Bear/Bull Market

The decline in the US CPI is a tailwind for European stocks, but does it compensate for weaker global growth?

Is the BoE’s emergency intervention in its bond market a British idiosyncrasy that global investors can ignore? No, the UK’s near death experience sends three salutary warnings, with implications for all investors.

We remain bearish on equities. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon that is embedded and perpetuated by a wage-price spiral. The Fed will “keep at it until the job is done.” Economic growth is slowing, and an earnings recession as soon as the end of this year is highly likely. US equities are not cheap and rising rates and slowing earnings growth will take their toll on performance. Don’t fight the Fed!

Next week, on September 7-8, is the BCA New York Conference, the first in-person version since 2019. I look forward to seeing many of you there, and if you haven’t already booked your place, you still can! (a virtual version is also available). As such, the next Counterpoint report will come out on September 15. Executive Summary The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well. If it continues to hold, these are the major investment implications: Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential correction that lifts the yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals. Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023. Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85, though our central case is $55 in 2023.  If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Bottom Line: The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well, and should continue to do so. Feature History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets is 1981-82, a rhyming which we first highlighted four months ago in Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, and then developed in More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead. In those reports, we presented three compelling reasons why 2022-23 rhymes with 1981-82: 1981-82 is the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets. First, the simultaneous sell-off in stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold in the second quarter of 2022 is uniquely linked with an identical ‘everything sell-off’ in the second quarter of 1981. It is extremely rare for stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold to sell off together. Such a simultaneous sell-off has happened in just these 2 calendar quarters out of the last 200. Meaning a ‘1-in-a-100’ event conjoins 2022 with 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... Chart I-2...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 Second, the Jay Powell Fed equals the Paul Volcker Fed. Now just as then, the world’s central banks are obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation. And now, just as then, the central banks are desperate to repair their badly battered credibility in managing inflation. Third, the Russia/Ukraine war that started in February 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war that started in September 1980. Now, just as then, a war between two commodity producing neighbours has unleashed a supply shock which is adding to the inflation paranoia. To repeat, it is a 1-in-a-100 event for all financial assets to sell off together. This is because it requires an extremely rare star alignment. Inflation fears first morph to stagflation fears and then to recession fears. Leaving investors with nowhere to hide, as no mainstream asset performs well in inflation, stagflation, and recession. So, the once-in-a-generation star alignment conjoining 2022 with 1981 is as follows: Inflation paranoia is worsened by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, forcing reputationally damaged central banks to become trigger-happy in their battle against inflation, dragging the world economy into a coordinated recession. September 2022 Equals August 1981 If 2022-23 = 1981-82, then where exactly are we in the analogous episode? There are two potential synchronization points. One potential synchronization is that the Russia/Ukraine war which started on February 24, 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war which started on September 22, 1980. In which case, September 2022 equals April 1981. But given that inflation is public enemy number one, a better synchronization is the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the US core PCE deflator. Aligning the respective peaks in core PCE inflation, we can say that February 2022 equals January 1981. Meaning that our original report in May 2022 aligned with April 1981, and September 2022 equals August 1981 (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##February 2022 Chart I-4...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##January 1981 In which case, how has the template worked since we introduced it on May 19th? The answer is, very well. The template predicted that the long bond price would track sideways, which it has. The template predicted that the S&P 500 would decline from 4200 to 4000, which it has. The template predicted that the copper price would decline from $9250/MT to $8500/MT. In fact, it has fallen even further to $8200/MT. In the case of oil, the better synchronization is the starts of the respective wars. This template predicted that the Brent crude price would decline sharply from a knee-jerk peak in the $120s, which it has. Not a bad set of predictions! If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Here’s What Happens Next Assuming the template continues to hold, here are the major implications for investors: Bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023. Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential tactical correction that takes its yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023 in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500 in the coming months. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85 (Chart I-9) though our central case is $55 in 2023.  Chart I-9If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price But What If 2022-23 Doesn’t = 1981-82? And yet, and yet…what if the Jay Powell Fed doesn’t equal the Paul Volcker Fed? What if central banks lose their nerve before inflation is slayed? Long bond yields could gap much higher, or at least not come down, causing a completely different set of investment outcomes. In this case, the correct template would not be 1981-82, but the 1970s. If central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. However, there is one huge difference between now and the 1970s, which makes that template highly unlikely. In the 1970s, the global real estate market was worth just one times world GDP, whereas today it has become a monster worth four times world GDP, and whose value is highly sensitive to the long bond yield. In the US, the mortgage rate has surged to well above the rental yield for the first time in 15 years. Simply put, it is now more expensive to buy than to rent a home, causing a disappearance of would be homebuyers, a flood of home-sellers, and an incipient reversal in home prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash Hence, if long bond yields were to gap much higher, or even stay where they are, it would trigger a housing market crash whose massive deflationary impulse would swamp any inflationary impulse. The upshot is that the 2022-23 = 1981-82 template would suffer a hiatus. Ultimately though, it would come good, because a crash in the $400 trillion global housing market would obliterate inflation. In other words, if central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, copper’s tactical rebound is approaching exhaustion. This is confirmed by the 130-day fractal structure of copper versus tin reaching the point of extreme fragility that has consistently marked turning-points in this pair trade (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Hence, this week’s recommendation is to short copper versus tin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.   Chart 1Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 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  

Special Report

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Counterpoint’s August schedule: Next week, I am travelling to see clients in Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, so we will send you a report on China’s 20th National Party Congress written by our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken. Given that the outlook for the $100 trillion Chinese real estate market is crucial for the global economy and markets, Matt’s insights will be very interesting. Then on August 18, I will host the monthly Counterpoint webcast, which I hope you can join. We will then take a week’s summer holiday and return with a report on September 1. Executive Summary In the topsy-turvy recession of 2022, real wages have collapsed. This means profits have stayed resilient and firms have not laid off workers. Making this recession a ‘cost of living crisis’ rather than a ‘jobs crisis’. If inflation comes down slowly, then the ‘cost of living crisis’ will persist. But if inflation comes down quickly while wage inflation remains sticky, firms will lay off workers to protect their profits, turning the ‘cost of living crisis’ into a ‘jobs crisis’. Either way, this will keep a choke on consumer spending, and particularly the spending on goods, which is likely to remain in recession. Meanwhile, until mortgage rates move meaningfully lower, housing investment will also remain in recession.  The double choke on growth means that the bear market in the 30-year T-bond is likely over. This suggests that the bear market in stock market valuations is also over, but that ‘cyclical value’ is now vulnerable to profit downgrades. Hence, equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Fractal trading watchlist: GBP/USD and Hungarian versus Polish bonds. In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates ##br##Went Up So Employment Went Down… …But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates##br##Went Down So Employment Went Up! Bottom Line: The bear market in the 30-year T-bond and stock market valuations is likely over, but equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Feature The US economy has just contracted for two consecutive quarters, meeting the rule-of-thumb definition of a recession. Other major economies are likely to follow. Yet many economists and strategists are in denial. This cannot be a ‘proper’ recession, they say, because the economy remains at full employment. But the recession-deniers are wrong. It is a recession, albeit it is a ‘topsy-turvy’ recession in which employment remains high (so far) because real wage rates have collapsed, circumventing the need for lay-offs. This contrasts with a typical recession when real wage rates remain high, forcing the need for lay-offs.1 The Topsy-Turvy Recession Of 2022 When do firms lay off workers? The answer is, when they need to protect their profits. Profits are nothing more than revenues minus costs, and in a typical recession revenues slow much faster than the firms’ biggest cost, the wage bill. In this event, the only way that firms can protect their profits is to lay off workers. Chart I-1 confirms that every time that nominal sales have shrunk relative to wage rates, the unemployment rate has gone up. Without exception. Chart I-1Unemployment Goes Up Whenever Firms' Wage Rates Rise Faster Than Their Revenues... But what happens during a recession in which nominal sales do not shrink relative to wage rates? In this event, profits stay resilient, so firms do not need to lay off