently suggests the odds of falling margins are low, although the risks may rise later this year. Stocks are extremely expensive, but rich valuations are being driven by extremely low real bond yields, rather than investor exuberance. Valuation is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly over the coming year unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical analysis of stock prices has a long and successful history at boosting investment performance, which ostensibly suggests that investors should be paying more attention to technical conditions in the current environment. However, technical trading rules have been less helpful in expansionary environments when inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated (as is currently the case). As such, the recent technical breakdown of the US equity market may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio associated with these economic and financial market regimes. For now, we see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6 to 12 months. Rising odds of a recession, declining profit margins, and a large increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market, the risks of which should be monitored closely by investors. Feature In Section 1 of our report, we reviewed why a recession in the US is unlikely over the coming 6 to 12 months. However, we also highlighted that the risks to the economic outlook are meaningful and that an aggressively overweight stance toward risky assets is currently unwarranted. During times of significant uncertainty, investors should pay relatively more attention to long-term economic and financial market indicators with a reliable track record. In this report we begin by briefly reviewing the message from our US Equity Indicators, and then turn to a deeper examination of the top-down outlook for earnings, the determinants of rich valuation in the US stock market, and whether investors should rely on technical indicators in the current environment. We conclude that, while an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market, we generally see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. Aside from tracking the risk of a recession, investors should be closely attuned to signs of a contraction in profit margins or shifting neutral rate expectations as a basis to reduce equity exposure to below-benchmark levels. A Brief Review Of Our US Equity Indicators Chart II-1Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Chart II-1 presents our US Equity Indicators, which we update each month in Section 3 of our report. We highlight our observations below: Chart II-1 shows that our Monetary Indicator has fallen to its lowest level since 1995, when the Fed surprised investors and shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction. The indicator is most acutely impacted by the speed of the rise in 10-year Treasury yields and a massive surge in the BCA Short Rate Indicator to levels that have not prevailed since the late 1970s (Chart II-2). Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, which we have traditionally interpreted as a sign to sell stocks. The indicator has been dragged lower by a deterioration in stock market breadth across several tracked measures and by weak sentiment (Chart II-3). The momentum component of the indicator is fractionally positive but is exhibiting clear weakness. Our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history, despite the recent sell-off in stock prices. Our Speculation Indicator arguably provides the least negative signal of our four indicators, at least from a contrarian perspective. In Q1 2021, the indicator nearly reached the all-time high set in March 2000, but it has since retreated significantly and has exited extremely speculative territory. While this may eventually provide a positive signal for stocks, equity returns have historically been below average during months when the indicator declines. Thus, the downtrend in the Speculation Indicator still points to weakness in stock prices, at least over the nearer term. Chart II-2Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-3All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling In summary, all four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction, which clearly argues against an aggressively overweight stance favoring equities within a multi-asset portfolio. At the same time, we reviewed the odds of a US recession over the coming year in Section 1 of our report and argued that a recession is not likely over the coming 12 months. Thus, one key question for investors is whether a nonrecessionary contraction in earnings is likely over the coming year. We address this question in the next section of our report, before turning to a deeper examination of the relative importance of equity valuation and technical indicators. Gauging The Risk Of A Nonrecessionary Earnings Contraction Chart II-4Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Based on S&P data, there have been five cases since 1960 when 12-month trailing earnings per share fell year-over-year, while the economy continued to expand (Chart II-4). Sales per share growth remained positive in four of these cases (panel 2), underscoring that falling profit margins have been mostly responsible for these nonrecessionary earnings declines. We have noted our concern about how elevated US profit margins have become and have argued that a significant further expansion is not likely to occur over the coming 12-24 months.1 To gauge the risk of a sizeable decline in margins over the coming year, we construct a new indicator based on the seven instances when S&P 500 margins fell outside the context of a recession. This includes two cases when margins fell but earnings did not (because of buoyant revenue growth). We based the indicator on these five factors: Changes in unit labor cost growth to measure the impact of wage costs on firm profitability; Lagging changes in commodity prices as a proxy for material costs; The level of real short-term interest rates as a proxy for borrowing costs; Changes in a sales growth proxy to measure the impact of operating leverage on margins; And changes in the ISM manufacturing index to capture any residual impact on margins from the business cycle. Chart II-5The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low Chart II-5 presents the indicator, which is shaded both for recessionary periods and the seven nonrecessionary margin contraction episodes we identified. While the indicator does not perfectly predict margin contractions outside of recessions, it did signal 50% or greater odds of a margin contraction in four of the seven episodes we examined, and signals high odds of a contraction in margins during recessions. Among the three cases in which the indicator failed to indicate falling margins during an expansion, two of those failures were episodes when earnings growth did not ultimately contract. The inability to explain the 1997-1998 margin contraction is the most relevant failure of the indicator, in addition to two false signals in 1963 and 1988. Still, the approach provides a useful framework to gauge the risk of falling profit margins, and the results provide an interesting and somewhat surprising message about the relative importance of the factors we included. We would have expected that accelerating wages would have been the most significant factor explaining nonrecessionary profit margin declines. Wages were highly significant, but they were the second most important factor behind our sales growth proxy. Lagged commodity prices were the third most significant factor, followed by real short-term interest rates. Changes in the ISM manufacturing index were least significant, underscoring that our sales growth proxy already captures most of the effect of the business cycle on profit margins. This suggests that operating leverage is an important determinant of margins during economic expansions, and that investors should be most concerned about declining profit margins when both revenue growth is slowing significantly and wage growth is accelerating. The indicator currently points to low odds of a nonrecessionary margin contraction, but this is likely to change over the coming year. We expect that all five of the factors will evolve in a fashion that is negative for margins over the coming twelve months: While the pace of its increase is slowing, median wage growth continues to accelerate, even when adjusting for the fact that 1st quartile wage growth is growing at an above-average rate (Chart II-6). Combining the latter with higher odds of at or below-trend growth this year implies that unit labor costs may rise further over the coming twelve months. Analysts expect S&P 500 revenue growth to slow nontrivially over the coming year (Chart II-7). Current expectations point to growth slowing to a level that would still be quite strong relative to what has prevailed over the past decade; however, accelerating wage costs in lockstep with decelerating revenue growth is exactly the type of combination that has historically been associated with falling margins during economic expansions. Chart II-6Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Chart II-7...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow​​​​​​ Although these are less impactful factors, the lagged effect of the recent surge in commodity prices will also weigh on margins over the coming year, as will rising real interest rates and a likely slowdown in manufacturing activity in response to slower goods spending. In addition to our new indicator, we have two other tools at our disposal to track the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year. First, Chart II-8 illustrates that an industry operating margin diffusion index does a decent job at leading turning points in S&P 500 profit margins, despite its volatility. And second, Chart II-9 highlights that changes in the sales and profit margin diffusion indexes sourced from the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations Survey have predicted turning points in operating sales per share and margins over the past decade. Chart II-9 does suggest that profit margins may not rise further, but flat margins are not likely to be a threat to earnings growth over the coming year if a recession is avoided (as we expect). Chart II-8Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Chart II-9...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes     The conclusion for investors is that the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year are elevated and should be monitored, but are seemingly not yet imminent. In combination with expectations for slowing revenue growth, this implies, for now, that earnings growth over the coming year will be low but positive. Valuation, Interest Rates, And The Equity Risk Premium As noted above, our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US Equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history. Our Valuation Indicator is a composite of different valuation measures, and we sometimes receive questions from investors asking about the seemingly different messages provided by these different metrics. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that equity valuation has almost, but not fully, returned to late-1990 conditions based on the Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio, but is seemingly more expensive based on the Price/Book (P/B) and especially Price/Sales (P/S) ratios. In our view, this apparent discrepancy is easily resolved. Relative to the P/E ratio, both the P/B and especially P/S ratios are impacted by changes in aggregate profit margins, which have risen structurally over the past two decades because of the rising share of broadly-defined technology companies in the US equity index (Chart II-11). Barring a major shift in the profitability of US tech companies over the coming year, we do not see discrepancies between the P/E, P/B, or P/S ratios as being particularly informative for investors. As an additional point, we also do not see the Shiller P/E or other cyclically-adjusted P/E measures as providing any extra information about the richness or cheapness of US equities today, as these measures tend to move in line with the 12-month forward P/E ratio (Chart II-12). Chart II-10US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics Chart II-11Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis In our view, rather than focusing on different measures of valuation, it is important for investors to understand the root cause of extreme US equity prices, as well as what factors are likely to drive equity multiples over the coming year. As we have noted in previous reports, the reason that US stocks are extremely overvalued today is very different from the reason for similar overvaluation in the late 1990s. Charts II-13 and II-14 present two different versions of the equity risk premium (ERP), one based on trailing as reported earnings (dating back to 1872), and one based on twelve-month forward earnings (dating back to 1979). Chart II-12The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation Chart II-13The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average… The ERP accounts for the portion of equity market valuation that is unexplained by real interest rates, and the charts highlight that the US ERP is essentially in line with its historical average based on both measures, in sharp contrast to the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. This underscores that historically low interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic growth are the root cause of extreme equity overvaluation in the US (Chart II-15), meaning that very rich pricing can be thought of as “rational exuberance.” Chart II-14…In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s Chart II-15US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low     Chart II-16The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index Over the longer term, the risks to US equity valuation are clearly to the downside, as we detailed in our October 2021 report.2 But over the coming 6 to 12 months, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up in the US. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, a significant further rise in long-maturity bond yields will likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors and the Fed, which we think is more likely a story for next year than this year. And Chart II-16 highlights that the ERP has historically been well explained by the sum of unemployment and inflation (the Misery Index), which should come down over the coming several months as inflation moderates and the unemployment rate remains low. To conclude, it is absolutely the case that US equities are extremely expensive, but this fact is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical Analysis Amid A Shifting Economic Regime Technical analysis of financial markets, and especially stocks, has a long history. It has also provided disciplined investors with significant excess returns over time. A simple stock / bond switching rule based on whether stock prices were above their nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month has significantly outperformed since the 1960s, earning an average excess annual return of 1.3% relative to a 60/40 stock/bond benchmark portfolio (Chart II-17). This outsized performance has come at the cost of only a minor increase in portfolio volatility. Ostensibly, then, investors should be paying more attention to equity technical conditions in the current environment, which we noted above are not positive. Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, and the S&P 500 has clearly fallen back below its 200-day moving average. However, Chart II-17 presented generalized results over long periods of time. Over the past two decades, investors have been able to rely on a durably negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields to help boost portfolio returns from technically-driven switching rule strategies. Chart II-18 highlights that this correlation has been much lower over the past two years than has been the case since the early 2000s, raising the question of whether similar switching strategies are viable today. In addition, there is the added question of whether technical analysis is helpful to investors during certain types of economic and financial market regimes, such as high inflation environments. Chart II-17Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Chart II-18Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated To test whether the message from technical indicators may be relied upon today, we examine the historical returns from a technically-driven portfolio switching strategy during nonrecessionary months under four conditions that reflect the economic and political realities currently facing investors: months when both stock and bond returns are negative; months of above-average inflation; months of above-average geopolitical risk; and the 1970s, when the Misery Index was very elevated. In all the cases we consider, the switching rule is simple: whether the S&P 500 index was above its nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month. If so, the rule overweights equities for the subsequent months; if not, the rule overweights a comparatively risk-free asset. We consider portfolios with either 10-year Treasurys or 3-month Treasury bills as the risk-free asset, as well as a counterfactual scenario in which cash always earns a 1% annual rate of return (to mimic the cash returns currently available to investors). Table II-1 presents the success and whipsaw rate of the trading rule. Table II-2 presents the annualized cumulative returns from the strategy. The tables provide three key observations: As reflected in Chart II-17, both Tables II-1 and II-2 highlight that simple technical trading rules have historically performed well, and that outperformance has occurred in both recessionary and nonrecessionary periods. Relative to nonrecessionary periods overall, technical trading rules have underperformed during the particular nonrecessionary regimes that we examined. It is the case not only that these strategies have performed in inferior ways during these regimes, but also that they were less consistent signals in that they generated significantly more “whipsaws” for investors. Among the four nonrecessionary regimes that we tested, technical indicators underperformed the least during periods of above-average geopolitical risk, and performed abysmally during nonrecessionary (but generally stagflationary) months in the 1970s. Table II-1During Expansions, Technically-Driven Switching Rules Underperform… Table II-2…When Inflation Is High And When Stocks And Bonds Lose Money The key takeaway for investors is that technical analysis is likely to be helpful for investors to improve portfolio performance as we approach a recession but may be less helpful in an expansionary environment in which inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated. Investment Conclusions Echoing the murky economic outlook that we detailed in Section 1 of our report, our analysis highlights that an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market. On the one hand, all four of our main equity indicators are currently providing a bearish signal, and the risk of a nonrecessionary contraction in S&P 500 profit margins over the coming year is elevated – albeit seemingly not imminent. On the other hand, our expectation that the US will not slip into recession over the coming year implies that revenue growth will stay positive, which has historically been associated with expanding earnings. In addition, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up, and the recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500 may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio that appears to exist in expansionary environments in which inflation is high and the stock price / bond yield correlation is near-zero or negative. Netting these signals out, we see our equity indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. The emergence of a recession, declining profit margins, and a significant increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market. We will continue to monitor these risks and adjust our investment recommendations as needed over the coming several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?” dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms,” dated September 30, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Several factors point to both an improvement and a deterioration in economic and financial market conditions, underscoring that the 6- to 12-month investment outlook is unavoidably uncertain. On the one hand, the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, slowing headline inflation will boost real wages and lower the equity risk premium, bond yields will not move much higher this year, and US services spending will support consumption as the pandemic continues to recede in importance. These are positive factors that will work to support economic activity and risky asset prices. On the other hand, the US will likely experience a recession scare focused on the housing market, the European economy may contract, Omicron’s spread in China threatens a further rise in shipping costs and a trade shock for Europe, and US inflation expectations may unanchor despite a falling inflation rate. For now, investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6- to 12-month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. Within a global equity allocation, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional stance. The larger risk of a recession in Europe than in the US would normally imply that investors should be overweight US stocks, but euro area stocks have already underperformed global stocks significantly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance despite our forecast that long-maturity bond yields will not increase much this year. More nimble investors should be neutral duration, and should test a long stance if US data releases begin to exhibit meaningfully negative surprises. The US dollar is likely to strengthen over the near term, but we expect it to be lower a year from today. The Scourge Of Harry Truman US President Truman famously lamented the need for “one-handed” economists. His complaint reflected how essential it is for economic policymakers to receive clear advice about the best path forward. Investors understandably have even less tolerance for ambiguity than Truman did about the macro landscape and the attendant investment implications. However, there are times when the economic and financial market outlook is unavoidably uncertain. The current economic and geopolitical environment easily qualifies as one of those instances. Several factors point to both an improvement and a deterioration in economic and financial market conditions, which we review in detail below. The likely avoidance of a recession in the US over the coming year suggests that investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6- to 12-month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. What Could Go Right The US Will Likely Avoid A Recession Over The Coming Year Chart I-1The Odds Of A US Recession Are Currently Low We downgraded our odds of an above-trend 2022 growth scenario in last month’s report,1 but noted that a stagflation-lite environment of below-trend growth and above-target inflation was a more likely outcome than recession. We based this assessment on our view that the US neutral rate of interest is likely higher than the Fed and investors expect, which we discussed at length in past reports.2 Chart I-1 highlights that our recession probability indicator also supports this view, as it does not yet signal that a recession is on the horizon.3 Table I-1 highlights the components of the model (which is significantly influenced by the Conference Board’s LEI), and shows that the model is not providing a meaningful warning signal. The Fed funds rate component of the model will likely flash red next month following the FOMC meeting, and we have listed it as providing a warning signal in Table I-1. But rising rates themselves have not proven to be a particularly timely indicator of a recession; this is similarly true with rising inflation expectations and oil prices. We noted in last month’s report that a surge in oil prices has not been an especially consistent indicator of a recession since 2000. Table I-1The Components Of Our Recession Model Are Not Yet Flashing A Warning Sign The yield curve component of the model is based on the spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill yield in order to minimize false recession signals, and we agree that the 10-year / 2-year spread has better leading properties. But even the latter curve measure has recently moved back into positive territory (Chart I-2), which will certainly qualify as a false yield curve signal if a recession is avoided over the coming 18 months. Within the components of the Conference Board’s LEI, Table I-1 highlights that there have been signs of weakness from the manufacturing sector, consumer expectations, and the credit market. Chart I-3 aggregates the deviation of six of these components from their trend, and shows that they have indeed been consistent with a significant slowdown in economic activity. Chart I-2The 2/10 Yield Curve Is No Longer Inverted Chart I-3The Weakest Components Of The Conference Board's LEI Are Not Yet Signaling A Recession However, two caveats are warranted. First, part of this weakness reflects the ongoing shift from goods to services spending, unraveling the massive surge in goods spending that occurred during the pandemic (Chart I-4). Second, Chart I-3 highlights that similar weaknesses occurred in the past outside of the context of a recession, most notably in 1995/1996, in the aftermath of the 1994 bond market crisis; in 1998/1999, following the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis; in 2015, following the collapse in oil prices; and, finally, in 2018/2019, in response to the Trump administration’s trade war. None of these instances resulted in a contraction in output. Headline Inflation Is Likely To Come Down Headline consumer price inflation is currently extremely high in the US. Rising prices do not just reflect energy, food, or pandemic-related effects. Chart I-5 highlights that trimmed mean CPI and PCE inflation rates have accelerated significantly since last summer, and are currently running at 6% and 3.6% year-over-year rates, respectively. Chart I-4Part Of The Weakness In Manufacturing Activity Indicators Reflects A Shift In Spending From Goods To Services Chart I-5There Is More To High Inflation Than Food, Energy, And Pandemic-Related Effects... However, it seems likely that inflation has peaked in the US (or is about to do so), even abstracting from base effects.Chart I-6 highlights that the one-month rate of change in trimmed mean measures seemingly peaked in October and January, and shows that the level of used car prices also appears to be trending lower (panel 2). The ongoing shift away from goods to services spending noted above will also push core ex-COVID-related consumer prices lower. Finally, BCA’s Commodity & Energy strategy service is forecasting that Brent crude oil prices will average roughly $90/bbl for the remainder of the year, which would likely bring US gasoline prices back toward $3.50/gallon and will lower both headline inflation and energy passthrough effects to core prices (Chart I-7). Chart I-6... But The Rate Of Headline Inflation Has Likely Peaked Chart I-7Our Forecast For Oil Implies US Gasoline Prices Will Fall     A meaningful deceleration in inflation will help reverse some of the recent decline in real wage growth that has occurred, and will likely lower the equity risk premium (see Section 2 of this month’s report).   