Europe

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Any dramatic reversal in the pandemic that leads to a new recession would benefit the opposition candidate. Otherwise, Macron will remain the frontrunner. A second term for President Macron would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. This is bullish for France. Reducing the size of the state will go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Tactically, favor the more defensive Spanish market over the highly cyclical French market. Underweight French consumer discretionary equities relative to their European and global peers. Longer term, overweight French industrials equities relative to German ones, and overweight French tech equities relative to European ones. Ahead of the election, buy the dip on any euro weakness and French OAT/German bund spread widening. Feature The French presidential election is nine months away, and it is already starting to catch investors’ attention as one of the main political events in Europe in 2022. In talks with clients, we’ve been asked repeatedly about the odds we assign to a Marine Le Pen victory and the market implications. Those concerns are understandable but overrated. Le Pen’s personal approval rating is on the rise, and, in most polls, the far-right candidate beats President Emmanuel Macron in the first round vote, although not the critical second round. Although the same polls see Macron being re-elected, the gap between the two has narrowed considerably since the 2017 election, which Macron won by 66 percent of the vote.   Still, Macron is favored for re-election. He has several strong advantages over Le Pen, and it is unlikely she will be able to close the gap further before the election. Macron’s first term has been eventful. Neoliberal structural reforms started with drums beating in the first 18 months of his term. But the pace and breadth of reform eventually became too ambitious or painful for France to bear, and protests erupted in 2018. First came the “Yellow Vest Movement,” and then came protests against pension reform. Macron tried to compromise and continue with his agenda, but COVID-19 forced his hand. Since then, Macron has focused on crisis management, benefiting from the large state sector’s role as an automatic stabilizer amid the downturn. A second term under President Macron would see a reboot of the structural reforms started in 2017, albeit without single-party rule in the National Assembly. Reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state, and its cost, would go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Therefore, the prospect of Macron’s reelection is bullish for France, even though the reality of his second term would be more complex. 2017 All Over Again? Yes And No At first glance, the 2022 election seems to be a repeat of 2017. Le Pen and Macron are likely to face off in the second round and the latter, the Europhile centrist candidate, is likely to win once more. However, everything surrounding this election has changed. The Incumbency Effect One of the major changes is favorable for Macron: he is the incumbent running for re-election. Macron had been part of President Francois Hollande’s government since 2014, so he was still viewed in 2017 as a political neophyte and dark horse candidate. His rapid rise to power, along with that of his upstart party, La République En Marche (LREM), was astounding. Chart 1Pro-Incumbency Effect Favors Macron There is a strong pro-incumbency effect in French presidential elections, especially in the first round (Chart 1). Since 1965, five incumbents have run for re-election, and all have made it to the second round. Importantly, four won first place in the first round, with a six percentage-point margin on average. The chief exception is Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. The reason for Sarkozy’s loss, however, is well known: he attempted to pass an unpopular pension reform in the teeth of the Euro debt crisis, 12 months before facing re-election. The only other incumbent who failed at re-election was Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, who lost to Francois Mitterrand in 1981, when the whole world was in stagflation and upheaval. The incumbency effect is not as pronounced in the second round (Chart 1, bottom panel). However, when facing a far-right candidate, incumbents win by a wide margin. This was the case in 2002 and 2017. Today, Macron still has a 12-point lead on Le Pen. Macron compares well to his predecessors. Chart 2 shows the approval rating for all presidents sitting in office over the past 40 years. The number of people who intend to vote for Macron has increased, the first time this has happened for an incumbent president since 1988. Only three presidents had a higher approval rating at this stage of their term, albeit from a higher starting point. Macron’s approval rating has increased by 10% since February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Europe. Chart 2Macron Compares Well To His Predecessors Table 1Incumbency And Recessions Under The Fifth Republic The shock of the pandemic and recession is the greatest change since 2017, and the biggest challenge facing Macron. Four incumbents have made a bid for re-election that was preceded by a recession within 12-24 months (Table 1). The results are mixed, and it is hard to establish a clear anti-incumbency effect. If anything, the timing and nature of this crisis are likely to help Macron rather than hurt him, since the vaccination campaign and easing of lockdown measures will enable the economy to normalize and improve ahead of April 10-24, 2022, when voters cast their first ballots. Nonetheless, another