workers. Welcome to the topsy-turvy recession of 2022! In the topsy-turvy recession of 2022, there has been much greater inflation in consumer prices and nominal sales than in nominal wage rates (Chart I-2). The result is that real wage rates have collapsed, profits have stayed resilient, and firms have not needed to lay off workers… so far. Chart I-2...But In The 2022 Recession, Wage Rates Have Risen Slower Than Revenues, So Unemployment Hasn't Gone Up In a typical recession, the pain falls on the minority of workers who lose their jobs, as well as on profits. Paradoxically, for the majority that keep their jobs, real wages go up. This is because sticky wage inflation tends to hold up more than collapsing price inflation. For example, in the 2008 recession, the real wage rate surged by 4 percent (Chart I-3), and in the 2020 recession it rose by 2 percent. Chart I-3In The 2008 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Up So Employment Went Down... Yet in the 2022 recession, the real wage rate has shrunk by 4 percent, meaning that the pain of the recession has fallen on all of us (Chart I-4). In one sense therefore, this recession is ‘fairer’ because ‘we’re all in it together’. This is confirmed by the current malaise being characterised not as a ‘jobs crisis’, but as a ‘cost of living crisis’. In another sense though, the recession is unfair because the pain has not been shared by corporate profits, which have remained resilient… so far. Chart I-4...But In The 2022 Recession, Real Wage Rates Went Down So Employment Went Up! The crucial question is, what happens next? Using the US as our template, wage rates are growing at 5-6 percent, and this growth rate is typically stickier than sales growth. Assuming inflation drifts lower, nominal sales growth will also drift lower from its current 7 percent clip, meaning that it could soon dip below sticky wage growth. Once the growth in firms’ revenues has dipped below that in nominal wage rates, profits will finally keel over. To repeat, profits are nothing more than revenues minus costs, where the biggest cost is the wage bill (Chart I-5).2 Chart I-5Profits Are Nothing More Than Revenues Minus Costs At this point, the downturn will become more conventional. To protect profits, firms will be forced to lay off workers who will bear the pain of the downturn alongside falling profits. Meanwhile, with inflation easing, real wage growth for the majority that keep their jobs will turn positive. But to repeat, this is the typical pattern in a recession. Accelerating real wage rates are entirely consistent with a contracting economy as we witnessed in both 2008 and 2020.  As Two Huge Imbalances Correct, Demand Will Be Pegged Back All of this assumes that real demand will remain under pressure, so the question is what is pegging back real demand? The answer is: corrections in two huge imbalances in the global economy. A breakdown of the -1.3 percent contraction in the US economy reveals these two corrections:3   Spending on goods, which contributed -1.2 percent Housing investment, which contributed -0.7 percent. These corrections are not over. As we presciently explained back in February in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face: “The pandemic overspend on goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. The pandemic overspend on goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a recession. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation” (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pandemic Overspend On Goods Constitutes One Of The Greatest Imbalances In Economic History Then, in The Global Housing Boom Is Over, As Buying Becomes More Expensive Than Renting, we identified a second major imbalance that is starting to correct. Specifically, the global housing boom of the past decade, which has doubled the worth of global real estate to $370 trillion, was predicated on ultra-low mortgage rates that made buying a home more attractive than renting. But in many parts of the world now, buying a home has become more expensive than renting (Chart I-7). Disappearing US and European homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers will weigh on home prices and housing investment – at least until policymakers are forced to bring down mortgage rates (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-7Buying A Home Has Become More Expensive Than Renting! Chart I-8Homebuyers Have Disappeared... Chart I-9...While Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market Meanwhile, as Chinese policymakers try and gently let the air out of the $100 trillion Chinese real estate market, a collapse in Chinese property development and construction activity will have negative long-term implications for commodities, emerging Asia, and developing countries that produce raw materials. More Investment Conclusions In addition to the long-term investment conclusions just described, we can draw some shorter-term conclusions: If inflation comes down slowly, then the current ‘cost of living crisis’, which is pummelling everyone’s real incomes, will persist. But if inflation comes down quickly while wage inflation remains sticky, firms will be forced to lay off workers to protect their profits, turning the ‘cost of living crisis’ into a ‘jobs crisis’. Either way, this will keep a choke on consumer spending, and particularly the spending on goods, which is likely to remain in recession. Meanwhile, until mortgage rates move meaningfully lower, housing investment will also remain in recession.  Equityinvestors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. This double choke on growth is likely to keep a lid on ultra-long bond yields, even if central banks need to hike short-term rates more than expected to slay inflation. Our proprietary fractal analysis confirms that the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond is likely over (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Bear Market In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Likely Over For the stock market, this suggests that the valuation bear market is now over, but that ‘cyclical value’ sectors are now vulnerable to profit downgrades. Hence, equity investors should stick with ‘defensive growth’, specifically healthcare and biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we noticed that the sudden 20 percent collapse of Hungarian versus Polish 10-year bonds, has reached the point of short-term fractal fragility that suggests an imminent rebound. Hence, we are adding this to our watchlist. Go long GBP/USD. But our trade is GBP/USD. UK political risk is diminishing, the BoE is likely to be as, or more, hawkish than the Fed, and the 260-day fractal structure of GBP/USD is at the point of fragility that has signalled major turning points in 2014, 15, 16, 18 and 21 (Chart I-11). Accordingly the recommendation is long GBP/USD, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent.   Chart I-11Go Long GBP/USD Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 1CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point   Chart 2Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 3Copper's Selloff Has Hit Short-Term Resistance Chart 4US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 5CAD/SEK Is Reversing Chart 6Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 7The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 8The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 9FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 11The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 12The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 13Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 14German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 15Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 16ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 18The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 24USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 28The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The best measure of wage rates is the employment cost index (ECI) because it includes all forms of compensation including benefits and bonuses. 2  In fact, stock market profits are even more cyclical because, as well as wages, there are other sticky deductions from revenues such as interest and taxes. 3 All expressed as annualised rates. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 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 Buying a home is now more expensive than renting in many parts of the world. In the US and UK, disappearing homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers will weigh on home prices over the next 6-12 months. Falling employment and falling house prices risk becoming a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop that turns a mild recession into a severe recession. To stop such a vicious cycle running out of control, policymakers will eventually bring down mortgage rates. For this reason, on a time horizon of 6-12 months, overweight bonds. A collapse in Chinese property development and construction activity will have negative long-term implications for commodities, emerging Asia, and developing countries that produce raw materials. Structurally underweight. On the other hand, stay structurally overweight the China 30-year government bond. Fractal trading watchlist: US Biotech versus Utilities. Buying A Home Is Now More Expensive Than Renting! Bottom Line: The decade-long global housing boom is over. Feature For the first time since 2018, the number of Brits wanting to buy a home is less than the number of Brits wanting to sell their home. The balance of homebuyers versus homes for sale is the main driver of any housing market. When multiple homebuyers are competing for a home for sale, the subsequent bidding war puts upward pressure on house prices. But when, multiple homes for sale are competing for a homebuyer, the subsequent discounting war puts downward pressure on house prices. The balance of homebuyers versus homes for sale is the main driver of any housing market. This makes the number of homebuyers versus homes for sale the best leading indicator of house prices. The recent collapse of this leading indicator in the UK warns that UK house prices are likely to soften through the remainder of 2022 and into 2023 (Chart I-1). Chart I-1With Fewer UK Homebuyers Than UK Home-Sellers, UK House Prices Are Set To Drop Homebuyers Are Disappearing While Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market Disappearing homebuyers combined with a flood of home-sellers is also evident in the US. According to Realtor.com: “Weary US homebuyers face not only sky-high home prices but also rising mortgage rates, and that financial double whammy is hitting homebuyers hard: Compared with just a year ago, the cost of financing 80 percent of a typical home rose 57.6 percent, amounting to an extra $745 per month.” Compared with just a year ago, the cost of financing 80 percent of a typical US home rose 57.6 percent, amounting to an extra $745 per month. Unsurprisingly, US mortgage applications for home purchase have recently plunged by a third (Chart I-2) and homebuyer demand has declined by 16 percent since last June.1 Meanwhile, the inventory of homes actively for sale on a typical day in June has increased by 19 percent, the largest increase in the data history. Chart I-2With The Cost Of Financing A US Home Purchase Surging, Mortgage Applications Have Collapsed The flood of new homes on the market means that the dwindling pool of homebuyers will have more negotiating leverage on the asking price (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This will balance the highly lopsided negotiating dynamics in