Long-Maturity Bond Yields Will Not Move Much Higher This Year Chart I-8Our Inflation Probability Model Is Signaling Core Inflation That Is Roughly In Line With The Fed's Latest Forecast Chart I-8 highlights that our inflation probability model is currently signaling core PCE inflation of roughly 4.3% over the coming year. This is only moderately above the Fed’s forecast for this year, suggesting that a moderation in the rate of inflation makes it more likely that the Fed will raise rates in line with, or only moderately above, what was projected in the March Summary of Economic Projections (1.9% by the end of this year, and 2.8% by the end of 2023). By contrast, Chart I-9 highlights that the OIS curve is pricing the Fed funds rate at 80 basis points higher by the end of this year than what the Fed projected in March, suggesting that the bar for further hawkish surprises is quite high. We agree that the Fed will likely front-load a good portion of its planned tightening this year, and we agree that a 50 basis point hike is likely next month and also possibly in June. However, it is quite possible that the Fed will ultimately raise rates over the coming year at a slower pace than investors currently anticipate, which would lower yields at the front end of the curve. Chart I-9The Bar For Further Hawkish Surprises From The Fed Is Quite High If short-maturity yields are flat or trend modestly lower over the coming year, then a significant further rise in long-maturity yields would likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors or the Fed. We believe that such a shift will eventually occur, as the economic justification for long-maturity bond yields well below trend rates of economic growth disappeared in the latter half of the last economic expansion. However, we noted in last month’s Special Report that a low neutral rate outlook has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed, and is only likely to change once the Fed funds rate rises meaningfully and a recession does not materialize.4 BCA’s fixed-income team currently recommends that investors maintain a neutral duration stance; the Bank Credit Analyst service is more inclined to recommend a modestly short stance. However, the key point for investors is that another significant rise in long-maturity bond yields is unlikely over the coming year, which is positive for economic activity and investor sentiment. The Pandemic Will Recede In Importance, Supporting Services Spending Chart I-10COVID Hospitalizations And Deaths Remain Low In The DM World While the pandemic is clearly not over in China (discussed below), it is likely to continue to recede in importance in the US and other highly vaccinated, and relatively highly exposed DM economies. Despite the fact that confirmed cases of COVID-19 have risen in the DM world in March and April, Chart I-10 highlights that there has been very little increase in ICU patients or deaths. A recent study from the US CDC suggests that 58% of the US population overall and more than 75% of younger children have been infected with the SARS-COV-2 virus since the start of the pandemic.5 When combined with a vaccination rate close to 70%, that signals an extraordinarily high national immunity to severe illness from the disease. Chart I-11 also highlights that deliveries of Pfizer’s Paxlovid continue to climb in the US, a drug that seemingly works against all known variants and has been found to reduce hospitalizations from COVID significantly if taken within the first five days of symptoms. Given that the decline in services spending that we showed in Chart I-4 has been clearly linked to the pandemic, we expect that a slowing pandemic will continue to support services spending. Goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, but the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-World War II economic environment (Chart I-12). This underscores that a continued recovery in services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend will provide a ballast to overall consumer spending as goods spending continues to normalize. Chart I-11Paxlovid To The Rescue! Chart I-12Real Services Spending Will Continue To Be A Forceful Driver Of US Economic Activity What Could Go Wrong The US Will Likely Experience A Recession Scare Chart I-13US Housing Affordability Has Cratered, In Large Part Due To Surging House Prices Despite our view that the US economy will avoid a recession over the coming year, it seems likely that investors will experience a recession scare at some point over the coming 6 to 12 months. Even though it has recently moved back into positive territory, the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve has set the scene for a recessionary overtone to any visible weakness in the US macro data over the coming months. We noted above that the manufacturing and goods-producing sectors of the US economy are likely to slow as spending returns to services. More importantly, the extremely sharp increase in mortgage rates will likely cause at least a temporary slowdown in US housing activity, even if that slowdown does not ultimately prove to be contractionary.Chart I-13 highlights that the recent increase in mortgage rates will cause US housing affordability to deteriorate back to 2007 levels. While rising mortgage rates will be the proximate cause of this deterioration in affordability, panel 2 highlights that the real culprit has been a significant increase in house prices relative to income. There is strong evidence pointing to the fact that US real residential investment has been too weak since the global financial crisis (GFC).6 We agree that high prices will likely spur additional housing construction (which will support growth). But over the nearer-term, the sharp deterioration in affordability may imply that house price appreciation will have to fall below the rate of income growth, which would represent a very sharp correction in house price gains that would almost assuredly appear recessionary for a time. The European Economy May Contract We have discussed the risk of a European recession in past reports, and noted that it would be almost certain to occur in a scenario in which Russia’s energy exports to Europe were to be completely cut off. We continue to see this as an unlikely scenario, although the odds have increased significantly of late in light of Russia’s halt of gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland and Germany’s apparent acceptance of an oil embargo against Russia. However, Chart I-14 highlights that a recession, at least a technical one, may occur in Germany even if its imports of Russian natural gas are not interrupted. The chart shows that the German IFO business climate indicator for manufacturing has deteriorated more than the Markit PMI has, and panel 2 highlights that IFO-reported service sector sentiment is considerably worse than what was suggested by the Markit services PMI. Chart I-15 highlights that European stocks are not fully priced for a European recession, either in relative or absolute terms. This underscores the risk to global equities if real euro area growth falls meaningfully below current consensus expectations of 1.9% this year. Chart I-14German Business Sentiment Suggests A Possible Recession Chart I-15Euro Area Stocks Are Not Fully Priced For A European Recession Omicron Will Continue To Spread In China Table I-2The Ports Of Shanghai and Ningbo Are Quite Important To Chinese Trade Flows Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have surged in China over the past two months, and it is now clear that the country’s zero-tolerance policy will fail to contain the spread of the disease. We initially downgraded the odds of our above-trend growth scenario in our January report specifically in response to the risk that the Omicron variant of the virus posed to China.7 That risk that is now manifesting itself most acutely in Shanghai, but also increasingly in other coastal and northeastern provinces. Chart I-16COVID Restrictions In China Are Causing Significant Delays In Suppliers' Delivery Times China’s COVID surge has two implications for the global economic and financial market outlook. The first is that the surge has led to increased port congestion and shipping delays, which clearly threaten to cause a further rise in global shipping costs. We have noted in past reports that shipping costs from China to the West Coast of the US surged following the one month shutdown of the port of Yantian last year. Table I-2 highlights that the ports of Shanghai and nearby Ningbo handle nearly 30% of China’s total ocean shipping volume. Chart I-16 highlights that road traffic restrictions in the Yangtze River Delta have caused significant delays in suppliers’ delivery times, further raising the risk of bottlenecks that may take months to clear. Chart I-17China's Battle With Omicron Further Raises The Risk Of A Euro Area Recession The second implication of China’s COVID surge is that China’s contribution to global growth is at risk of declining significantly further, at least for a time. If Chinese economic activity slows sharply in response to the lockdowns and a further spread of the disease, we fully expect Chinese policymakers to provide further stimulus to support household income in line with what occurred in DM countries two years ago. In addition, some investors have argued that reduced commodity demand from China is actually desirable in the current environment, as it would further reduce inflationary pressure in the US and other developed economies. However, Chart I-17 highlights that Chinese import growth has already slowed very significantly, which has clearly impacted euro area exports. European exports to China are not predominantly commodity-based, and it is yet unclear whether the form of stimulus that Chinese policymakers will introduce will be particularly import-intensive. As such, China’s failure to contain Omicron further adds to the risk of the European recession we noted above, and threatens our view that US headline inflation will trend lower this year. Inflation Expectations May Unanchor Despite Slowing Inflation We discussed above that US inflation will decelerate this year and that this may allow the Fed to raise interest rates at a slower pace than currently expected by market participants. One risk to this view is the possibility that inflation expectations may unanchor to the upside, despite an easing in inflation. Even though inflation expectations have not trended in a different direction than actual inflation since the GFC, Chart I-18 highlights that this has occurred in the past (from 2001-2006). In our view, the level of inflation that is likely to prevail over the coming two years will be an extremely important determinant of whether inflation expectations break above their post-2000 range. For now, Chart I-18 highlights that the Fed’s expectation for core inflation this year is reasonable, but it remains an open question whether core inflation will decelerate below 3% next year as the Fed is forecasting. This is notable, because US core PCE inflation peaked at a rate of 2.6% during the 2002-2007 economic expansion, which is the period when stable long-dated inflation expectations were prevalent. Chart I-19 highlights that market-based inflation expectations are currently challenging or have risen above their 2004-2014 average. We noted in last month’s report that long-dated household inflation expectations will be historically low, even if inflation decelerates in line with what near-dated CPI swaps are forecasting. Chart I-18Inflation Expectations May Still Unanchor Even If The Inflation Rate Comes Down Chart I-19Market-Based Inflation Expectations May Soon Rise Above Pre-GFC Range   The bottom line for investors is that a slowing of inflation over the coming several months may not be enough to prevent long-term inflation expectations from rising. That raises the risk of an even more aggressive pace of interest rates than currently expected by investors, because the Fed is determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1970s when rising inflation expectations led to a wage-price spiral that required years of comparatively tight monetary policy to correct. By contrast, the Fed will view a temporary income-statement recession stemming from a sharp rise in interest rates as the lesser of two evils. A recession to prevent a long-lasting wage-price spiral would also probably be better for investors over the longer run, but a recession would clearly imply a significant decline in risky asset prices at some point over the coming two years were it to occur. Investment Conclusions Chart I-20Despite The Risks Facing Europe, Euro Area Stocks Are Not A Clear Underweight Candidate From the perspective of allocating to risky assets, the most important question for investors to answer is whether the US is likely to experience a recession over the coming year. As we noted above, in our view the answer is “no”, which implies that US earnings growth will remain positive and that investors should not be underweight stocks within a global multi-asset portfolio. It is true that earnings can decline outside of the context of a recession, but we discuss in Section 2 of our report that this has almost always been associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. The factors that have historically been associated with a nonrecessionary decline in profit margins may occur later this year, but our indicators so far point more to flat margins rather than a significant decline. For now, investors should remain minimally-overweight stocks over a 6 to 12 month time horizon, although that assessment may change in either a bullish or bearish direction over the coming several months. Within a global equity allocation, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional allocation. The larger risk of a recession in Europe than in the US would normally imply that investors should be overweight US stocks, but euro area stocks have already underperformed global stocks significantly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Chart I-15 highlighted that they will underperform further if euro area growth turns negative. It is not clear, however, if that risk warrants an underweight stance today, especially considering the enormous valuation advantage offered by euro area stocks versus their US counterparts and the fact that the euro has already fallen to a five-year low (Chart I-20). Chart I-21Favor A Neutral Stance Towards Cyclical Stocks Versus Defensives Within the dimensions of the equity market, Chart I-21 highlights that the outperformance of cyclicals versus defensives was already late at the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that the uptrend in relative performance has seemingly ended. Still, a moderately overweight stance toward stocks overall does not especially support an underweight stance toward cyclicals; therefore, we recommend a neutral stance over the coming year. We continue to recommend that investors (modestly) favor value stocks over growth stocks on the basis of better value and as a hedge against potentially higher long-maturity yields, although we acknowledge that most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Despite their recent underperformance, we continue to favor global small-cap stocks over their large-cap peers, as they are now unequivocally inexpensive and have seemingly already priced in a likely recession scare in the US later this year (Chart I-22). Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance despite our forecast that long-maturity bond yields will not increase much this year. We are wary of recommending a neutral duration stance given the possibility that investors or the Fed may upwardly revise their neutral rate expectations earlier than we anticipate; however, investors are also likely to see long-maturity yields come down for a time in response to a housing market slowdown over the coming several months. More nimble investors should be neutral duration, and should test a long stance if US data releases begin to exhibit meaningfully negative surprises. Finally, while we are bearish toward the dollar on a 6- to 12-month time horizon, it is likely to strengthen over the near term. Chart I-23 highlights that our composite technical indicator for the US dollar is now clearly in overbought territory. We expect that a downtrend will begin once the war in Ukraine reaches a durable conclusion and clarity about the economic impact of the spread of Omicron in China – and the likely policy response – emerges. Chart I-22The Selloff In Small Caps Seems Overdone Chart I-23US Dollar And Indicator The Dollar Is Ripe For A Major Pullback Beyond Likely Near-Term Strength   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 28, 2022 Next Report: May 26, 2022 II. The US Equity Market: A Fundamental, Technical, And Value-Based Review All four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to a three decade low, our Technical Indicator has broken into negative territory, our Valuation Indicator still signals extreme equity pricing, and our Speculation Indicator does not yet support a contrarian buy signal. Still, we do not expect a US recession over the coming year, which implies that S&P 500 revenue growth will stay positive. Nonrecessionary earnings contractions are rare, and are almost always associated with a significant contraction in profit margins. Our new profit margin warning indicator currently suggests the odds of falling margins are low, although the risks may rise later this year. Stocks are extremely expensive, but rich valuations are being driven by extremely low real bond yields, rather than investor exuberance. Valuation is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly over the coming year unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical analysis of stock prices has a long and successful history at boosting investment performance, which ostensibly suggests that investors should be paying more attention to technical conditions in the current environment. However, technical trading rules have been less helpful in expansionary environments when inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated (as is currently the case). As such, the recent technical breakdown of the US equity market may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio associated with these economic and financial market regimes. For now, we see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio over the coming 6 to 12 months. Rising odds of a recession, declining profit margins, and a large increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market, the risks of which should be monitored closely by investors. In Section 1 of our report, we reviewed why a recession in the US is unlikely over the coming 6 to 12 months. However, we also highlighted that the risks to the economic outlook are meaningful and that an aggressively overweight stance toward risky assets is currently unwarranted. During times of significant uncertainty, investors should pay relatively more attention to long-term economic and financial market indicators with a reliable track record. In this report we begin by briefly reviewing the message from our US Equity Indicators, and then turn to a deeper examination of the top-down outlook for earnings, the determinants of rich valuation in the US stock market, and whether investors should rely on technical indicators in the current environment. We conclude that, while an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market, we generally see our indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. Aside from tracking the risk of a recession, investors should be closely attuned to signs of a contraction in profit margins or shifting neutral rate expectations as a basis to reduce equity exposure to below-benchmark levels. A Brief Review Of Our US Equity Indicators Chart II-1Our Equity Indicators Are Pointing In A Bearish Direction Chart II-1 presents our US Equity Indicators, which we update each month in Section 3 of our report. We highlight our observations below: Chart II-1 shows that our Monetary Indicator has fallen to its lowest level since 1995, when the Fed surprised investors and shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction. The indicator is most acutely impacted by the speed of the rise in 10-year Treasury yields and a massive surge in the BCA Short Rate Indicator to levels that have not prevailed since the late 1970s (Chart II-2). Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, which we have traditionally interpreted as a sign to sell stocks. The indicator has been dragged lower by a deterioration in stock market breadth across several tracked measures and by weak sentiment (Chart II-3). The momentum component of the indicator is fractionally positive but is exhibiting clear weakness. Our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history, despite the recent sell-off in stock prices. Our Speculation Indicator arguably provides the least negative signal of our four indicators, at least from a contrarian perspective. In Q1 2021, the indicator nearly reached the all-time high set in March 2000, but it has since retreated significantly and has exited extremely speculative territory. While this may eventually provide a positive signal for stocks, equity returns have historically been below average during months when the indicator declines. Thus, the downtrend in the Speculation Indicator still points to weakness in stock prices, at least over the nearer term. Chart II-2Our Monetary Indicator Is Falling In Part Because Of Surging Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-3All Three Components Of Our Technical Indicator Are Falling In summary, all four of our US Equity indicators are currently pointing in a bearish direction, which clearly argues against an aggressively overweight stance favoring equities within a multi-asset portfolio. At the same time, we reviewed the odds of a US recession over the coming year in Section 1 of our report and argued that a recession is not likely over the coming 12 months. Thus, one key question for investors is whether a nonrecessionary contraction in earnings is likely over the coming year. We address this question in the next section of our report, before turning to a deeper examination of the relative importance of equity valuation and technical indicators. Gauging The Risk Of A Nonrecessionary Earnings Contraction Chart II-4Nonrecessionary Earnings Declines Usually Occur Due To Falling Margins Based on S&P data, there have been five cases since 1960 when 12-month trailing earnings per share fell year-over-year, while the economy continued to expand (Chart II-4). Sales per share growth remained positive in four of these cases (panel 2), underscoring that falling profit margins have been mostly responsible for these nonrecessionary earnings declines. We have noted our concern about how elevated US profit margins have become and have argued that a significant further expansion is not likely to occur over the coming 12-24 months.8 To gauge the risk of a sizeable decline in margins over the coming year, we construct a new indicator based on the seven instances when S&P 500 margins fell outside the context of a recession. This includes two cases when margins fell but earnings did not (because of buoyant revenue growth). We based the indicator on these five factors: Changes in unit labor cost growth to measure the impact of wage costs on firm profitability; Lagging changes in commodity prices as a proxy for material costs; The level of real short-term interest rates as a proxy for borrowing costs; Changes in a sales growth proxy to measure the impact of operating leverage on margins; And changes in the ISM manufacturing index to capture any residual impact on margins from the business cycle. Chart II-5The Odds Of A Nonrecessionary Profit Margin Contraction Are Currently Low Chart II-5 presents the indicator, which is shaded both for recessionary periods and the seven nonrecessionary margin contraction episodes we identified. While the indicator does not perfectly predict margin contractions outside of recessions, it did signal 50% or greater odds of a margin contraction in four of the seven episodes we examined, and signals high odds of a contraction in margins during recessions. Among the three cases in which the indicator failed to indicate falling margins during an expansion, two of those failures were episodes when earnings growth did not ultimately contract. The inability to explain the 1997-1998 margin contraction is the most relevant failure of the indicator, in addition to two false signals in 1963 and 1988. Still, the approach provides a useful framework to gauge the risk of falling profit margins, and the results provide an interesting and somewhat surprising message about the relative importance of the factors we included. We would have expected that accelerating wages would have been the most significant factor explaining nonrecessionary profit margin declines. Wages were highly significant, but they were the second most important factor behind our sales growth proxy. Lagged commodity prices were the third most significant factor, followed by real short-term interest rates. Changes in the ISM manufacturing index were least significant, underscoring that our sales growth proxy already captures most of the effect of the business cycle on profit margins. This suggests that operating leverage is an important determinant of margins during economic expansions, and that investors should be most concerned about declining profit margins when both revenue growth is slowing significantly and wage growth is accelerating. The indicator currently points to low odds of a nonrecessionary margin contraction, but this is likely to change over the coming year. We expect that all five of the factors will evolve in a fashion that is negative for margins over the coming twelve months: While the pace of its increase is slowing, median wage growth continues to accelerate, even when adjusting for the fact that 1st quartile wage growth is growing at an above-average rate (Chart II-6). Combining the latter with higher odds of at or below-trend growth this year implies that unit labor costs may rise further over the coming twelve months. Analysts expect S&P 500 revenue growth to slow nontrivially over the coming year (Chart II-7). Current expectations point to growth slowing to a level that would still be quite strong relative to what has prevailed over the past decade; however, accelerating wage costs in lockstep with decelerating revenue growth is exactly the type of combination that has historically been associated with falling margins during economic expansions. Chart II-6Wage Growth Is Accelerating... Chart II-7...And Revenue Growth Is Set To Slow​​​​​​ Although these are less impactful factors, the lagged effect of the recent surge in commodity prices will also weigh on margins over the coming year, as will rising real interest rates and a likely slowdown in manufacturing activity in response to slower goods spending. In addition to our new indicator, we have two other tools at our disposal to track the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year. First, Chart II-8 illustrates that an industry operating margin diffusion index does a decent job at leading turning points in S&P 500 profit margins, despite its volatility. And second, Chart II-9 highlights that changes in the sales and profit margin diffusion indexes sourced from the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations Survey have predicted turning points in operating sales per share and margins over the past decade. Chart II-9 does suggest that profit margins may not rise further, but flat margins are not likely to be a threat to earnings growth over the coming year if a recession is avoided (as we expect). Chart II-8Sector Diffusion Indexes Are Not Signaling A Major Warning Sign For Margins... Chart II-9...Neither Are The Atlanta Fed Business Sales And Margin Diffusion Indexes     The conclusion for investors is that the odds of a decline in profit margins over the coming year are elevated and should be monitored, but are seemingly not yet imminent. In combination with expectations for slowing revenue growth, this implies, for now, that earnings growth over the coming year will be low but positive. Valuation, Interest Rates, And The Equity Risk Premium As noted above, our Valuation Indicator continues to highlight that US Equities are extremely overvalued relative to their history. Our Valuation Indicator is a composite of different valuation measures, and we sometimes receive questions from investors asking about the seemingly different messages provided by these different metrics. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that equity valuation has almost, but not fully, returned to late-1990 conditions based on the Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio, but is seemingly more expensive based on the Price/Book (P/B) and especially Price/Sales (P/S) ratios. In our view, this apparent discrepancy is easily resolved. Relative to the P/E ratio, both the P/B and especially P/S ratios are impacted by changes in aggregate profit margins, which have risen structurally over the past two decades because of the rising share of broadly-defined technology companies in the US equity index (Chart II-11). Barring a major shift in the profitability of US tech companies over the coming year, we do not see discrepancies between the P/E, P/B, or P/S ratios as being particularly informative for investors. As an additional point, we also do not see the Shiller P/E or other cyclically-adjusted P/E measures as providing any extra information about the richness or cheapness of US equities today, as these measures tend to move in line with the 12-month forward P/E ratio (Chart II-12). Chart II-10US Equities Are Extremely Overvalued, Based On Several Valuation Metrics Chart II-11Tech Margins Have Caused Stocks To Look Especially Expensive On A Price/Sales Basis In our view, rather than focusing on different measures of valuation, it is important for investors to understand the root cause of extreme US equity prices, as well as what factors are likely to drive equity multiples over the coming year. As we have noted in previous reports, the reason that US stocks are extremely overvalued today is very different from the reason for similar overvaluation in the late 1990s. Charts II-13 and II-14 present two different versions of the equity risk premium (ERP), one based on trailing as reported earnings (dating back to 1872), and one based on twelve-month forward earnings (dating back to 1979). Chart II-12The Shiller P/E Ratio Does Not Convey Any 'New' Information About Valuation Chart II-13The Equity Risk Premium Is In Line With Its Historical Average… The ERP accounts for the portion of equity market valuation that is unexplained by real interest rates, and the charts highlight that the US ERP is essentially in line with its historical average based on both measures, in sharp contrast to the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. This underscores that historically low interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic growth are the root cause of extreme equity overvaluation in the US (Chart II-15), meaning that very rich pricing can be thought of as “rational exuberance.” Chart II-14…In Sharp Contrast To The Late 1990s Chart II-15US Equities Are Extremely Expensive Because Bond Yields Are Extremely Low     Chart II-16The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly Well Explained By The Misery Index Over the longer term, the risks to US equity valuation are clearly to the downside, as we detailed in our October 2021 report.9 But over the coming 6 to 12 months, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up in the US. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, a significant further rise in long-maturity bond yields will likely necessitate a major shift in neutral rate expectations on the part of investors and the Fed, which we think is more likely a story for next year than this year. And Chart II-16 highlights that the ERP has historically been well explained by the sum of unemployment and inflation (the Misery Index), which should come down over the coming several months as inflation moderates and the unemployment rate remains low. To conclude, it is absolutely the case that US equities are extremely expensive, but this fact is unlikely to impact US stock market performance significantly unless long-maturity bond yields rise substantially further. Technical Analysis Amid A Shifting Economic Regime Technical analysis of financial markets, and especially stocks, has a long history. It has also provided disciplined investors with significant excess returns over time. A simple stock / bond switching rule based on whether stock prices were above their nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month has significantly outperformed since the 1960s, earning an average excess annual return of 1.3% relative to a 60/40 stock/bond benchmark portfolio (Chart II-17). This outsized performance has come at the cost of only a minor increase in portfolio volatility. Ostensibly, then, investors should be paying more attention to equity technical conditions in the current environment, which we noted above are not positive. Our Technical Indicator has recently broken into negative territory, and the S&P 500 has clearly fallen back below its 200-day moving average. However, Chart II-17 presented generalized results over long periods of time. Over the past two decades, investors have been able to rely on a durably negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields to help boost portfolio returns from technically-driven switching rule strategies. Chart II-18 highlights that this correlation has been much lower over the past two years than has been the case since the early 2000s, raising the question of whether similar switching strategies are viable today. In addition, there is the added question of whether technical analysis is helpful to investors during certain types of economic and financial market regimes, such as high inflation environments. Chart II-17Technically-Driven Trading Rules Have Historically Provided Investors With A Lot Of Alpha Chart II-18Switching-Rule Strategies May Not Work As Well When Stock Prices And Bond Yields Are Not Positively Correlated To test whether the message from technical indicators may be relied upon today, we examine the historical returns from a technically-driven portfolio switching strategy during nonrecessionary months under four conditions that reflect the economic and political realities currently facing investors: months when both stock and bond returns are negative; months of above-average inflation; months of above-average geopolitical risk; and the 1970s, when the Misery Index was very elevated. In all the cases we consider, the switching rule is simple: whether the S&P 500 index was above its nine-month moving average at the end of the previous month. If so, the rule overweights equities for the subsequent months; if not, the rule overweights a comparatively risk-free asset. We consider portfolios with either 10-year Treasurys or 3-month Treasury bills as the risk-free asset, as well as a counterfactual scenario in which cash always earns a 1% annual rate of return (to mimic the cash returns currently available to investors). Table II-1 presents the success and whipsaw rate of the trading rule. Table II-2 presents the annualized cumulative returns from the strategy. The tables provide three key observations: As reflected in Chart II-17, both Tables II-1 and II-2 highlight that simple technical trading rules have historically performed well, and that outperformance has occurred in both recessionary and nonrecessionary periods. Relative to nonrecessionary periods overall, technical trading rules have underperformed during the particular nonrecessionary regimes that we examined. It is the case not only that these strategies have performed in inferior ways during these regimes, but also that they were less consistent signals in that they generated significantly more “whipsaws” for investors. Among the four nonrecessionary regimes that we tested, technical indicators underperformed the least during periods of above-average geopolitical risk, and performed abysmally during nonrecessionary (but generally stagflationary) months in the 1970s. Table II-1During Expansions, Technically-Driven Switching Rules Underperform… Table II-2…When Inflation Is High And When Stocks And Bonds Lose Money The key takeaway for investors is that technical analysis is likely to be helpful for investors to improve portfolio performance as we approach a recession but may be less helpful in an expansionary environment in which inflation is above average and when stock prices and bond yields are less likely to be positively correlated. Investment Conclusions Echoing the murky economic outlook that we detailed in Section 1 of our report, our analysis highlights that an indicator-based approach is providing mixed signals about the US equity market. On the one hand, all four of our main equity indicators are currently providing a bearish signal, and the risk of a nonrecessionary contraction in S&P 500 profit margins over the coming year is elevated – albeit seemingly not imminent. On the other hand, our expectation that the US will not slip into recession over the coming year implies that revenue growth will stay positive, which has historically been associated with expanding earnings. In addition, US equity multiples are likely to be flat or modestly up, and the recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500 may simply reflect a reduced signal-to-noise ratio that appears to exist in expansionary environments in which inflation is high and the stock price / bond yield correlation is near-zero or negative. Netting these signals out, we see our equity indicators as supportive of a cautious, minimally-overweight stance toward stocks within a multi-asset portfolio. The emergence of a recession, declining profit margins, and a significant increase in investor or Fed expectations for the neutral rate of interest are the most significant threats to the equity market. We will continue to monitor these risks and adjust our investment recommendations as needed over the coming several months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate III. Indicators And Reference Charts As discussed in this month’s Section 2, BCA’s equity indicators do not paint an optimistic picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is at its weakest point in almost three decades, our valuation indicator continues to highlight that stocks are overvalued, and both our sentiment and technical indicators have broken down. An eventual easing in the latter two measures will ultimately prove positive for equities, but this will likely happen only once they reach extremes. Investors should be at most modestly overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are likely pricing in too much of an increase in earnings per share over the coming year. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises have rolled over considerably, although there is no meaningful sign yet of a decline in the level of forward earnings. Earnings growth is more likely than not to be positive over the coming year, but will be modest. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance towards cyclicals versus defensives, as well as a neutral regional equity stance. Euro area stocks are not a clear underweight candidate despite the risk of a European recession. Within a fixed-income portfolio, the 10-Year Treasury Yield has very little further upside over the coming year, arguing for a modestly short duration stance. We do not believe that the Fed will end up raising rates to a level higher than investors are forecasting over the coming year. Commodity prices continue to rise in a broad-based fashion following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain significantly overbought. We expect oil and food prices to come down over the coming year, but there is a risk to that assessment. Russia aggression has very likely sped up Europe’s decarbonization timeline, suggesting that investors should be tactically, cyclically, and structurally bullish on industrial metals prices. US and global LEIs have rolled over from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries. Leading and coincident indicators remain decently strong, and we do not expect a recession in the US over the coming year. However, the odds of a stagflationary-lite outcome of above-target inflation and at-or-below-trend growth have increased because of the war. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, and "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see US Investment Strategy/ US Bond Strategy Special Report "Gauging The Risk Of Recession: Slowdown Or Double-Dip?" dated August 16, 2010, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Clarke, KE, JM Jones, Y Deng, et al. Seroprevalence of Infection-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies — United States. September 2021–February 2022. 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "January 2022," dated December 23, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?” dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms,” dated September 30, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Dear Client, In lieu of our weekly report next week, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday with my colleague Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist, on the implications of stagflation on European assets and global FX markets. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. Kind regards, Chester Executive Summary The Yen And Interest Rates The Japanese yen is in liquidation. The historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in selling pressure, before placing fresh bets. This exhaustion is likely to occur once global bond yields stabilize (Feature chart), and energy price inflation abates. A move lower in these two key variables would catalyze an explosive rebound in the yen, on the back of very cheap valuations and a large net short speculative position. The Bank of Japan will not meaningfully pivot soon. The reason is that downside risks to the Japanese economy supersede the risk of an inflation overshoot. What Japan needs is stronger fiscal spending, that would offset deficient domestic demand. That said, Japan is also one of the best candidates for generating non-inflationary growth, a bullish backdrop for the currency. Our 2022 target for the yen is 110. Our sense is that most of the downside risks are well understood by markets, while upside surprises are much underappreciated. RECOMMENDATIONS INCEPTION LEVEL inception date RETURN Short chf/JPY 135 2022-04-21 - Bottom Line: The yen has undershot. According to our in-house PPP models, the Japanese currency is undervalued by 35%. Historically, an investor buying the yen at such undervalued levels has made 6% per year over the subsequent 5 years. Feature The yen’s move in recent weeks has been explosive. Since early March, the yen has collapsed by 11%, pushing USD/JPY from around 115 to a nudge below 130. Over the last year, the yen is down 16%. In retrospect, a chart formation since 1990 suggests this is a classic liquidation phase that is unlikely to reverse until fundamentals shift. The two key drivers of yen weakness have been higher global yields, and elevated energy prices. Chart 1 shows that the yen has been perfectly tracking the US 10-year Treasury yield. Yield curve control (YCC) is leading to a capitulation of both domestic and foreign investors, fleeing from Japanese bonds towards external bond markets. Looking out the curve, investors do not expect the Bank of Japan to lift rates higher than 50 bps until 2028 (Chart 2). Chart 1The Yen And Interest Rates Chart 2The BoJ Is Expected To Stay Dovish Meanwhile, higher energy costs are also putting selling pressure on the yen as merchants sell JPY to pay for more expensive imports in US dollars.    Is Selling Pressure Exhausted? Chart 3A Technical Profile Of The Japanese Yen The key question for investors is whether the carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase. The answer depends on the time horizon. Daily traders, reconciling positions every few hours, should continue shorting the yen. Exhaustion in selling pressure is likely to manifest itself through a few technical patterns, most notably, a consolidation phase. Chart 3 suggests that reversals in the yen have tended to pass through a period of indigestion, allowing investors enough time to play on a reversal. We are not there yet.  