major shock (of any kind) could undermine the incumbent advantage. Economic Recovery Is The Top Priority While the Macron administration’s handling of the pandemic was questioned, public opinion was never aggressively hostile toward his handling of the economy. Macron was instrumental in securing a major European fiscal stimulus package (and joint debt issuance) with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. He enthusiastically adopted the crisis mentality of “whatever it takes” to wage war against COVID-19, enabling the oversized French state to deploy the most generous furlough scheme in Europe, shielding millions of workers and preventing businesses from going under. This will be one of his winning cards. Chart 3The Handling Of The Pandemic Dictates Macron's Popularity His approval rating began to rebound following the end of lockdowns (Chart 3). This trend should strengthen as the French economy reopens, supported by a government that will play an accommodative and reflationary economic role until the election. Public opinion wants him to focus on the labor market and the economic recovery in the months to come, and he will be happy to oblige. Public opinion also views Macron as the most qualified candidate when it comes to economic matters (Table 2). 42% of respondents think that Le Pen is not qualified “at all” on economic matters, her Achilles’ heel, a perception that was already entrenched when Macron crushed her in a televised debate before the second round of the 2017 election. Table 2Macron Is Perceived As The Most Qualified To Oversee The Economic Recovery Europhile Versus Eurosceptic? The central issue of the 2017 election was Europe and France’s role in it. Following the UK’s disruptive Brexit referendum in 2016, and a long tradition of Euroscepticism within her party, Le Pen campaigned on “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro. Conversely, Macron embraced the EU and the monetary union as he ran for president and committed to having France play a more important role within the bloc if he won. Chart 4Le Pen And The EU: Not The Divorce We Expected Since then, Le Pen has drastically shifted her stance on the EU. She now claims that the benefits of the common currency and single market outweigh the costs. After all, 70% of the French public support the euro and EU membership (Chart 4). Like clockwork, her personal approval ratings have steadily gone up. This strategic shift aligns her with the median voter, and combined with the Covid crisis, it is the only reason to take her candidacy remotely seriously in 2022, despite Macron’s clear advantages. Nevertheless, Le Pen has not yet risen above her 2012 peak in popular support. She failed to do so between 2014 and 2015, when the lingering European debt crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth should have boosted her popularity. Her shifting perspective on the euro was therefore necessary and might be just what she needs to break through her 37% ceiling of popular support. Le Pen’s policy agenda is now focusing on protectionism, immigration, and national security. It is a Trumpian mix. However, while her new stance is more mainstream, it also differentiates her less from the other center-right politicians in France, namely Xavier Bertrand, who recently made local electoral gains in Le Pen’s northern industrial base. Macron is as strong an advocate for Europe as ever. He convinced Germany to break the taboo on joint fiscal policy during the pandemic. Now, he is also mounting a bid to become the natural leader of Europe, given that Merkel is stepping down, and her party is likely to lose standing in the German election in September.  France is set to take over the rotating EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2022, under the theme “Recovery, power, belonging,” which provides Macron with a golden opportunity to pitch himself as Europe’s premier statesman and economic steward in the final months of the election campaign. One Thing Hasn’t Changed: The Outcome Of A Macron/Le Pen Duel Most opinion polls give Macron a 10-12 point lead on Le Pen in the second round of the election. This gap is wide enough to reassure investors that it is not a polling error. However, in 2017, Macron’s average lead over Le Pen was 22%, and he won the election with 66% of votes. It is the narrowing of that gap that raises eyebrows among investors. Table 3Ideological Blocs Also Favor Macron Still, Le Pen’s chances at closing the gap are overrated. She is not a political “unknown” anymore and has very little ability to “surprise” voters into rallying around her next year. She will have trouble persuading those who know all about her. Grouping French voters according to ideological blocs, that is, presidential preference by party affiliation, suggests that the biggest threat to Macron is a strong center-right candidate who can beat Le Pen, especially if this should coincide with a revival of the center-left (Table 3). Otherwise, as in 2017, Macron will be able to count on voters from other parties in the second round of the election (Table 4). While both candidates appeal to right-wing constituents and would have to share their ballots, Macron can count on the green EELV party, as well as left-wing voters, to join center-right voters to elect him. Macron has made environmental issues a part of his mandate, which should help him confront a green neophyte such as Le Pen. Table 4Voting Against Le Pen Implies Voting For Macron The results of the regional elections held last month confirm this analysis. The motivation to keep Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (National Rally) party out of power is still strong (see Box 1). The poor showing of the National Rally means she won’t be able to maintain her current momentum in her personal approval ratings.   