the raging seller’s market of the past two years. The shape of things to come can be seen in Austin, Texas, which was one of the hottest markets during the early pandemic real estate frenzy. Chart I-3US Homebuyers Are Disappearing... Chart I-4...While US Home-Sellers Are Flooding The Market “Prices are definitely starting to go down again… last Friday, an Austin home was listed at $825,000. The next day, at the open house, no one came. A few months ago, there would have been 20 or more buyers showing up. The sellers didn’t want to test the market, so on Sunday, they dropped it to $790,000. It sold for $760,000.” Buying A Home Is Now More Expensive Than Renting The nub of the problem for homebuyers is that the mortgage rate is higher than the rental yield. In simple terms, buying a home is now more expensive than renting (Chart I-5). The housing bulls counter that the high mortgage rate will force rental yields to adjust upwards by rents going up, but this argument is flawed. Chart I-5Buying A Home Is Now More Expensive Than Renting! The most important driver of rent inflation is the unemployment rate (inversely). Because, to put it bluntly, you need a steady job to pay the rent! Today, the Federal Reserve’s inflation problem, in a nutshell, is that rent inflation is too high even versus the tight jobs market (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Fed Needs To Push Up Unemployment To Pull Down Rent Inflation Although the Fed cannot say this explicitly, its mechanism to bring down inflation is to push up unemployment, and thereby to pull down rent inflation, which constitutes almost half of the core inflation basket. In this case, the rental yield (rent divided by house price) would adjust upwards by the denominator – house prices – going down. The most important driver of rent inflation is the unemployment rate (inversely). Yet the housing bulls also argue that the housing boom is the result of a structural undersupply of homes. They claim that as this structural undersupply persists, it will underpin house prices. But this ‘housing shortage’ narrative is another myth, which we can debunk with two simple observations. Through the past decade, home prices have risen simultaneously and exponentially everywhere in the world. Now ask yourself, is it plausible that there could be a structural undersupply of homes everywhere in the world at the precisely the same time? If this doesn’t debunk the housing shortage narrative, then try this second observation. Through the past decade, gross rents have tracked nominal GDP. Theory says that gross rents should track nominal GDP, because the quality of the housing stock improves broadly in line with GDP, and therefore so too should rents. If there really was a structural undersupply of housing, then gross rents would be structurally outperforming nominal GDP. But that hasn’t happened in any major economy (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Rents Have Tracked GDP, So There Is No 'Structural Undersupply' Of Homes As an aside, if rents track GDP, then why do they constitute almost half of the core inflation basket?  The answer is that the rents included in inflation are ‘hedonically adjusted’, meaning that are supposedly deflated for quality improvements – though there is always a niggling doubt whether the statisticians do this adjustment correctly! Pulling all of this together, the synchronized global housing boom of the past decade was not the result of a structural undersupply. Instead, it was the result of a valuation boom – meaning, plummeting rental yields, which in turn were the result of plummeting mortgage rates, which in turn were the result of plummeting bond yields. But now that mortgage rates are much higher than rental yields, this ‘virtuous’ cycle risks turning vicious. Falling employment and falling house prices risk becoming a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop that turns a mild recession into a severe recession. To stop such a vicious cycle running out of control, policymakers will eventually have no other choice than to bring down mortgage rates. For this reason, on a time horizon of 6-12 months, overweight bonds. But The Prize For The Biggest Housing Boom Goes To… China The housing booms in the UK, US and other Western economies, extreme as they are, are small fry compared to the housing boom in China. Chinese real estate, now worth $100 trillion, is by far the largest asset-class in the world. And Chinese rental yields, at around 1 percent, are well below the yield on cash. Begging the question, how can Chinese real estate valuations be in such stratospheric territory, with a yield even less than that on ‘risk-free’ cash? The simple answer is that investors have been led to believe that Chinese real estate is a risk-free investment! Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price is only supposed to go up (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Chinese Real Estate Is Perceived To Be A 'Risk Free' Investment With the bulk of Chinese households’ wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a 10 percent decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. In turn, the ensuing ‘negative wealth effect’ would be catastrophic for household spending in the world’s second largest economy. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity, combined with keeping interest rates structurally low. This will have negative long-term implications for commodities, emerging Asia, and developing countries that produce raw materials. Structurally underweight. On the other hand, Chinese bonds are an excellent investment for those investors who can accept the capital control risks. Stay structurally overweight the China 30-year government bond. Fractal Trading Watchlist Biotech and Utilities are both defensive sectors, based on the insensitivity of theirs profits to economic fluctuations. But whereas Biotech is ‘long duration’, Utilities is ‘shorter duration’. Over the coming months, as the economy falters and bond yields back down, long duration defensives, such as Biotech, are likely to be the winners. This is supported by the recent underperformance reaching the point of fractal fragility that has indicated previous major turning points (Chart I-9). The recommended trade is long US Biotech versus Utilities, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent. This replaces our long US Biotech versus Tech position, which achieved its 17.5 percent profit target, and is now closed. Chart I-9Biotech Is Set To Be A Big Winner Chart 1CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 2US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 3CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 4Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 5The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 6The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 7FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 8Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Been Exhausted Chart 9The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 10The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 11Food And Beverage Outperformance Has Been Exhausted Chart 12AT REVERSAL Chart 13AT REVERSAL Chart 14The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 15The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 16A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 17Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 18Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 19Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 21The Rally In USD/EUR Could End Chart 22The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 23A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 24GBP/USD At A Turning Point Chart 25Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 26Fractal Trading Watch List Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Realtor.com gauge homebuyer demand by so-called ‘pending listings’, the number of listings that are at various stages of the selling process that are not yet sold. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 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  

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

Highlights We now recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds. We still believe that the US will likely avoid a recession over the coming year, but we are less convinced that this is true than we were a few months ago. The fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand in the form of a sharp decline in real wages – are currently present or soon will be. In addition, the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Headline inflation has seemingly been a more impactful driver of long-term inflation expectations than core measures, implying that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints in order to contain rising inflation expectations. That would be clearly negative for economic growth and is potentially recessionary in nature. We see no compelling signs of an acceleration in European or Chinese growth that could act as a ballast to support the global economy. The European energy situation is worsening, China’s post-lockdown rebound has so far been tepid, and market-based indicators of Chinese economic growth are deteriorating. The US equity market is not priced for a typical “income-statement” recession induced by monetary policy. We expect the S&P 500 to fall to 3100 in a recession scenario, driven mostly by declining earnings. In a recession scenario, we do not expect long-maturity government bond yields to fall enough to offset a likely increase in the equity risk premium. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we soon see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Downgrading Risky Assets To Neutral Every month, BCA strategists hold a house view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. As highlighted in a recent Special Alert from our Global Investment Strategy service,1 BCA strategists voted at our June meeting to change our House View to a neutral asset allocation stance towards equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. Table I-1We Now Recommend More Conservative Positioning Than We Did In May The view of the Bank Credit Analyst service is in line with the consensus of BCA strategists on this issue, and we consequently recommend a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds (Table I-1). We noted in our April report2 – when the S&P 500 index stood at 4530 – that the outlook for equities had deteriorated meaningfully since the beginning of the year and that investors should maintain at most a very modest overweight toward equities in a global multi-asset portfolio. A formal downgrade to neutral is thus not a large change in our recommended positioning, but it reflects what we view as a legitimate increase in the odds of a US recession over the coming year. It is not yet our view that a US recession is a probable outcome, but it is important to distinguish between one’s forecast of the economic outlook and the appropriate investment strategy. The unique inflationary pressure created by the COVID-19 pandemic has created a large confidence interval around our forecast, underscoring that an aggressive stance towards risky assets is not warranted. Financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see a substantial slowdown in the US headline inflation rate. But as we will discuss below, that slowdown will have to materialize soon in order for us to recommend an overweight risky asset stance. Reviewing Our Previously Constructive View On US Economic Growth Chart I-1Recessionary Concerns Have Escalated Significantly Since The 2-10 Yield Curve Inverted