That said, for longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 4). Since JPY became freely floating, selloffs have been around 15%-20% especially during major events (the Asian financial crisis or the manufacturing recession the last decade, for example). The last major selloff was around Abenomics in 2012, a pivotal event. Chart 4The Yen Drawdown Has Matched Previous Capitulation Phases Speculators are also very short JPY and sentiment is quite depressed. This is bullish from a contrarian perspective. Low rates in Japan have led to the proliferation of carry trades. While these are likely to persist, the bulk of investors have already jumped on this bandwagon. A stabilization and/or reversal in US Treasury yields could flush out stale shorts in the yen (Chart 5). If, as we expect, the greenback does weaken in the second half of this year, that will also support the yen. Chart 5Sentiment On The Yen Is Very Depressed Japan’s Economic Outlook The yen tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is exiting a recession (Chart 6). Part of the reason why the yen has been so weak is because economic growth in Japan has been anemic. While the external sector has been benefiting from a global trade boom, the domestic sector has been under siege from the pandemic, until recently. Chart 6The Yen Tends To Rebound When The Japanese Economy Recovers It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains 5% below the pre-pandemic trend. Shinkansen passenger volumes are still down 42% this year after an even bigger collapse last year. Inbound tourists, a meaningful source of demand, has collapsed from about 25% of the overall Japanese population before the pandemic to zero today. These dire statistics are likely to reverse. The manufacturing PMI is ticking higher. The number of daily new COVID-19 cases has dramatically rolled over. This will be a welcome fillip to much subdued consumer and business sentiment. 2% Inflation = Mission Impossible? The BoJ is likely to get its wish of 2% inflation in the coming months. However, it will prove fleeting. The overarching theme for Japan is an aging and declining population which has put a lid on consumer prices (Chart 7). This will support real interest rates. Inflation does not tend to accelerate on the island until the output gap is fully closed. That has yet to occur. Meanwhile, the political push to cut mobile phone prices has been a drag on CPI. Mobile phone charges alone have cut around 1.2%-1.5% from the core core measure of Japanese inflation, according to the BoJ. This has been a structural trend. As a result, long-term inflation expectations in Japan remain anchored near 1%, even though the rest of the world is seeing a price boom (Chart 8). The revealed preference is for low/stable prices. Chart 7Demographics Are Weighing On Japanese##br##Inflation Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations In Japan Are Rising, But Muted Clearly, the Bank of Japan would like this to change, as it aims for a persistent 2% inflation target. That said, it will be unable to adjust monetary settings aggressively. The BoJ already owns over 50% of Japanese government bonds, and that has made the market very illiquid. As a result, ownership as a share of GDP is nearing attrition (Chart 9). Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyThe Yen In 2022 Arguably, the BoJ could widen the target band for yield curve control, while lowering short rates further below zero, but that is unlikely to do much for inflation expectations. It could also expand its 0% bank loan scheme beyond renewable industries, and/or small/medium-sized firms, but the problem in Japan is a lack of demand. The currency remains the sole policy lever for the BoJ. Unfortunately, for a small, open economy, the BoJ has less control over the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998 (Chart 10). That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. Intervention this time around will not assuage the whale of carry traders. Chart 9The BoJ Has Not Been Aggressively Buying Government Bonds Chart 10The MoF Could Soon ##br##Intervene A falling yen would allow some pass-through inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year to generate 1% inflation in Japan (Chart 11). Meanwhile, a policy based on depreciating your currency could lead to a crisis of confidence, especially vis-à-vis Japanese trade partners. Our model for core core inflation suggests that all the weakness in the currency will only boost this print to 0.5% in the coming months (Chart 12). Chart 11Currency Weakness Will Only Temporarily Help Boost Inflation Chart 12Core CPI Will Not Meaningfully ##br##Recover What Japan needs is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Putting it all together, real rates are unlikely to fall very much in Japan. This is very positive for the yen in a world with deeply negative real rates. As demand recovers, and the Japanese economy generates non-inflationary growth, the currency should find a solid footing. Why Valuation Matters Chart 13The Yen Is Very Cheap Japan is running a big trade deficit on the back of high energy prices. A cheap currency at least increases Japan’s competitiveness. This is particularly the case since the boom in external demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth. According to our PPP models, the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around 35% (Chart 13). Why valuations matter is because an investor who buys the yen today can expect to make 6% a year over the next half decade, based on the historical correlation between valuation and subsequent currency returns (Chart 14). This will especially be the case if Japanese inflation keeps lagging inflation in the US. As we argued at the beginning of this report, US yields will need to stabilize before long yen positions make sense on a tactical basis (Chart 15). Chart 14Valuation Matters For The Japanese Yen Chart 15Global Yields Need To Stabilize For The Yen To Bounce The Yen As A Safe Haven The yen still appears to have the best correlation with a rising VIX (Chart 16). In a world of slowing global growth and the potential for equity market turbulence, this bodes well for long yen positions. That said, the carry on this position will be unbearable especially if the Federal Reserve continues to sound hawkish. The better play on potential yen strength is a short CHF/JPY position. Historically, these currencies have tended to move together. However, more recently, the CHF has risen substantially versus the JPY, suggesting some mean reversion is due (Chart 17). Chart 16The Yen Remains A Good Hedge Chart 17Go Short CHF/JPY Strategically, we were stopped out of our short USD/JPY position at 128, initiated at 124. Our 2022 target for the yen is 110. Our sense is that most of the downside risks are well understood by markets, while upside surprises are much underappreciated. Tactically, we will wait for the consolidation phase we outlined earlier in this report, before initiating fresh positions.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Special Report

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

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

Executive Summary Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Russia is escalating its aggressiveness in Ukraine, marked by the shelling of a nuclear power station, troop reinforcements, and rhetorical threats of nuclear attack. Global financial markets will continue to suffer from negative news arising from this event until Russia achieves its aims in eastern Ukraine. Private sector boycotts on Russian commodity exports are imposing severe strains on the Russian economy, provoking it to apply more pressure on Ukraine and the West. Western governments are losing the ability to control the pace of strategic escalation, a dangerous dynamic. Moscow’s demand for security guarantees from Finland and Sweden will lead to a further escalation of strategic tensions between Russia and the West. During the Cold War the US and USSR saw a “balance of terror” due to rapidly expanding nuclear arms, which prevented them from waging war against each other. Today the same balance will probably prevent nuclear war but a nuclear scare that rattles financial markets may be required first. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.1% Bottom Line: Russia’s aggressiveness toward the US and Europe, including nuclear threats and diplomatic demands, will continue to escalate until it achieves its core military objectives. Investors should stick to safe havens and defensive equity markets and sectors on a tactical basis. Book profits on tactical trade long Japan/Germany industrials at close of trading on March 4. Feature Russian military forces shelled the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station on March 4, causing a fire. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that “essential equipment” was not damaged and that the facility possessed adequate containment structures to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Local authorities said the facility was “secured.” This incident, which may or may not be settled, should be added to several others to highlight that Russia is escalating its aggression in Ukraine and global financial markets face more bad news that they will be forced to discount. Signposts For Further Escalation Map 1 shows the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with icons for the nuclear power plants. Map 1War In Ukraine, Status Of Russian Invasion As Of March 2, 2022 To understand the end-game in Ukraine – and why we think the war will escalate and are keeping open our bearish trade recommendations – we need to review our net assessment for this conflict: Our 65% “limited invasion” scenario included the seizure of strategic territory east of the Dnieper river and all of the southern coastline. Energy trade would be exempt from sanctions, saving Europe from a recession and limiting the magnitude of global energy shock. We gave 10% odds to a “full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine” (deliberate wording) because we viewed it as highly unlikely that Russia would invade the mountainous and guerilla-happy far west, the ethnic Ukrainian core. Energy trade would be sanctioned, delivering a global energy shock and European recession. A handful of clients have criticized us for not predicting that Russia would attack Kiev and for not defining a full-scale invasion as one that involved replacing the government. We never gave a view on whether Russia would invade Kiev. It is not clear that the focus on Kiev is warranted since the US and EU had committed to powerful sanctions in the event of any invasion at all. This fixed price of invasion may have given Moscow the perverse incentive to invade Kiev. Either way, Russia invaded Kiev and eastern Ukraine and the US and EU imposed crippling sanctions but exempted the energy trade. Thus anything that breaks off energy trade between the EU and Russia – and any Russian attempt to invade the west of the country to Poland – should be seen as a significant escalation. Unfortunately there are signs that the energy trade is being disrupted. Any westward campaign to Poland will be delayed until Putin sacks Kiev and controls the east and south of Ukraine, at which point he will be forced either to invade the west to cut off the supply lines of the insurgency or, more likely, to negotiate a ceasefire that partitions Ukraine. Global investors will not care about the war in Ukraine as long as strategic stability is achieved between Russia and the West. But that is far away. Today, as Russia’s economic situation deteriorates, Putin is escalating on the nuclear front. Bottom Line: Russia’s showdown with the West is escalating. Good news for the Ukrainians will lead to bad news for financial markets. Global investors should not view the situation as stabilized and should maintain safe haven trades and defensive equity positioning. Energy Boycotts Will Antagonize Russia Chart 1Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet So far Russia has not conducted a full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine. The reason is that it does not have the necessary military forces, as we have highlighted. Russia is limiting its invasion force to around 200,000 troops while Ukraine consists of 30 million prime age citizens (Chart 1). Unless Russia massively reinforces its troops, it does not have the basic three-to-one troop ratio that is the minimum necessary to invade, conquer, and hold the entire country. However, Russia is likely to increase troop sizes. We are inclined to believe that Russia has started shifting troops from its southern and eastern military districts to reinforce the Ukraine effort, according to the Kyiv Independent, citing the Ukrainian armed forces’ general staff. Apparently it aims to conquer the east and then either invade further west or negotiate a new ceasefire with greater advantage. Investors should not accept the consensus narrative in the western world that Russia is losing the war in the east. Russia is encountering various difficulties but it is gradually surrounding and blockading Ukraine and cutting its power supply. It is capable of improving its supply lines and increasing the size and destructiveness of its forces. Remember that the US took 20 days to sack Baghdad in 2003. Russia has only been fighting for nine days. Having incurred crippling economic sanctions, Putin cannot afford to withdraw without changing the government in Kiev. The odds of Ukraine “winning” the war are low, while the odds of Russia dramatically intensifying its efforts are high. This is why new developments on the energy front and worrisome: Chart 2Energy Trade Remains The Fulcrum While western governments refrained from sanctioning Russian energy as predicted, private companies are boycotting Russian energy to avoid sanctions and unpopularity. Estimates vary but about 20% of Russian oil exports could be affected so far.1 Russian oil will make its way to global markets – Russian, Chinese, and other third parties will pick up the slack – but in the meantime the Russian economy is suffering more than expected due to the cutoff. Energy is the vital remaining source of Russian economic stability and Russo-European relations (Chart 2). If it fails then Russia could grow more desperate while Europe’s economy would fall into recession and Europe would become less stable and less coordinated in its responses to the conflict. These private boycotts