Box 1 2021 Regional Elections: Bad Omen For Marine Le Pen In Revival Of The Center-Right? The regional elections took place on June 20 and 27. While limited in relevance for the 2022 presidential race, the result of extremely low voter turnout, regional elections offer a gauge of how constituents feel about the political offerings from anti-establishment parties. Le Pen’s party suffered a heavy blow. It had hoped to consolidate power and build momentum ahead of the presidential election, but it failed even to win in its stronghold of Southern France. Meanwhile, Macron’s party (La République En Marche!) also disappointed. This outcome is not surprising; the local elections last year yielded similar results, highlighting the lack of presence at the local and regional levels for the four-year-old party. The surprise came from the center-right. It managed to win seven of the thirteen regions, beating far-right candidates by wide margins. Importantly, Xavier Bertand, Valérie Pécresse, and Laurent Wauquiez, all predicted to run for president next year, held onto their seats.   Chart 5Strong Demographic Base In The Second Round Both candidates’ demographic bases have remained the same. Macron is still popular among Millennials, white collar workers, and the elderly (Chart 5). He also has a strong base in Paris (and the suburbs) as opposed to Le Pen, and he still outperforms Le Pen among rural voters in today’s polls. Macron also scores high among the employees of the public sector—even though he is in favor of a smaller public sector. Furthermore, the unemployed mostly favor him, which reinforces the perception that he is the best candidate to improve the French economy and cut the unemployment rate. What if Le Pen fails to make it into the second round of the election? We discuss this possibility in the next section. Risks To The Base Case Scenario The greatest risks to our view are a setback in the economic recovery, an outperformance from the center-right, and the emergence of a dark horse. The latest developments in the UK and Israel, where a large share of the population is fully vaccinated, suggest that the “Delta” variant of COVID-19 remains a threat, with the potential to send economies back into lockdowns. The consequences would be dire for Macron. His chances at re-election would likely evaporate if his government imposed new lockdown measures. What about presidential candidates other than Le Pen? Our base case scenario that Macron will win is based on two assumptions: (1) the center-left Socialist Party will remain in shambles, and (2) the center-right remains scattered under different banners and will therefore lack unity. There is very little chance that the center-left will make a comeback in time, but the results from the regional elections suggest that the center-right could surprise to the upside (see Box 1), especially if it decides to rally behind a single candidate ahead of the first round. Could this candidate be a dark horse? Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe or outsider candidate Xavier Bertrand could make formidable opponents to both Macron and Le Pen. Philippe’s personal approval rating currently stands at 50%, the highest among French politicians. He also appeals to constituents of all political leanings (Chart 6). This scenario could reshuffle the likely outcomes of both the first and second round of the election. Both Bertand and Philippe could win over voters who decided to side with Le Pen in 2017, while Philippe can compete with Macron over LREM voters. Additionally, Xavier Bertrand cuts into Le Pen’s support since he has made blue collar workers and the middle-class a priority. However, Macron and Le Pen each enjoy a strong voters’ base. It is necessary to monitor whether Valérie Pécresse (Soyons libres) and Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) can be brought to endorse Xavier Bertrand ahead of the first round in 2022. Chart 6Edouard Philippe: From Ally To Outcast To Challenger? Beyond The Election Aside from the presidency, the outstanding question is the makeup of the National Assembly in 2022. Macron is not likely to enjoy the strong single-party legislative majority of his first term or to gain control of the Senate. Consequently, he will be more constrained in the legislature in a second term. Nonetheless, the demand for a better economy and a healthier job market requires pro-productivity reforms, which the public knows, and Macron has made reform his banner. Other conventional parties will come under pressure to support Macron’s reform agenda, even though that agenda will be less ambitious than it was in his first term. Chart 7Strong Presence Of Right-Leaning Forces Efforts at cutting back the size of the state are still likely, even though the pandemic has helped rather than hurt statism. This is because the French median voter, who never witnessed the degree of neoliberal reform that took place in the Anglo-Saxon world, has grown weary of the economy’s inefficiencies, just as the Anglo-Saxons have grown weary of laissez-faire neoliberalism. Before the pandemic, the French people understood the need to reduce the size of the state. After all, a larger state implies a larger cost burden borne by both households and corporations. When faced with the choice between paying the bill for the government’s fiscal response to COVID-19 (through higher taxes), or undertaking reforms aiming at reducing the size of the state, the French people will pick the former. Moreover, centrist forces will hold sway in the