Concerns about a potential US recession have been growing since the Fed’s hawkish pivot in November, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previously, these concerns centered around two core issues: the aggressive pace at which the Fed communicated it would raise the policy rate, and the fact that the 2-10 yield curve flattened sharply in the first quarter and finally inverted (based on closing prices) on April 1st (Chart I-1). We had pushed back against those concerns, for several reasons. Our deeply-held view is that recessions typically occur when a significant shock to aggregate demand emerges against the backdrop of tight monetary policy. Sometimes the debt-service and credit demand impact of high interest rates itself is the shock. In other cases, recessions have been triggered in an environment of restrictive monetary policy by a sudden change in key input costs (such as oil prices), the bursting of a financial asset bubble, or a major shift in fiscal spending (typically following a period of war). But the core point is that recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is easy, even when shocks to aggregate demand occur. We abstract here from special cases such as the recession that occurred during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. That event saw the introduction of government policies that purposely arrested economic activity, which in our view would have caused a recession under any conceivable fiscal and/or monetary policy alignment. As a business cycle indicator, the yield curve is significant for investors because it essentially represents the bond market’s assessment of the monetary policy stance. The 2-10 yield curve inversion in early April occurred, in part, because of the speed at which the Fed signaled it would raise interest rates, but also because the 10-year Treasury yield stood just under 2.4% at the point of inversion. This level of long-maturity bond yields reflected the view of both the Fed and most investors that the neutral rate of interest permanently fell following the 2008/2009 global financial crisis (GFC), a view that we have argued against in several previous reports.3 As such, the first reason we pushed back against earlier recessionary concerns is that we believe that the natural/neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed and investors believe (even though we warned that a recessionary scare was quite likely). Chart I-2A Large Portion Of Currently Elevated Inflation Is Due To Supply-Side And Pandemic-Related Factors The second reason that we had pushed back against recessionary concerns was our view that a meaningful portion of currently elevated US inflation is a function of supply-side and pandemic-related factors that will eventually abate. Chart I-2 highlights credible estimates showing that roughly half of the year-over-year change in the headline PCE deflator is the result of supply-side factors, versus 40-50% for core inflation. It has been and remains our view that a substantial portion of these supply-side and pandemic-related factors will dissipate as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, with several price categories likely to deflate outright. Chart I-3Excess Savings Should Still Support Higher Services Spending Finally, we have argued in several reports that US goods spending has been well above-trend and is likely to slow, but also that services spending is far too low and is likely to rise. Chart I-3 highlights that close to $3 trillion in excess savings have accrued during the pandemic, which formed because of a combination of rising disposable income and falling services spending. We noted that the continued transition of the US and global economies towards a post-pandemic state would boost services spending, providing (an admittedly atypical) source of support for overall aggregate demand.   Why The Odds Of A US Recession Have Increased We still believe that the US will more likely than not avoid a recession over the coming year, but it is true that the strength of all three of the arguments presented above has weakened. Regarding the stance of monetary policy, Charts I-4 and I-5 highlight that it is still true that the Fed funds rate and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain below our estimate of the neutral rate (nominal potential GDP growth). However, Chart I-6 highlights that the sharp rise in consumer price inflation has caused a substantial reduction in real wage growth, which certainly constitutes a non-monetary aggregate demand shock. Chart I-4The Policy Rate Is Not Yet At Neutral, But Mortgage Rates Are Chart I-5Long-Maturity Government Bond Yields Would Have Room To Move A Lot Higher Absent Any Shocks To Demand...       Chart I-6...Unfortunately, US Consumers Are Clearly Experiencing A Shock In The Form Of Sharply Lower Real Wages Panel 2 of Chart I-4 also shows that the 30-year mortgage rate in the US is now at neutral levels, in contrast to government bond yields and the US policy rate. Chart I-7 highlights that our models for US home sales and starts, featured in last month’s report,4 are still not pointing to a severe slowdown in the housing market. However, the fact that mortgage rates have risen to neutral territory means that it is possible that the usual ingredients for a recession – tight monetary policy plus a shock to aggregate demand – are currently present or soon will be. On the question of services spending acting as a support for US economic growth as goods spending slows, we continue to believe that services spending will recover back towards its pre-pandemic trend – funded by excess savings that accrued during the pandemic. However, Chart I-8, presented by my colleague Arthur Budaghyan in a recent Emerging Markets Strategy report,5 underscores the extent of the wealth destruction that has occurred because of the joint effect of falling stock and bond prices. At least some of the services-boosting effect of excess savings will likely be blunted by a negative wealth effect stemming from these financial market losses, especially since the remaining excess savings in the US are likely held by middle-to-upper income households – who are the disproportionate holders of publicly-traded financial assets. Chart I-7No Sign Yet Of A Sharp Slowdown In The Housing Market, But The Ingredients Of A Typical Recession May Be Present Chart I-8A Significant Wealth Shock May Blunt The Deployment Of The Excess Savings Accrued During The Pandemic   On the inflation front, the May CPI release – and the Fed’s reaction to it – underscores that the US economy is at risk of a recession unless supply-side inflation dissipates quickly. Chart I-9 highlights that the May CPI release directly contradicted the view that the monthly rate of change in inflation has peaked. In addition, Chart I-10 presents a breakdown of the percent change in May’s headline consumer price index, with each bar in the chart representing the contribution of that category to headline CPI rising faster than 4% (annualized). The note next to each bar highlights our view of the main driver of that price category, and the color of the bars denotes how probable it is that we will soon see a significant easing in price pressure. Chart I-9The May CPI Report Was Clearly Inconsistent With A Peak Inflation Narrative Chart I-10Some Elements Of Outsized CPI Will Dissipate Soon. Others May Not.     The chart makes it clear that certain price categories that have been strongly contributing to outsized headline inflation are likely to peak or even turn deflationary over the next few months. Gasoline and fuel oil inflation is clearly being driven by the trend in crude oil prices, which in our view will likely be flat for the rest of the year. In addition, motor vehicles and parts inflation continues to be driven by the impact of supply-chain shortages on vehicle production. Over the past year, the volume of industrial production of motor vehicle assemblies has averaged just 83% of its pre-pandemic level, which we noted in last month’s report now finally seems to be normalizing (Chart I-11). And while airlines have experienced legitimate cost increases due to rising fuel prices and COVID-related labor shortages, panel 2 of Chart I-11 highlights that real airfares have risen well above their pre-pandemic level. This underscores that a moderation in airfares is quite likely over the coming several months. However, Chart I-10 also highlights that there are several price categories that are less likely to ease quickly. Outsized food and energy services inflation has recently been tied to natural gas prices, given that natural gas is used to generate electricity and is a key element used in the production of fertilizer. Chart I-12 highlights that food inflation has been strongly correlated with the producer price index for pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals, and that there is no sign yet of the latter abating. Despite the fact that global wheat prices have recently been falling, the recent increase in European natural gas prices is likely to exacerbate US food inflation, as fertilizer is used to produce all major planted crops. In addition, European energy insecurity has created an even stronger link between the US and European natural gas markets than what prevailed prior to the Ukrainian war, because of what is likely to be permanently higher LNG demand from Europe. Chart I-11Vehicle And Airfare Inflation Is Likely To Ease Soon Chart I-12Food Inflation May Remain Elevated For Some Time   On top of what is likely to be persistent food and energy services inflation, shelter inflation is likely to stay elevated for some time – a point highlighted by my esteemed former colleague, Martin Barnes, in Section 2 of this month’s report. The unemployment rate and house prices are the two main drivers of shelter inflation, and the effect of the latter clearly lags because owner’s equivalent rent is a surveyed measure. The fact that mortgage rates have risen so significantly points to a meaningful slowdown in house price appreciation and possibly even mild deflation, so shelter inflation will eventually slow. The Federal Reserve has made it clear, however, that they are now focused on quickly bringing down consumer prices, even at the cost of a recession. The justification for the Fed’s impatience comes straight from the Modern-Day Phillips Curve, which we discussed in great detail in our January 2021 Special Report.6 Economic theory dictates that inflation should be “normal” when the economy is in equilibrium – defined as economic growth in line with potential growth, no economic/labor market slack, and no supply-side shocks affecting prices. In the minds of many investors, “normal” inflation means the central bank’s target for inflation, but that is not necessarily the case. The experience of the 1970s highlighted that “normal” inflation is the rate that is expected by households and firms, and that the Fed will only succeed at achieving target inflation under normal economic conditions if inflation expectations are consistent with its target. The Fed’s failure to prevent inflation expectations from shifting higher on a structural basis led to two debilitating recessions in the early 1980s, and a prolonged period over which the Fed had to maintain comparatively tight monetary policy. This is a mistake that the Fed does not want to make again. Chart I-13Headline Inflation, Not Core, Is Driving Long-Term Inflation Expectations Consistent with that view, Jerome Powell made it clear during the June FOMC meeting press conference that the Fed is now very concerned that long-term household inflation expectations may become unanchored to the upside. Powell implicitly referenced the