make it beyond the control of western governments to control the pace and intensity of pressure tactics, since it is politically impractical to demand that companies trade with the enemy. Bottom Line: With the rapidly mounting economic pressure, it should be no surprise that Russia is escalating its threats – it is under increasing economic pressure and wants to drive the conflict to a quick decision in its favor. Russia’s Nuclear Threats And Putin’s Mental State Russia is terrorizing Ukraine and the western world with threats of either nuclear missile attacks or a nuclear meltdown. Putin put the country’s nuclear deterrent forces on “special combat status” on February 27. His forces began shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on March 4. Russia is also demanding security guarantees from Finland and Sweden, which are becoming more favorable toward joining the NATO alliance.2 Their lack of membership in NATO, while maintaining a strong military deterrent with defense support from the US, was a linchpin of stability in the Cold War but is now at risk. They will retain the right to choose their alliances at which point Russia will need to threaten them with attack. Since Russia cannot plausibly invade them with full armies while invading Ukraine, it may resort to nuclear brinksmanship. The western media is greatly amplifying a narrative in which Russia’s actions can only be understood in the context of Putin’s insanity or fanaticism. This may be true. But it is also suspicious because it saves the West from having to address the problem of NATO enlargement, which, along with Russia’s domestic weaknesses, contributed to Russia’s decision over the past 17 years to stage an aggressive campaign to control Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. There is a swirl of conspiracy theories in the news about Putin’s illnesses, age, vaccines, or psychology, none of which are falsifiable. Putin has an incentive to appear reckless and insane so that his enemies capitulate sooner. The decision to invade a non-NATO member, rather than a NATO member, suggests that he is still making rational calculations. Rational, that is, from the perspective of Russian history and an anarchic international system in which nation states that seek to survive, secure themselves, and expand their power. If Ukraine were to become a military ally of the US then Russian security would suffer a permanent degradation. Of course, Putin may be a fanatic and it is possible that he grows desperate or miscalculates. The western public (and global investors) will thus be reminded of the “balance of terror” that prevailed throughout the Cold War, in which the world lived and conducted business under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Today Russia has 1,588 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, contra the US’s 1,644. Both countries can deliver nuclear weapons via ballistic missiles, submarines, and bombers and are capable of destroying hundreds of each other’s cities on short notice (Table 1). While the US has at times contemplated the potential for nuclear attacks to occur but remain limited, the Soviet Union’s nuclear doctrine ultimately rejected the likelihood of limitations and anticipated maximum escalation.3 Table 1The Return Of The Balance Of Terror Ultimately the US and Russia avoided nuclear war in the Cold War because it entailed “mutually assured destruction” which violated the law of self-preservation. Neither Stalin nor Mao used nukes on their opponents, including when they lost conflicts (e.g. to Afghanistan and Vietnam). The US tied with North Korea and lost to Vietnam without using nukes. However in the current context the US has been wary of antagonizing Putin for fear of his unpredictable and aggressive posture. In response to Putin’s activation of combat-ready nuclear forces, the US called attention to its own nuclear deterrent subtly by canceling the regular test of a ballistic missile and issuing a press statement highlighting the fact and saying that it was too responsible to bandy in nuclear threats. Yet the autocratic nature of Putin’s regime means that if Putin ultimately does prove to be a lunatic then large parts of the world face existential danger. Our Global Investment Strategist Peter Berezin ascribes Russian Roulette odds to nuclear Armageddon – while arguing that investors should stay invested over the long run anyway. Sanctions on the Russian central bank have frozen roughly half of the country’s $630 billion foreign exchange reserves (Table 2). If the energy trade also stops, then the economy will crash and Putin could become desperate. Table 2Western Sanctions On Russia As Of March 4, 2022 Bottom Line: Global financial markets have yet to experience the full scare that is likely as Russia escalates its aggression and nuclear brinksmanship to ensure it achieves it strategic aims in Ukraine and prevents Finland from joining NATO. GeoRisk Indicators In March In what follows we provide our monthly update of our quantitative, market-based GeoRisk Indicators. Russian geopolitical risk is surging as the ruble and equity markets collapse (Chart 3). The violent swings of the underlying macroeconomic variables as Russia saw a V-shaped recovery from the COVID-19 lockdowns, then sharply decelerated again, prevented our risk indicator from picking up the full scale of the geopolitical risk until recently. But alternative measures of Russian risk show the historic increase more clearly – and it can also be demonstrated by reducing the weighting of the underlying macroeconomic variables relative to the USD-RUB exchange rate in the indicator’s calculation (Chart 4). Chart 3Russian GeoRisk Indicator Chart 4Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk This problem of dramatically volatile pandemic-era macro data skewing our risk indicators has been evident over the past year and is more apparent with some indicators than with others. China’s geopolitical risk as measured by the markets is starting to peak and stall but we do not recommend investors try to take advantage of the situation. China’s domestic and international political risk will remain elevated through the twentieth national party congress this fall. The sharp increase in commodity prices will amplify the problem. The earliest China’s political environment can improve substantially is in 2023 after President Xi Jinping cements another ten years’ in power (Chart 5). And yet that very process is negative for long-term political stability. Chart 5China GeoRisk Indicator British geopolitical risk is contained. It enjoys some insulation from the war on the continent, underpinning our long GBP-CZK trade and long UK equities trade relative to developed markets other than the United States (Chart 6). Chart 6United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator German and French geopolitical risk is being priced higher as expected (Charts 7 and 8). Of these two Germany is the more exposed due to the risk of energy shortages. France is nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered, and unlikely to see a change of president in the April presidential elections. Italian risk was already at a higher level than these countries but the Russian conflict and high energy supply risk will keep it elevated (Chart 9). Chart 7Germany GeoRisk Indicator Chart 8France GeoRisk Indicator Chart 9Italy GeoRisk Indicator Canada’s trucker strikes are over and the loonie will benefit from the country’s status as energy producer and insulation from geopolitical threats due to proximity with the United States (Chart 10). Chart 10Canada GeoRisk Indicator Spain still has substantial domestic political polarization but this will have little impact on markets amid the Ukraine war. Spain is distant from the fighting and will act as a conduit for liquefied natural gas imports into Europe (Chart 11). Chart 11Spain GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s political risk will remain elevated due to its clash with China amid the emerging global conflict between democracies and autocracies as well as the country’s looming general election, which threatens a change of ruling party (Chart 12). However, as a commodity and LNG producer and staunch US ally the country’s risks are overrated. Chart 12Australia GeoRisk Indicator Markets are gradually starting to price the risk of an eventual China-Taiwan military conflict as a result of the Ukrainian conflict. China is unlikely to invade Taiwan on Russia’s time frame given the greater difficulties and risks associated with an amphibious invasion of a much more strategically critical territory in the world. But Taiwan’s situation is comparable to that of Ukraine and it is ultimately geopolitically unsustainable, so we expect Taiwanese assets to suffer a higher risk premium over the long run (Chart 13). Chart 13Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces a change of ruling parties in its March 9 general election as well as uncertainties emanating from China and a new cycle of provocations from North Korea (Chart 14). However these risks are probably not sufficient to prevent a rally in South Korean equities on a relative basis as China stabilizes its economy. Chart 14Korea GeoRisk Indicator Turkey’s international environment has gotten even worse as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and effective closure of the Black Sea to international trade. Turkey has invoked the 1936 Montreux Convention to close the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits to Russian warships, although it will let those ships return to home from outside the Black Sea. The Black Sea is highly vulnerable to “Black Swan” events, highlighted by the sinking of an Estonian ship off Ukraine’s coast in recent days. Turkey’s domestic political situation will also generate a political risk premium through the 2023 presidential election (Chart 15), as President Recep Erdogan’s reelection bid may benefit from international chaos and yet he is an unorthodox and market-negative leader, and if he loses the country will be plunged into factional conflict. Chart 15Turkey GeoRisk Indicator South Africa looks surprisingly attractive in the current environment given our assessment that the government is stable and relatively friendly to financial markets, the next general election is years away, and the search for commodity alternatives to Russia amid a high commodity price context will benefit South Africa (Chart 16). Chart 16South Africa GeoRisk Indicator India And Brazil: A Tale Of Two Emerging Markets Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have a minimal impact on the growth engines of India and Brazil. This is because Russia directly accounts for a smidgeon of both these countries trade pie. However, the main route through which this war will be felt in both markets is through commodity prices. Brazil by virtue of being a commodity exporter is better positioned as compared to India which is a commodity importer and is richly valued to boot. The year 2022 promises to be important from the perspective of domestic politics in both countries and will add to the policy risks confronting both EMs. Our Brazilian GeoRisk indicator has collapsed but is highly likely to recover and rise from here (Chart 17). Chart 17Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Commodity Price Spike – Advantage Brazil Politically India and Brazil have a lot in common today. The popularity ratings of their respective right-leaning heads of states, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India and President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have suffered over the last two years. The economic prospects of the median voter in both countries have weakened over the last year (Chart 18). Policymakers in both countries face a dilemma: they cannot stimulate their way out of their problems without an adverse market reaction since both countries are loaded with public debt. Chart 18Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Despite these commonalties, Brazil’s equity markets have outperformed relative to EMs whilst India has underperformed (Chart 19). On a tactical horizon, we expect this divergent performance to continue as the effects of the Russian invasion feed through commodity markets. Chart 19India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs​​​​​ Commodity markets were tight even before the Russian invasion. The ongoing war will force inventories to draw across a range of commodities including oil, iron ore and even corn. Given that India is a net importer of oil whilst Brazil is a net commodity exporter, the current spike in commodity prices will benefit Brazil over India in the short term. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects supply responses from oil producers to eventually come through, thereby sending the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of 2022. Hence if Indian equities correct in response to the current oil spike or domestic politics (see below), then investors can turn constructive on India on a tactical horizon. Elections Stoke Policy Risks – In India And Brazil Results of key state elections in India will be announced on March 10, 2022. Of all the state elections, the results that the market will most closely watch will be those of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India. In a base case scenario, we expect the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) which rules this state, to cross the 50% seat share mark and retain power. But the BJP will not be able to beat the extraordinary 77% seat share it won at the 2017 elections in Uttar Pradesh. A sharp deviation from this benchmark may lead the BJP to focus on populism ahead of the next round of state elections due in 4Q 2022. At a time when the Indian government’s appetite to take on structural reforms is waning, we worry that such a populist tilt could perturb Indian equity markets. Also, general elections are due in India in 2024. If the latest state election results suggest that the BJP has ceded a high vote share to regional parties (such as the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh or Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab), then this would mean that regional parties can pose a credible threat to BJP’s ability to maintain a comfortable majority in 2024. In Brazil, some polls show that left-leaning former president Lula da Silva's lead on President Bolsonaro may have narrowed. While we expect Lula to win the presidential elections due in Brazil in October 2022, the road to victory will not be as smooth as markets expect. If the difference between the two competitors’ popularity stays narrow, then there is real a chance that President Bolsonaro will make a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He will resort to fiscal populism and attacks on Brazil’s institutions, potentially opening up institutional or civil-military rifts that generate substantially greater uncertainty among investors. Bolsonaro already appears to be planning a cut in fuel prices and a bill to further this could be tabled as soon as next week. He has coddled Russian President Putin to shore up his base of authoritarian sentiment at home. To conclude, investors must balance these two opposing forces affecting Brazilian markets today. On one hand are the latent policy risks engendered by a far-right populist who still has a few months left in office. On the other hand, in a year’s time Bolsonaro will likely be gone while Brazil stands to benefit as commodity prices rise and EM investors shift funds into commodity exporters like Brazil. Against this backdrop, we re-iterate our view that investors should take-on selective tactical exposure in Brazil. Risk-adjusted returns in Brazil at this juncture can be maximized by buying into sectors like financials as these sectors’ inherent political and policy sensitivity is low. Postscript: Is India’s Foreign Policy Reverting To Non-Alignment? India traditionally has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, carefully maintaining ties with both America and Russia through the Cold War. Things changed in the 2000s as Russia under President Putin courted closer ties with China while the US tried to warm up to India. India’s decision to join the newly energized US-led “quadrilateral” alliance in 2017 is a clear sign that India is gradually shedding its historical stance of neutrality and veering towards America. However, this thesis is being questioned as India, like China, is continuing to trade and transact with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, providing Russia with a lifeline as it suffers punishing sanctions from the US and European Union. India repeatedly abstained from voting resolutions critical of Russia at the United Nations in recent weeks. In other words, India’s process of transitioning over to the US alignment will be “definitive yet slow,” owing to reasons of both history and practicality. The former Soviet Union’s support played a critical role in helping India win several regional battles like the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Russia’s military and security influence in Central Asia makes it useful to India, which seeks a counter to Pakistan on its flank in Afghanistan. India sees Russia as a fairly dependable partner that cannot be abandoned until America is willing to provide much greater and more reliable guarantees and subsidies to India – through military support and beneficial trade deals. The backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade (Chart 20). India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline in the long term. But in the short term, as India tilts towards the US at a calibrated pace, India could remain a source of meaningful defense revenue for Russia. It is possible but not likely that the US would impose sanctions on India for maintaining this trade. Chart 20India Today Is A Key Buyer Of Russian Weapons The fundamental long-term dynamic is that Russia has foreclosed its relations with the West and will therefore be lashed to China, at least until the Putin regime falls and a Russian diplomatic reset with the West can be arranged. In the face of this combined geopolitical bloc, India will gradually be driven to cooperate more closely with the United States. But India will not lead the transition away from Russia – rather it will react appropriately depending on the US’s focus and resolve in countering China and assisting India’s economy.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Energy Aspects long-term estimate. 2     Tzvi Joffre, “Russian FM repeats nuclear war rhetoric as invasion of Ukraine continues,” Reuters, March 3, 2022. 3     Jack L. Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture : Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations,” Rand Corporation, R-2154-AF (1977), argues that Soviet and American strategic cultures differ greatly and that the US should not be “sanguine about the likelihood that the Soviets would abide by American-formulated rules of intrawar restraint." Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades (2022) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

Executive Summary The heightened uncertainty of the current situation means it makes sense to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The recent market turmoil means that a 50 bps rate hike is off the table for the March FOMC meeting, but the Fed will proceed with a 25 bps rate hike this month and signal a further steady pace of tightening. As of Monday morning, the market is priced for close to 150 bps of tightening during the next 12 months. This is reasonable assuming that inflation moderates in the second half of the year and that long-dated inflation expectations remain well contained. A moderation of inflation in H2 remains our base case, but the war in Ukraine increases the risk that inflation will be sticky and that long-dated inflation expectations will move higher. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Bottom Line: An ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance makes sense for now, but the recent drop in Treasury yields could eventually present us with an opportunity to re-initiate a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration position. Stay tuned.   Feature The Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing and financial markets will surely remain volatile until a resolution is reached. For more details on how we see the crisis evolving please refer to last week’s BCA Special Report.1  As we go to press on Monday, the market is trying to digest the impact of sanctions that will block the access of some Russian banks to the SWIFT financial messaging system and freeze some Russian central bank reserves that are held abroad in USD and EUR. Taken together, the sanctions will impart a large stagflationary impulse to the Russian economy and, as would be expected, the Ruble is depreciating rapidly on Monday morning. The reaction in US bond markets is so far more muted. The 10-year Treasury yield is currently 1.86% - down from 1.99% last Wednesday – and the 2-year Treasury yield is 1.44% - down from 1.58% last Wednesday (Chart 1). Movements in the real and inflation components of US Treasury yields do show that the US market is pricing-in some stagflationary contagion. The real 10-year Treasury yield is down to -0.71% (from -0.54% last Wednesday) and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is up to 2.57% (from 2.53% last Wednesday). The same divergence between a falling real yield and rising cost of inflation compensation is seen at the 2-year maturity point (Chart 1, bottom 2 panels). The market has also moved to price-in a shallower path for Fed rate hikes compared to last week (Chart 2). The market-implied odds of a 50 bps rate hike this month are now slim and the market is now looking for only 139 bps of cumulative tightening (just under six 25 basis point rate hikes) by the end of this year. Chart 2Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart 1A Stagflationary Shock We agree with the market that the heightened uncertainty and tightening of financial conditions takes a 50 bps rate hike off the board for the March FOMC meeting. A 25 bps rate hike this month remains the most likely scenario. However, we also think the market might be over-estimating the extent to which contagion from Russia will limit the pace of Fed tightening later in the year. In fact, we are inclined toward the view that the lasting impact of the crisis on the US economy might be more inflationary than deflationary. Chart 3Expect US/German Yield Differential To Widen The inflationary risk is that a sustained upward shock to the oil price could keep headline inflation higher than it would otherwise be. This could also bleed through into other commodity prices and possibly even to inflation expectations. The textbook central bank response should be to ignore a commodity price shock and set policy based on trends in core inflation. However, in the current environment it will be difficult for the Fed to ignore yet another inflationary shock, especially if long-dated inflation expectations move higher. On the other hand, the economic fallout from a Russian recession will be much worse for Europe than for the United States. European Central Bank (ECB) Chief Economist Philip Lane recently estimated that the Ukrainian war could shave 0.3%-0.4% off Eurozone GDP this year.2 If the shock leads to a wider divergence between Fed and ECB policy expectations, then we would expect to see a widening of US yields versus European yields and upward pressure on the US dollar. Given that US bond yields can only diverge so far from yields in the rest of the world, a stronger dollar may cap any increase in US bond yields and eventually limit the extent of Fed tightening. So far, trends in the dollar and dollar sentiment have been supportive of rising US bond yields, but it will be important to watch this situation in the coming months to see if it changes (Chart 3). Investment Conclusions The heightened uncertainty of the current situation means it makes sense to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The Fed is likely to proceed with tightening policy at a steady pace, starting with a 25 bps rate hike this month. Trends in inflation and financial conditions will determine the pace of rate hikes in H2 2022. Right now, our sense is that the lasting impact of the Ukrainian crisis on the US economy will prove to be more inflationary than deflationary. With that in mind, the recent drop in Treasury yields may eventually present us with an opportunity to re-initiate a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration position. Checking In With Our Golden Rule Given the current market turmoil, we think it’s a good time to step back and check in with our Golden Rule of Bond Investing.3  The Golden Rule is a framework that investors can use to implement portfolio duration trades. It states that investors should determine the expected change in the fed funds rate that is priced into markets for the next 12 months and then decide whether the actual change in the funds rate will be greater or less than what is priced in the market. If you expect the fed funds rate to rise by more than what is priced in (a hawkish surprise), you should keep portfolio duration low. If you expect the fed funds rate to rise by less than what is priced in (a dovish surprise), you should keep portfolio duration high. It is admittedly a simple framework, but it does have a strong track record of performance. In general, hawkish surprises coincide with the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index underperforming cash and dovish surprises coincide with the index outperforming cash (Chart 4). Chart 4The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing More specifically, if we look at rolling 12-month periods going back to 1990, we see that dovish surprises have coincided with positive excess Treasury returns versus cash 85% of the time for an average 12-month excess return of 4.0%. Conversely, hawkish surprises have coincided with negative excess Treasury returns 72% of the time for an average 12-month excess return of -1.5% (Chart 5 & Table 1). Table 112-Month Treasury Excess Returns And Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) Chart 5The Golden Rule’s Track Record As of today, the market is priced for 149 bps of Fed tightening during the next 12 months. That is very close to six 25 basis point rate hikes at the next eight FOMC meetings. Given our view that inflation will moderate in the second half of the year, this seems like a reasonable forecast that is consistent with our ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance. However, as noted above, we believe the war in Ukraine could lead to an increase in inflationary pressures in the United States. Therefore, we see the balance of risks as tilted toward more rate hikes than are currently discounted rather than fewer. It will be vital to monitor long-dated inflation expectations during the next few months to assess how the pace of Fed rate hikes will evolve. Using The Golden Rule To Forecast Treasury Returns One more application of our Golden Rule framework is that we can use it to create forecasts for Treasury index returns. This is done by first looking at the historical correlation between the Fed Funds Surprise – the difference between the expected 12-month change in the fed funds rate and the realized change – and the change in the Treasury index yield (Chart 6). A regression between these two variables allows us to estimate the change in the Treasury index yield based on an assumed Fed Funds Surprise. Chart 6The Correlation Between Treasury Yields And Fed Funds Surprises Once we have an expected 12-month change in the Treasury index yield, we can translate that change into an expected return using the index’s average yield, duration and convexity. The result of this analysis is presented in Table 2. Table 2Using The Golden Rule To Forecast Treasury Returns Table 2 shows that we would expect the Treasury index to deliver a total return of 1.82% in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates by 150 bps during the next 12 months. This would equate to the Treasury index beating a position in cash by between 0.07% and 0.83%, depending on whether rate hikes are front-loaded or back-loaded. A pace of one 25 basis point rate hike per meeting (+200 bps during the next 12 months) would lead to the Treasury index underperforming cash by between -2.35% and -3.02%. Conversely, we can see that the index is expected to beat cash by between 3.25% and 3.92% if the Fed only lifts rates four times during the next 12 months. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Special Report, “Russia Takes Ukraine: What Next?”, dated February 24, 2022. 2 https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-ecb-policymakers-told-ukraine-war-may-shave-03-04-off-gdp-2022-02-25/ 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations

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