legislature (Chart 7); hence, some kind of budget normalization is expected in 2023 or thereafter. Other structural reforms If Macron wins would include pension reforms. We should also expect measures to push French companies to bring activities back to France, as well as a greater focus on leading France on the green path. Bottom Line: Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. There is a risk to our view if a center-right candidate defeats Le Pen to make it to the second round of the election. Either Macron or a center-right presidency would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. Investment Implications The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. Three factors explain this pick-up: ultra-accommodative monetary conditions in Europe, fiscal largesse, and considerable pent-up demand. In 2021, GDP is projected to expand by 5.75% in annual average terms, higher than the Euro Area average of 4.6%. It should then grow by 4% in 2022 and by 2% in 2023. We remain bullish on French equities on a secular basis, as long as the elections result in further incremental structural reforms over time. As the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip. French Equities The CAC40 and French equities have had a good run since the beginning of the year. In absolute terms, the CAC40 is one of the best performers year-to-date, up +17%, driven by the outperformance of French consumer discretionary and financials equities, both in absolute and relative terms. However, a period of turbulence is appearing on the horizon; the shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries are creating headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. As such, we recently recommended investors downgrade cyclical equities tactically in Europe from overweight to neutral. With 66% in cyclicals, the French MSCI equity index will underperform in this environment, especially relative to the more defensive Spanish market (Table 5). Table 5Cyclicals Versus Defensives In European Markets Chart 8Three Trade Ideas In fact, our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (CMVI) shows that French consumer discretionary equities are expensive relative to both their European and global peers (Chart 8). Regarding the reform theme, we stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities on a long-term horizon (Chart 8, second and third panel). The idea is that French reforms should suppress unit labor costs and make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. The latter faces a leftward shift in policy in elections this September. Finally, we recommend investors go long French tech stocks relative to their European counterparts. This sector is cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel), and the French tech sector will be supported by additional government spending of EUR7 billion on digital investments over the next two years. Bond Markets & FX A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds and an underweight stance on French government bonds. Chart 9Just Buy The Dip What is more relevant with respect to the French election is the OAT/Bund spread. In the past, unusually wide spreads between the two represented a euro breakup premium. In early 2017, spreads widened when the approval rating of Le Pen increased (Chart 9). However, since “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro are no longer part of Le Pen’s agenda, investors should view spread widening as a buying opportunity. Similarly, investors should buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round. “Frexit” has been removed from the equation, hence the euro should not weaken on breakup risk this time around. Bottom Line: We remain bullish on French equities within a European portfolio on a secular basis. If our views on the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio materialize in the near-term, highly cyclical French equities will temporarily underperform, unlike the more defensive Spanish market. On a 3- to 12-month horizon, investors should short French consumer discretionary equities relative to both their European and global counterparts. Current valuations suggest that betting on the booming French tech sector at the expense of its European neighbors will be profitable. Once the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip.   Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the first quarter of 2021 point towards easing standards in developed markets (Chart 1). Credit standards for business loans eased outright in most regions except for the euro area and New Zealand where the pace of tightening slowed significantly. On the whole, banks expected the easing trend to continue into Q2. Chart 1Credit Standards Moving Towards Or Deeper Into Easy Territory With credit spreads at historical tights, banks across the board cited increased competition from other lenders as a reason behind easing standards, confirming that easy financial conditions are not limited solely to booming financial markets. This will help maintain a market-friendly economic growth backdrop as developed economies put pandemic restrictions behind them. At the same time, an absence of tightening lending standards by commercial banks puts incremental pressure on central banks to move towards bond-bearish tightenings of monetary policy. An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and, thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As loan officers have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, they are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q1/2021 (Chart 3). Nearly 20% of respondents cited an improving or less uncertain economic outlook as a very