University of Michigan’s 5-10 year median household inflation expectations survey during the press conference, which we have described in several previous reports as one of the most important macro data series for investors to monitor. The final reading for June came in materially lower than what was suggested by the preliminary report, but they were already at risk of a breakout even before the June release. In addition, Chart I-13 highlights that it is headline inflation (not core) that appears to be the main driver of rising long-term household inflation expectations, which raises a troubling point. If the Fed decides that inflation expectations need to be quickly reined in even at the cost of a higher unemployment rate, that decision implies that it is headline inflation that needs to return rapidly towards the Fed’s target, not just core. Given that some price categories shown in Chart I-10 are likely to be sticky for some time, and that the chart accounted for deviations in headline inflation from 4% (which itself is above the Fed’s target), the implication is that the Fed may have to crowd out demand for goods and services that are comparatively less affected by supply-side constraints. That would be clearly negative for economic growth, and is potentially recessionary in nature. As a final point, it is not just the potential for future economic weakness that concerns us. The US economy was already slowing prior to the Fed’s hawkish pivot and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and important indicators for economic activity continue to deteriorate. Chart I-14 highlights that the S&P Global US manufacturing and services PMIs fell meaningfully in June, and Chart I-15 highlights that the Conference Board’s US leading economic indicator continues to deteriorate. In fact, the Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and the bottom panel of Chart I-15 highlights that four consecutive month-over-month declines have all essentially been associated with a recession. 2006 seemingly stands out as an exception to this rule, but given the fact that the housing market downturn began two years before the recession officially started, we simply regard this as an early recessionary signal rather than a false one. Chart I-14The US Is Losing Economic Momentum Chart I-15The Conference Board's LEI May Soon Send A Recessionary Signal     No Help From Europe Or China An overweight stance towards global equities might still be warranted in the face of a significant slowdown in US economic activity if economic growth in Europe or China were accelerating. However, the European outlook has been strongly tied to natural gas flows from Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, which tightened meaningfully in June in response to Europe’s oil ban, the looming expansion of NATO, and Europe’s success at replenishing its amount of natural gas in storage. Russia has not fully weaponized its natural gas exports and its actions so far have fallen well short of a complete cutoff, but prices have risen close to 70% over the past month, forcing Germany to trigger the alert level of its emergency gas plan. Aside from the negative impact that higher natural gas prices will have on headline inflation globally, this is obviously incrementally negative for European economic activity. Chart I-16 highlights that the German IFO business climate indexes have led the S&P Global Germany PMI lower over the past few months, and that they imply further manufacturing weakness. And while the services climate index for Germany ticked higher, it remains meaningfully below the levels that prevailed last summer and implies a deterioration in German services activity over the coming few months. In China, we see no compelling signs of a sustainable pickup in economic activity that will provide a ballast to slowing growth in the DM world. We have seen a bounce back in some activity indicators following the significant easing of restrictions in Shanghai and Beijing (Chart I-17). These indicators, however, are still quite weak, and it is likely that China will experience significant further COVID outbreaks over the coming 6-12 months. Chart I-16Europe's Economy Is Likely To Slow Further Chart I-17China's Post-Lockdown 'Recovery' Remains Tepid   While Chinese stocks have been rallying in absolute terms over the past few weeks, Chart I-18 highlights that this is essentially the only positive market-based signal about the pace of economic activity in China. The chart highlights that our market-based China Growth Indicator has experienced a renewed down leg, and that the diffusion index never rose above the boom/bust line earlier this year. The recent decline in industrial metals prices is also not a positive market-based signal for Chinese economic activity (Chart 19). Some investors have argued that weak metals prices reflect growth concerns outside of China, but even if that is the case, it implies that China’s reopening will not be forceful enough to offset slowing global ex-China growth. Chart I-18Market-Based Signals Are Not Pointing To An Improvement In Chinese Economic Activity Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Now Falling, Highlighting Mounting Global Growth Fears   Has The US Equity Market Already Priced In A Recession? One very important question for investors to answer is how much further downside is likely to occur for US equities in the event of a US recession. At its worst point in mid-June, the S&P 500 fell close to 24% from its early January high, and many investors have since questioned whether the US equity market is already priced for a potential contraction in output. Chart I-20The S&P 500 Is Not Currently Priced For A US Recession We disagree with this perspective, and believe that the S&P 500 would fall close to 3100 in a typical recession scenario. Chart I-20 presents a range of estimates for the S&P 500 based on a Monte Carlo approach, using what we believe are feasible ranges for the US equity risk premium, real 10-year government bond yields, and the extent of the decline in 12-month forward earnings per share. The chart shows that the equity market only has a positive return at the 5th percentile, which can be interpreted as just a 5% chance that the US equity market has already priced in the impact of a recession. Charts I-21 and I-22 highlight the range of possible outcomes that we used when modeling the likely decline in stock prices in a recession scenario. We assume that the equity risk premium, defined here as the difference between the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield and 10-year TIPS yields, rises on average to its early-March level in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We assume that both 10-year nominal Treasury yields and 10-year breakeven inflation rates fall to 2%, reflecting an expectation that 10-year TIPS yields will not return to negative territory in a recessionary scenario. Finally, we expect that S&P 500 forward EPS will decline by 15% from current levels, which is in line with the historical average decline in 12-month trailing operating EPS during recessions. Chart I-21We Do Not Expect Real Bond Yields To Fall Back Into Negative Territory In A Typical Recession Scenario Chart I-22We Expect Earnings To Decline Between 10-20% In A Recession     One key takeaway from our analysis is that the likely recessionary equity market decline projected by our approach is fairly close to our estimate of the likely decline in earnings. One potential pushback against our view that earnings will fall in line with what usually occurs during recessions is the fact that nominal revenue growth may only mildly contract or may not contract at all in a recession that is occurring due to high rates of inflation (and thus higher prices charged by firms). Chart I-23 highlights that 12-month trailing S&P 500 sales per share growth never turned negative in the 1970s, even following the 1970 and 1974 recessions. Chart I-23Revenue Growth Did Not Contract In The 1970s, And May Not Contract Significantly If A Recession Occurs Today... There are two counterpoints to this argument. First, the current risk of a recession mostly stems from the Fed’s determination not to repeat the mistakes that it made during the 1970s, meaning that inflation expectations are unlikely to rise to the level that they did during that period in advance of a recession. That implies that actual inflation, and thus corporate pricing power, will come down significantly during a recession. Second, even in a scenario in which a recession occurs and S&P 500 revenue growth contracts less aggressively than it has during previous recessions, Chart I-24 highlights that the mean-reversion risks to earnings from falling profit margins are quite high. The chart shows that even if profit margins were merely to return to their pre-pandemic levels during a recession (which would actually be a comparatively mild decline given the historical behavior of margins during recessions), it would imply close to a 20% contraction in earnings if sales per share growth were flat. Given this, we feel that our assumption of a 10-20% decline in earnings per share in a recessionary scenario is reasonable. Chart I-24But Profit Margins Are At Great Risk Of A Significant Decline If The Economy Contracts There is another important takeaway from our analysis, which is that the decline in bond yields that will occur in a recessionary scenario will likely be more than offset by a rise in the equity risk premium. Another potential pushback against our view that the US equity market has already priced in a recession is focused on our assumption that the 10-year US Treasury yield will only fall back to 2%, and that real 10-year yields will not return to negative territory. For some investors, this assumption seems far too high, given the structural decline in long-maturity bond yields over the past decade and the fact that the 10-year yield stood below 2% at the beginning of the year when the odds of a recession were lower than they are today. In response to this, we offer three points for structurally-bullish bond investors to consider. The first is that the decline in the nominal 10-year US Treasury yield to 0.5% in 2020 was extremely irregular and it occurred because of the extent of the essentially unprecedented economic weakness wrought by the pandemic. This is absolutely the wrong yield benchmark to use in a typical recession scenario, because the Fed’s response to the recession will be much less aggressive. The second point is related to the first, in that negative real 10-year government bond yields have been heavily driven by the secular stagnation narrative and the general view that the natural/neutral rate of interest has permanently fallen. We agree that the neutral rate of interest fell for a time following the global financial crisis, but we believe strongly that it rose in the latter half of the last economic expansion as US households aggressively deleveraged their balance sheets. Academic estimates of R-star, such as that derived from the previously popular (but now discontinued) Laubach-Williams model, continued to point to a low neutral rate from 2015-2019 because of the deflationary impact of an energy-driven decline in long-term inflation expectations on actual inflation, a factor that is clearly no longer present. Chart I-25We Doubt That The Fed Will Resort To QE When The Next Recession Occurs Finally, we agree that the existence of the Fed’s asset purchase program has likely had some impact on the 10-year term premium over the past decade. We doubt that the Fed would resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in response to a conventional recession, implying