important factor behind the decision to ease standards, while roughly one-third cited increased competition from other lenders. Chart 3US Credit Conditions Chart 4High-yield Borrowers Are Exposed To A Widening In Spreads Although it did not strengthen on net, C&I loan demand did weaken at a much slower pace in Q1. The factors driving loan demand suggest a buoyant economic backdrop—about a quarter of banks reporting increased demand cited merger and acquisition needs and increased investment as very important reasons. Meanwhile, weaker loan demand was attributed to less precautionary demand for cash and an increase in internally generated funds among customers. On the consumer side, loan demand improved slightly on the whole, driven largely by a significant improvement in auto loan demand. While consumer loan demand has historically correlated well with the year-over-year growth in personal consumption expenditures, those two series diverged remarkably in Q1, with spending growth far outpacing loan growth. This divergence reflects the tremendous impact of pandemic-related transfer payments and benefits. We expect a continued recovery in consumer lending demand as unemployment benefits are withdrawn and consumers once again have to borrow to finance spending. As part of the special ad-hoc questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about how lending standards had changed compared to the pre-pandemic period by borrower risk rating. Interestingly, large banks actually eased their standards for investment grade borrowers, reflecting the impact of Fed’s massive liquidity injections (Chart 4). However, despite spreads on high-yield having tightened to post-GFC lows, credit standards for below-investment grade borrowers remain much tighter than before the pandemic. So far, lower-quality borrowers have been able to go to public debt markets for financing, but this highlights a downside risk—if there is an event which causes corporate bond spreads to widen, high-yield borrowers may be starved of cheap financing options with banks still holding purse strings taut. Euro Area In the euro area, banks continued to tighten standards to enterprises, albeit at a much-reduced pace, in Q1/2021 (Chart 5). The tightening, however, was lower than expected in the previous quarter, possibly reflecting prolonged policy support and improving risk sentiment. Deteriorating risk perceptions related to the general economic and firm-specific situation were the primary contributing factor to tightening. But this was partly offset by increased competition from other lenders. The reduced pace of tightening does confirm the signal from the high-yield default rate, which is rolling over. Going forward, banks expect the pace of tightening to slow very slightly going into Q2. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand continued to weaken at a faster pace in Q1, marking three consecutive quarters of deterioration. Weak fixed investment continued to be the biggest drag on demand, while the previous positive contribution from inventory and working capital needs has disappeared entirely. As we highlighted in the last edition of this chartbook, the continued drag on demand for investment reflects a lingering uncertainty regarding the pandemic which could possibly lower potential long-term growth in the euro area.2 As in the US, however, the reduction in demand also reflected already built-up liquidity buffers and the availability of internal and market-based financing. In Q2, banks expect a strong rebound in enterprise loan demand, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Consumer credit demand continued to decline at a stronger pace in Q1, reflecting the continued pandemic-related restrictions in Europe over the quarter. The key drivers were lower durable goods spending and weakening consumer confidence. Banks also reported increased use of internally-generated funds, which is consistent with accumulated savings and pent-up demand during the lockdown. Assuming that the emerging Delta variant does not sidetrack the European return to normalcy, we will likely see the expected consumer credit demand rebound come to fruition. This would be consistent with recent strong consumer confidence prints out of the region. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, credit standards for enterprises tightened in Germany, Italy, and Spain but were unchanged in France (Chart 6). In countries where standards tightened, worsening risk perceptions were the primary factor. In France, increased competition from other lenders contributed to easing on the margin. Going into Q2, standards are expected to tighten very modestly in the two core European economies while diverging in peripheral Europe—Spanish banks expect an increased pace of tightening while Italian ones expect standards to remain unchanged. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards, measured as an average of standards for medium and large non-financial firms, eased slightly in Q1/2021 (Chart 7A). This increase in credit availability was driven primarily by an improving economic outlook and sector-specific risk picture. As in the US and euro area, competition from capital markets also played a role and is expected to contribute to the further easing expected in Q2. Chart 7AUK Credit Conditions Chart 7BInvestment And Inventory Financing Expected To Pick Up In The UK Meanwhile, corporate loan demand is picking up at a pace not seen since Brexit, excluding the 2020 spike driven by emergency funding needs, signaling a buoyant picture. In particular, the surge in demand was driven by large non-financial firms which are also expected to drive the demand pick-up in Q2. Household loan demand fell slightly in the first quarter but is expected to rebound. Consumer confidence, which had initially lagged behind loan demand, appears to have caught up as the UK’s “Freedom Day” from pandemic restrictions approaches in July. Lenders are also expected to ease availability for unsecured household loans, primarily on the back of market share objectives. This should create the ideal backdrop for a consumption boom if the Delta variant does not further limit the UK government’s ability to deliver on its promise of a full reopening. Delving into the factors behind booming corporate loan demand, there are promising signs for the broader UK economy (Chart 7B). In a Special Report published earlier this year, we argued that UK real interest rates were depressed because the country suffered from a series of rolling economic and political shocks, the effects of which were now expected to fade.3 There are already some signs of this in the credit data, with capital investment and inventory financing demand expected to rebound in Q2. Despite work-from-home effects dampening the need for office space, on the margin, UK commercial real estate demand is strong and expected to further strengthen. Japan Chart 8Japan Credit Conditions In Japan, credit standards to firms and households eased at a slower pace in Q1/2021 (Chart 8). The vast majority of respondents indicated that standards were basically unchanged, with none of the firms reporting any tightening, and a small number reporting some degree of easing. The most important factors driving easing were aggressive competition from other bank and non-bank lenders, as well as strengthened efforts to grow the business. Going into Q2, the pace of easing is expected to continue to slow. Business loan demand, which behaves somewhat counter-cyclically in Japan, increased over Q1. The entirety of this pickup can be attributed to small firms; large and medium-sized firms on the whole decreased their loan demand. Counter to trends in other regions, firms in Japan actually saw a decrease in internally-generated funds, which was the most important factor contributing to increased loan demand. Consumer loan demand fell slightly on balance but was mostly unchanged from the previous quarter. Respondents reporting weaker demand saw a decrease in household consumption as the most important factor. Sentiment remains subdued and has lagged the recovery in loan demand seen last year. Our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy are eyeing a recovery for the Japanese economy as the government turns around its vaccination campaign and the Olympics jumpstart consumption.4 On that basis, the very modest recovery in loan demand expected by Japanese banks appears too pessimistic. Canada And New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a faster pace in Q1/2021, coinciding with rebounding business confidence which is now back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 9). This is in line with a remarkable vaccine rollout—68% of the population has already received its first dose and the pace of daily vaccinations is showing no signs of rolling over. Chart 9Canada Credit Conditions Chart 10New Zealand Credit Conditions However, housing is a major concern for Canadian policymakers. In a recent Special Report, co-authored with our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst, we highlighted both Canada and New Zealand as “higher risk” countries more exposed to ballooning house prices.5 In addition to low rates, mortgage lending standards, which have been easing since Q3/2020, have undoubtedly contributed to this issue. However, the Bank of Canada (BoC), with its hawkish messaging, has signaled that it will not idly stand by; there is also popular support behind raising rates to tamp down house prices. Expect mortgage standards to tighten and a pick-up in mortgage rates as the BoC nears liftoff, most likely in 2022. Credit standards in New Zealand were mostly unchanged in Q1/2021, reversing the tightening trend of previous quarters (Chart 10). Over the next six months, standards are expected to ease considerably. Business loan demand was unchanged on net, with corporates decreasing and SMEs increasing demand. SMEs are also expected to increase demand slightly over the next six months. Tepid loan demand is consistent with business confidence hovering around the neutral zero line. As in Canada, soaring house prices are a major issue for the New Zealand economy. Data on household lending is alarming on that front. Although consumer loan demand continued to weaken, demand for residential mortgages spiked to an all-time high in Q1. While demand is expected to normalize going forward, the Q1 datapoint indicates froth in the market. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is considering a variety of macroprudential measures but will have to raise rates sooner rather than later to effectively cool down the housing market. Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q1 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery", dated February 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?", dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "The Case For Japan", dated June 11, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 28, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Euro Area debt loads have increased significantly during the pandemic. Debt loads are not uniform. While Germany and, to a lesser extent, Spain look best, France has a less attractive total debt profile than Italy. Government debt-service ratios are not a problem for Europe. Private sector debt service ratios do not represent an imminent risk, but the French corporate sector is an important source of long-term vulnerability for the region. As a result of this indebtedness, Euro Area bond yields will not rise much and will be capped below 1.5% over this business cycle. For now, Eurozone corporate bonds remain attractive within a European fixed-income portfolio. High-yield bonds are appealing, but investors should avoid the energy sector. Feature Like the US, the Eurozone economy has witnessed a large increase in debt following the COVID-19 crisis. This debt load will have a long legacy that will impact the ability of the European Central Bank to increase interest rates over the coming years. The French corporate sector will be a particularly vulnerable pressure point. Nonetheless, in the short-term, this uptick in indebtedness will not have a major impact on European debt markets. Disparate Debt Loads… Chart 1The Eurozone's Heavy Debt Load After a period of decline in the wake of both the GFC and the European debt crisis, total nonfinancial debt rose by 29% of GDP since the COVID-19 pandemic began (Chart 1). While some of this increase reflects a declining GDP, Euro Area Households and Corporations together added EUR609 billion of debt, while governments accumulated over EUR1 trillion more to their borrowings. The aggregate European picture does not impart the more complex reality. While all countries experienced a marked rise in indebtedness, some major economies are in a much more precarious position than others. The Good Among the largest Eurozone economies, Germany sports the most favorable debt profiles and represents the smallest threat to the Eurozone. Compared with the other major Euro Area countries, Spain shows healthier trends, even if its overall debt load remains important. At 202%, Germany’s nonfinancial-debt-to-GDP ratio is still below its all-time high of 211% (Chart 2, top panel). During the crisis, household debt rose by EUR296 billion or 4% of GDP, but it still stands well below the 72% registered at the turn of the millennium. In absolute terms, nonfinancial corporate debt has increased to a record, but it remains 5% below its 2003 high (Chart 2, third panel). Despite a 9% rebound to 70% of GDP, government debt still lies nearly 12% below its 2010 summit (Chart 2, bottom panel). In Spain, total nonfinancial debt rose by 45% of GDP since the pandemic started, but remains 12% below its 2013 all-time high of 301%. However, the private sector’s borrowing is well behaved, and it has only risen to 170% of GDP, well below the 227% level recorded in 2010 (Chart 3, top panel). Both the household and corporate sectors have gone a long way toward improving their debt situation, with borrowing 23% and 33%, respectively, below their crisis peaks (Chart 3, second and third panel). Spain’s problem is government debt. The pandemic forced the public sector to borrow EUR316 billion, which pushed its debt load to 120% of GDP (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Germany Is The Best Student Chart 3Spain's Previous Efforts Have Paid Off The Bad Chart 4Italy Remains Problematic Italian debt remains a troublesome spot for the Eurozone, which sheds some light on the higher interest rate commanded by BTPs. Burdened by tepid GDP growth, Italy’s total nonfinancial debt did not decline much in the years between the European debt crisis and the onset of the pandemic. As a result, overall nonfinancial debt jumped to an all-time high of 276% of GDP in response to COVID-19 (Chart 4, top panel). Private sector nonfinancial credit is high by Italian standards, but at 120% of GDP, it is low compared with other major European or G-10 nations. Italian household debt has hit a record high of 45% of GDP, which also compares well to other countries, while corporate debt rose to 76% of GDP, which is also well below historical highs and other nations (Chart 4, second and third panels). Italy’s perennial problem remains the public sector’s debt, which stands at 156% of GDP, the highest reading among major Eurozone nations. The Ugly The major Eurozone country with the worst debt situation is France, and we expect this country to become an increasingly large hurdle on the ability of the ECB to lift rates in the future. Next week, we will devote a Special Report to the French situation. Chart 5France's Debt Binge France’s nonfinancial debt towers above 350% of GDP, and the private sector nonfinancial debt has also hit an all-time high of 240% of GDP (Chart 5, top panel). No sector is spared. French households have accumulated EUR239 billion of liabilities during the pandemic, which pushed their leverage ratio to an all-time high of nearly 70% of GDP (Chart 5, second panel). Meanwhile, after rising by 21%, nonfinancial corporate credit stands above 170% of GDP (Chart 5, third panel). Finally, at 116% of GDP, public debt may not be as high as in Italy, but it is comparable to that of Spain (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The Eurozone indebtedness has hit a record high, but considering this factor in isolation oversimplifies a complicated picture. Among the major economies, Germany has the cleanest balance sheet, especially in terms of its private sector. Spain continues to sport high leverage, but the private sector remains in much better shape than last decade. Italy has made little progress, but it still looks good compared with France, where both the public and private sector borrowings stand at record highs. … And Debt Servicing Costs With the exception of the French corporate sector, debt-servicing costs do not represent a great risk for Europe. Chart 6Interest Payments Are Not The Government's Problem When it comes to governments, the