that the term premium will not fall as low as it has over the past decade when growth slowed or contracted. Chart I-25 highlights one important reason for this. Since 2008, the Fed’s use of asset purchases has been part of a strategy to ease monetary policy further when the policy rate had already fallen to zero, to meet its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. The chart highlights that even just prior to the pandemic, a persistent gap existed between the headline and core PCE deflator and the level that would have prevailed if both deflators had grown at a 2% annual rate since the onset of the 2008 recession. The chart makes it clear that this gap will completely disappear within the next 12 months for both the headline and core deflator, if the recent pace of change in prices is sustained. In effect, Chart I-25 highlights that the entire post-GFC missed inflation-target era is almost over, which severely undercuts the idea that the Fed will resort to QE as a monetary policy tool in a recession scenario unless the contraction is very severe as it was in 2008 and 2020. We doubt that this will be the case if a recession does occur, implying that both a deeply negative term premium and a significant decline in the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield in a typical recession scenario is unlikely. Investment Conclusions Wayne Gretsky’s famous quotation, that he “skate[s] to where the puck is going, not where it has been” is often invoked by BCA strategists. Successful active investing requires anticipation rather than reaction, and it is legitimate for investors to ask whether downgrading risky assets at the current juncture represents the latter rather than the former. We are cognizant of that risk, but we are also mindful of the importance of capital preservation. When we wrote our annual outlook last year, we believed fairly confidently that inflation would peak and specifically that supply-side inflation would wane. We still believe that pandemic-related effects on consumer prices will eventually dissipate, and it is still possible that inflation is in the process of peaking. Recent evidence, however, about the pace of price advances, the clear impact that high inflation is having on real wage growth, and the Fed’s desire to see consumer prices fall quickly back toward its target, means that the cyclical economic outlook is now highly dependent on the speed at which prices normalize – not just whether it will occur. To us, that implies that investors need to have a high-conviction view that supply-side inflation will normalize soon in order to stay overweight risky assets, and that the Fed will look through elevated housing-related inflation that is likely to persist for several months. At least in the case of supply-side inflation, we think normalization is probable but we no longer have high conviction about the speed of adjustment. As such, we recommend that investors maintain no more than a neutral stance towards stocks versus bonds in a global multi-asset portfolio. We also recommend that investors increase their allocation to government bonds within a global fixed income portfolio (to overweight), at the expense of corporate bonds, as part of an overall shift towards more defensive positions. In terms of other important asset class allocations, we recommend the following: Within a global equity portfolio, maintain a neutral regional allocation, a neutral stance toward cyclicals versus defensives, and a neutral stance towards small-cap stocks versus their large-cap peers. Modestly favor value stocks over growth stocks, as most of the outsized outperformance of growth stocks during the pandemic has already reversed. Within a fixed-income portfolio, a modestly short stance is warranted over the coming 6- to 12-months. Extremely stretched technical and valuation conditions point to a bearish view towards the US dollar over the coming 6- to 12-months, but USD will likely remain well-bid over the nearer-term. We are only likely to upgrade our cyclical USD call in a scenario in which we recommend underweighting global equities within a multi-asset portfolio. As noted above, financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone to either a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight or an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. Thus, additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to the incoming data and our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 30, 2022 Next Report: July 28, 2022 II.  Inflation Whipsaw Ahead Dear Client, This month’s Special Report has been written by Martin Barnes, BCA’s former Chief Economist. Martin, who retired from BCA Research last year after a long and illustrious career, discusses the long-run outlook for inflation. The views expressed in this report are his, and may not be consistent with those of the Bank Credit Analyst or other BCA Research services. But Martin’s warning of future stagflation is sobering, and I trust you will find his report both interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Overly stimulative policies meant that inflation was set to rise even before the disruptions caused by the pandemic and Ukraine conflict. Inflation should decline sharply over the coming year in response to weaker economic growth and an easing in supply problems. But it will be a temporary respite. Central banks will not have the stomach to keep policy tight enough for long enough to squeeze inflation out of the system. Price pressures will return as economies bottom and the environment will become one of stagflation. Financial assets will rally strongly when inflation fears subside but subsequent stagflation will not be bullish for markets. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once defined price stability as existing when “households and businesses need not factor expectations of changes in the average level of prices into their decisions”. Until recently, that state of affairs was the case for much of the past 30 years and for many, inflation was quiescent during their entire working lives. But inflation is now back as a huge issue and there is massive debate and uncertainty about whether it will be a temporary or lasting problem. I lean toward the latter view. Major changes in the economic and/or financial environment more often are identified in hindsight than in real time. It is easier to attribute large trend deviations to temporary factors than to make bold predictions about structural shifts. Obviously, the pandemic and conflict in Ukraine have had a significant impact on the near-term inflation picture via massive supply-side disruptions and represent temporary events. Thus, inflation will retreat from current elevated levels as those disruptions diminish. But the conditions for higher inflation were already in place before those two unfortunate events occurred. Specifically, central banks have been erring on the side of stimulus for several years and they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put the inflation genie back into the bottle. Inflation has moved from a non-issue to the most important factor driving markets. Over the next year, the next big surprise might be how fast inflation retreats and investors and policymakers will then breathe a big sigh of relief. However, this will prove to be a temporary respite because it will not take long for inflation to move back up and remain stubbornly above central bank targets. In other words, a whipsaw is in prospect over the next few years as inflation goes from up, to down, and to up again. The Current Inflation Problem The biggest increases in consumer prices have occurred in areas most affected by supply problems, with energy attracting the most attention. Nevertheless, in most countries, inflation has risen across the majority of goods and services. The core inflation rate (i.e. consumer prices excluding food and energy) in the G7 economies climbed from 2% to 4.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean measure of US consumer price inflation has spiked dramatically higher, consistent with a broad-based acceleration in inflation.7 The rise in underlying inflation is a bigger problem in the US, UK and Canada than in Japan or the Euro Area. Chart II-2 shows current core inflation rates relative to the target rate of 2% pursued by most central banks. That geographical divergence will be touched on later and in the meantime, the focus will be on the US situation. Chart II-1A Broad-Based Pickup In Inflation Chart II-2The US, UK And Canada Have A Bigger Inflation Problem   The latest US inflation data for a range of goods and services is shown in Table II-1. The table shows the three- and six-month annualized changes in prices because 12-month rates can be affected by a base effect given the impact of pandemic-related shutdowns and disruptions a year ago. Also, a comparison of the three- and six-month rates shows if momentum is building or fading. The trends are not encouraging in that momentum has accelerated, not diminished in many key areas. Table II-1Selected Inflation Rates In The US CPI Even if the data show a moderation in core inflation in the months ahead, it is important to note that rent inflation – the CPI component with the biggest weight – is seriously underestimated. This is one of the few items where prices are collected with a lag and real estate industry reports highlight that rent inflation is running at double-digit rates in the major cities. According to one report, average rents nationally increased by more than 25% in the year to May.8 The CPI data will eventually catch up with reality, providing at least a partial offset to any inflation improvements in other areas. Another problem for inflation is the acceleration in wage growth against the backdrop of an unusually tight labor market. Currently, the number of unfilled vacancies is almost twice the number of unemployed and it is thus no surprise that wage growth has picked up sharply (Chart II-3). The Atlanta Fed’s measure of annual wage inflation has risen above 6%, its highest reading since the data began in 1997. Wage growth is unlikely to suddenly decline absent a marked rise in the unemployment rate. There is much debate about whether the US economy is on the verge of recession, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of whether the technical definition of recession is met (at least two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), the pace of activity is set to slow sharply. Plunging consumer and business confidence, contracting real incomes and a peaking in housing activity all point to a significant weakening in growth, even if the labor market stays healthy (Chart II-4). Chart II-3A Very Tight US Labor Market Chart II-4The US Economy Is In Trouble   Softer economic growth eventually will take the edge off inflationary pressures in many goods and services. Combined with an easing in supply-side disruptions, the inflation rate is certain to decline in the coming year, even if oil prices move higher in the short run. Currently, the Fed is talking tough about dealing with inflation and there is little doubt that further rate hikes are on the way. However, policymakers will have little stomach for inflicting enough economic pain to completely squeeze inflation out of the system. Once there are clear signs of a significant economic slowdown, the Fed will back off quickly. What Causes Inflation Anyway? Economics 101 teaches that prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If the demand for a good or service exceeds supply, then prices will rise to bring things back into balance. Seems simple enough but, unfortunately, this leaves many unanswered questions. How much must prices rise and for how long in order to restore balance? What if there are structural impediments to supply? What if there are monopolies in key commodities or services? What if policy interferes with the operation of market-clearing solutions? And, finally, what measure of inflation should we be looking at? Chart II-5Inflation Is A 'Modern' Issue For much of economic history, deflation was just as prevalent as inflation, with the latter only being a problem during periods of war (Chart II-5). As the pre-WWII world pre-dated fiat money, automatic stabilizers (e.g. the welfare state), and counter-cyclical fiscal policy, economies were prone to regular depressions that served to wash out financial and economic excesses and any inflationary pressures. But those days are long gone and free market forces should not be expected to keep inflation under wraps. I rather like the simple explanation of inflation’s roots as being “too much money chasing too few goods”. In that sense, the control of inflation lies firmly at the door of central banks. In the “old days” (i.e. before the 1990s), it was possible to use the growth in the money supply to gauge the stance of policy because there was a fairly stable and predictable relationship between monetary and economic trends. That all ended when financial deregulation and the explosion in non-bank financial activities meant that monetary trends ceased to be a reliable indicator of economic growth and inflation. As a result, the Fed stopped setting monetary growth targets more than 20 years ago and since then, money supply data has rarely been mentioned in FOMC discussions. Chart II-6A Simple Measure Of The Monetary Stance Fortunately, all is not lost. The gap between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth is a reasonably good proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Conditions are easy when rates are persistently below GDP growth and vice versa when they are above. As can be seen in Chart II-6, rates were below GDP growth during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when inflation rose sharply. And inflation fell steadily in the 1980s into the first half of the 1990s when the Fed kept interest rates above GDP growth. And look at what has happened in the past decade: rates have been significantly below GDP growth, suggesting an aggressively easy monetary stance. It was only a matter of time before inflation picked up, even without the recent supply-side disruptions. The FOMC’s latest projections show long-run growth of 3.8% in nominal GDP while the fed funds rate is expected to average only 2.5%. That implies a continued accommodative stance, yet inflation is forecast to be in line with the 2% target. That all seems very unlikely. Fed policymakers spend a lot of time trying to figure out the level of the equilibrium real interest rate – the level consistent with steady non-inflationary economic growth. It would be very helpful to have this number but coming up with an accurate measure is a largely futile exercise. It cannot be measured empirically and its estimation requires a lot of assumptions, explaining why there is no broad agreement on what the right number is. I think there is a case for the simpler approach of using the nominal growth in GDP as a proxy for where rates should be in normal circumstances. As noted above, that suggests monetary policy was excessively accommodative for an extended period. If US Policy Was Too Easy, Why Was Inflation Low For So Long? The Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation is the change in the personal consumption deflator, excluding food and energy. In the 25 years to 2019, inflation by this measure averaged only 1.7%, compared to the Fed’s desired level of 2%. Thus, even though the level of interest rates implied very accommodative policy over that period, inflation remained tame. This leads to an important caveat. The stance of monetary policy plays the key role in driving inflation, but it is not everything. Offsetting forces on inflation (in both directions) can mute or even swamp the impact of policy. There were several disinflationary forces in operation during the past 25 years. Specifically: In the second half of the 1990s, the explosive growth of the internet and accompanying boom in technology spending led to a marked pickup in productivity growth. The entry of China into the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 unleashed a wave of offshoring and downward pressure on traded goods prices. A series of deflationary shocks hit the US and global economy including the 1998 financial crisis in South-East Asia and Russia, the bursting of the tech bubble after 2000, and of course the global financial meltdown in 2007-09. Unstable economic conditions undermined labor’s bargaining power, keeping a tight lid on wage growth. This was highlighted by the dramatic decline in labor’s share of income after 2000. Importantly, the above forces are no longer in place and in some cases are reversing. The key technological advances of the past decade have not been particularly good for productivity. Indeed, one could argue that the activities of most so-called FANG stocks – especially those involved in social media - have had a negative impact on productivity. Time spent on FaceBook, Twitter and Netflix do not have obvious benefits for increased economic efficiency. Chart II-7Globalization In Retreat Even before the pandemic’s impact on supply chains, there were signs that globalization had peaked (Chart II-7). Indeed, BCA first suggested in 2014 that globalization was running out of steam. More recently, the interruption to supply chains has highlighted the downside of relying excessively on overseas production for key goods such as semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals. Onshoring rather than offshoring will become more common with higher prices being the cost for greater control over supply. Globalization is not dead, but, at the margin, it no longer is a powerful source of disinflation. US import prices from China are back to their highest level in a decade after falling steadily during the eight years to 2020. The inflationary impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine via supply-side disruptions are more than offsetting any disinflationary effects of softer economic growth. In other words, they have represented stagflationary rather than deflationary shocks. Finally, with regard to income shares, the pendulum has swung more in favor of labor. Demographic trends (e.g. slow growth in the working-age population) suggest that the labor market will remain relatively tight in the years ahead, notwithstanding short-term weakness as the economy slows. Profit margins are likely to weaken and labor’s share of income will rise. The bottom line is that easy money policies will no longer be offset by a number of powerful external forces that served to keep consumer price inflation under wraps in the pre-pandemic period. And this raises another important point. If monetary policy is too easy, then it will show up somewhere, even if consumer price inflation is under control. There Is More Than One Kind Of Inflation Inflation most commonly refers to the change in the prices of consumer goods and services. That is understandable because consumer spending accounts for more than half of GDP in the major developed economies (and almost 70% in the US). And because consumers are the ones who vote, it is the inflation rate that politicians care most about. However, there are other kinds of inflation. If there are structural impediments to increased consumer prices, then excessively easy monetary policy most likely will show up in higher asset prices. This is a very different kind of inflation because it is welcomed by the owners of assets and by politicians. Nobody is happy to face higher prices for the goods and services they buy, but asset owners love the wealth-boosting effect of higher prices for homes and shares.  Consumer inflation may have been subdued in the pre-pandemic decade, but the same is not true for asset prices. During the period that the Fed ran accommodative policies, there were several periods of rampant asset inflation such as the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s, the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the bond bubble of 2016-2020. And both equity and home prices surged in response to monetary stimulus triggered by the pandemic. Central banks may fret about the potential financial stability implications of surging asset prices, but in practice they do not act to curb them. Policymakers argue that it is hard to determine when an asset bubble exists and even when one is obvious, monetary policy is a crude tool to deal with it. If rising asset prices occur alongside an economy that is characterized by stable growth and moderate inflation, then acting to burst a bubble could inflict unnecessary economic damage. That is an understandable position, but it means ignoring the longer-term problems that occur when bubbles inevitably burst. This was highlighted by the economic and financial chaos after the US housing bubble burst in 2007. The reality is that central banks have been forced to rely more heavily on asset inflation as a source of monetary stimulus. An easing in monetary policy affects economic conditions in three primary ways: boosting credit demand and supply, raising asset prices, and lowering the exchange rate.9 Historically, the credit channel was by far the most important. BCA has written extensively about the Debt Supercycle and the role of monetary policy in fueling ever-rising levels of private sector indebtedness (see the Appendix for a brief description of the Debt Supercycle). Chart II-8No Releveraging Cycle In Household Debt The environment changed dramatically after the 2007-09 financial meltdown. The collapse of the credit-fueled housing bubble drove a stake through the heart of the household sector’s love affair with debt. The ratio of household debt to income peaked in early 2009 and ten years later it was back to the levels of 2001 (Chart II-8). Even an extended period of record low interest rates has failed to trigger a new leveraging cycle. If the Fed can’t persuade consumers and businesses to fall back in love with debt, then it must rely on the other two transmission channels for monetary policy – asset prices and the exchange rate. And the Fed really has limited control over the latter channel given that it also depends on the actions of other central banks. The deleveraging of the household sector in the post-2009 period could have been very bearish for the economy, but the Fed’s easy money policies underpinned the stock market, allowing household net worth to revive. There was an explosive rise in household net worth in 2020-21 as surging house prices added to stock market gains. Between end-2019 and end-2021, the household sector’s direct holdings of equities plus owner’s equity in real estate increased in value by around $20 trillion, equal to more than one year’s personal disposable income. The recent decline in equity prices has reversed some of the gains, but net worth remains elevated by historical standards. The bottom line is that it was wrong to suggest that the Fed’s accommodative stance did not create inflation. Consumer price inflation was tame in the pre-pandemic period, but there was lots of asset inflation and that gathered pace in 2020 and 2021. There was always going to be some leakage of this into more generalized inflation but this was accelerated by the double whammy of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Strange Case Of Japan If higher inflation in the US has seemed inevitable, how can one explain the situation in Japan? In contrast to other developed countries, Japan’s annual core inflation rate was only 0.2% in May. While this was an increase from the average -1.3% rate in the prior six months, it is impressive given the country’s continued highly stimulative monetary policy and the same exposure to supply disruptions as elsewhere. Most importantly, Japan has suffered structural deflation for so long that inflation expectations are totally dormant for both consumers and businesses. In other words, raising prices is seen as a desperate measure and something to be avoided. Japan’s poor demographics may also have played a role. A sharply declining labor force and rapidly aging population are disinflationary rather than inflationary influences and help reinforce the corporate sector’s reluctance to raise prices. While Japan seems an outlier, it is worth noting that core inflation also has remained relatively subdued in many European countries. For the overall Euro area, the latest core inflation rate is 3.8%, well below that of the US and UK. Two common features of the higher inflation countries are that they tended to have more aggressively-easy fiscal policies in recent years and greater asset inflation – especially in real estate. Unfortunately, inflation expectations and business pricing behavior in the US and other Anglo-Saxon economies have not followed Japan’s example. Employees have become more aggressive in demanding higher wages, and most companies have no problem in passing on higher costs to their customers. The UK is facing a wave of public sector strikes over pay the likes of which have not been seen for decades. The Outlook Chart II-9A Peaking In Supply Problems? Inflation may prove sticky over the next few months, but as noted earlier, it should move significantly lower over the coming year. Crude oil prices have risen by around 75% in the past year and that pace of rise cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, while shipping rates remain historically high, they are down sharply from earlier peaks (Chart II-9). Together with a revival in Chinese exports, this suggests some easing in supply chain problems. And as mentioned above, the pace of economic activity is set to slow sharply. But a return to pre-pandemic inflation levels is not in the cards. The Fed currently is talking tough and further rate hikes are on the way. But the tightening will end as soon as it becomes clear that the economy is heading south. A deep recession is not likely because there are not the worrying imbalances such as excessive consumer debt or inventories that typically precede serious downturns. However, policymakers will not take any risks and policy will return quickly to an accommodative stance, even though inflation is unlikely to return to the desired 2% level. On a positive note, inflation may be the highest in 40 years in many countries, but we are not facing a return to the destructive high-inflation environment of the 1970s. Inflation back then was institutionalized and a self-feeding cycle of higher wages and rising prices was deeply embedded. I was working as an economist for BP in London in the 1970s and remember receiving large quarterly pay rises just to compensate for inflation. In the absence of inflation-accounting practices, companies seriously underestimated the destruction that inflation was creating to balance sheets and profitability, making them complacent about the problem. Moreover, there were not the same global competitive pressures that exist today. Inflation in the US likely will form a new base of 3% to 4% over the medium term, with occasional fluctuations to 5% or above. An environment of stagflation is in prospect: growth will not be weak enough to suppress inflation and not strong enough to allow the Fed to maintain a restrictive stance. This puts the Fed in a difficult spot as it will be reluctant to admit defeat by raising the inflation target from its current 2%, even though that level will be out of reach in practical terms. A counter view is that I am too pessimistic by underestimating the disinflationary effects of technological advances. A sustained improvement in productivity would certainly help lower inflation but how likely is this? Technological advances are occurring all the time, but in recent years they largely have been incremental in nature and it is hard to think of any new breakthrough productivity-enhancing technologies. There is a difference between new technologies that simply represent better ways to do existing tasks (3D printing would fall into that category) and general purpose technologies that completely change the way economies operate (e.g. electricity and the internet). While businesses are still exploiting the benefits of the digital world, we await innovations that will trigger a new sustained upsurge in productivity. A game changer would be the development of unlimited cheap energy (cold fusion?) but that does not seem likely any time soon. Nevertheless, I will keep an open mind about the potential for productivity to surprise on the upside, despite my current skepticism. Chart II-10Inflation Expectations Spike Higher What does all this mean for the markets? Not surprisingly, shifts in market expectations for future inflation are highly correlated with the current rate and have thus spiked higher in recent months, hurting both bonds and stocks (Chart II-10). Obvious inflation hedges would be inflation-protected bonds and resources, but neither group currently is attractively priced. The good news is that the current panic about inflation is setting the scene for a buying opportunity in both stocks and bonds. The exact timing is tricky to predict but both stocks and bonds will rally strongly later this year when inflation expectations retreat as it becomes clear that the economy is weakening and the Fed softens its hawkish tones. The bad news is that this bullish phase will not last much more than a year because a re-emergence of inflationary pressures will bring things back to earth. The long-run outlook is one of stagflation and that will be a tough environment for financial assets. Martin H. Barnes Former Chief Economist, BCA Research mhbarnes15@gmail.com   Appendix: A Primer On The Debt Supercycle The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance-sheet liquidity and rise in indebtedness during the post-WWII period. Economic expansions have always been associated with a buildup of leverage. However, prior to the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as the welfare state and deposit insurance, balance-sheet excesses tended to be fully unwound during economic downturns, albeit at the cost of severe declines in activity. The pain of the Great Depression led governments to intervene to smooth out the business cycle, and their actions were given legitimacy by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Fiscal and monetary reflation, together with the introduction of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance, were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy, but the downside was that balance-sheet imbalances and financial excesses built up during each expansion phase were never fully unwound. Periodic "cyclical" corrections to the buildup of debt and illiquidity occurred during recessions, but these were never enough to reverse the long-run trend. Although liquidity was rebuilt during a recession, it did not return to its previous cyclical high. Meanwhile, the liquidity rundown during the next expansion phase established new lows. These trends led to growing illiquidity, and vulnerability in the financial markets. The greater the degree of illiquidity in the economy, the greater is the threat of deflation. Thus, the bigger that balance-sheet excesses become, the more painful the corrective process would be. So, the stakes became higher in each cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to reflate demand, by whatever means were available. The Supercycle process was driven over time by the building tension between rising underlying deflationary risks in the economy, and the ability of policymakers to create inflation. The Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic and financial meltdown, with the authorities reaching the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more leverage. This forced the government to leverage itself up instead, representing the Debt Supercycle's final inning. III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators paint a bearish picture for stock prices. Our monetary indicator is now at its weakest in almost three decades and our valuation indicator highlights that stocks are still overvalued, albeit less so than they were last year. Meanwhile, both our sentiment and technical indicators have now broken down very significantly, and are not yet providing a contrarian buy signal. The odds of a US recession over the next 12 months have recently risen, and we now recommend a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being significantly revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are still too rosy. Although earnings growth is still likely to be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits. Within a global equity portfolio, we recommend a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. Within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should stay modestly short duration. The increase in commodity prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cooled, and prices are now rolling over significantly on the back of global growth concerns. Our composite technical indicator has dropped meaningfully, indicating that commodities are now no longer overbought. Our base-case view is that oil prices have peaked, but there some risk to that view given the current geopolitical situation. In addition, the recent rise in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation could remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. We remain structurally bullish on industrial metals, but metals prices are likely to decline further until recessionary concerns abate. US and global LEIs have rolled over significantly and are now edging towards negative territory. The Conference Board’s LEI has now decreased for three consecutive months, and four consecutive month-over-month declines have historically been associated with a recession. Our global LEI diffusion index has bottomed, but we are not convinced that this heralds a major upturn in the LEI itself. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Content Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop   ECONOMY: Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate Footnotes 1     Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert "Hard Or Soft Landing? BCA Strategists Debate The Question," dated June 21, 2022, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst "Do Excess Savings Explain Low US Interest Rates?" dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see Emerging Markets Strategy "A Conversation With Ms. Mea: Navigating An Inflation Storm," dated June 16, 2022, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7     This trimmed mean measure excludes the top 8% of CPI components with the largest monthly price gains and the bottom 8% with the smallest monthly gains. 8     Rent.com, https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/, June 2022. 9    A fourth channel can be via a psychological boost to business and consumer confidence, but this can cut both ways if an easing in policy is interpreted as a sign of worsening economic conditions rather than as a reason for optimism.

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