picture is particularly benign. As Chart 6 illustrates, debt-servicing costs as a percentage of GDP or tax revenues are extremely low in both France and Germany. While these two variables are higher in Italy and Spain, they remain distant from the levels recorded during the European debt crisis. Beyond their low levels, a very accommodative policy environment limits the risk created by Europe’s public debt servicing costs. The ECB has purchased EUR1.3 trillion of government bonds since April 2020, which added to its already large ownership. Moreover, BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy service, as well as this publication, anticipates that the ECB will roll the stock of government paper purchased under the PEPP into the PSPP. Beyond the ECB’s actions, the NGEU funds also create the embryo of fiscal risk sharing in the EU, which limits how far yields (and thus debt servicing costs) will rise in the Italy or Spain. For the private sector, the picture is more nuanced. In Germany, household debt-servicing costs are low, both historically and compared with other nations. Meanwhile, BIS data highlights that the nonfinancial corporate debt services consume a larger share of operating cash flows than at any point over the past 20 years, but they remain low by international standards (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, in Spain and Italy, both the household and nonfinancial corporate sectors sport historically low debt servicing costs (Chart 7, second and third panels), which also compare well to other OECD nations. Once again, France stands out. Its household debt servicing costs are historically elevated, even if they are not particularly demanding at a global level. However, the corporate sector spends a substantial share of its cash flow on debt, both compared with its own history and internationally (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Debt Servicing Costs Across Europe Bottom Line: Generally, the debt-service picture in Europe does not represent a major threat for now. While risks are particularly well contained on the government front, the French corporate sector creates danger for the private sector. Investment Implications The elevated debt load in the Euro Area, especially in the corporate sector, constitutes a crucial limiting factor for interest rates in Europe over the coming business cycle. Compared with global economies, the Eurozone corporate sector sports elevated debt ratios. As Chart 8 illustrates, the Eurozone’s net debt-to-equity ratio is higher than that of the US across most sectors, and even surpasses that of Canada, another country with a heavily indebted corporate sector, for telecommunication firms and financials. The picture is even worse when looking at the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio. Except for energy and utilities, the Eurozone carries poorer numbers than both the US and Canada (Chart 9). Chart 8Debt-To-Equity Ratio Comparison Chart 9Net Debt-To-EBITDA Comparison The picture for debt service payments is even more damning. Despite the very low European corporate bond rates, Eurozone corporations generally have poorer interest rate coverage ratios than both the US and Canada (Chart 10). This indicates that, unless the subpar European profitability is resolved, significantly higher interest rates will cause significant damage to the European corporate sector. Chart 10Interest Coverage Lags In Europe Chart 11The French Corporate Sector And Dutch Households Will Limit The ECB On this front, the French corporate sector once again stands out as the most likely place for an accident. As the top panel of Chart 11 shows, French firms are positioned especially poorly, with both their debt-to-GDP and debt-servicing costs among the highest in advanced economies. Meanwhile, in the household sectors, only the Netherlands represents a potential risk (Chart 11, bottom panel). The level of corporate debt in the Eurozone and in France in particular suggests that the current level of yields in Canada may represent a cap on European long-term rates. Thus, it will be difficult for German yields to move beyond the 1% to 1.5% zone this cycle. For now, despite the elevated debt loads of the European corporate sector, we continue to overweight corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios. The ECB will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions for the next 24 months, at least. Moreover, the European recovery, especially in the service sector, will improve the operating cash flows of the corporate sector, and thus, increase the tolerance of the private sector for higher yields in the near terms. Finally, the strength in the Euro anticipated by BCA’s Foreign Exchange strategists will limit the upside to Eurozone inflation, and thus, to yields in the region. Nonetheless, investors should avoid certain sectors (see next section). Market Focus: How To Play Euro Area High Yield Bonds? Chart 12Valuations Are Getting Expensive We have argued that investors should continue to favor investment grade corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios over high-yield corporate bonds. Eurozone investment grade credit still offered enough value to delay a move down in quality (Chart 12). However, this value cushion is thinning and spreads are only 10 bps from their 2018 lows. BCA Research’s Global Fixed-Income strategists have recently increased their allocation to Euro Area high-yield to overweight, with a focus on the Ba-rated credit tier, while maintaining a neutral weighting in IG credit.  However, European high-yield is also becoming expensive. The yield on the overall index is a meagre 44 bps away from its lows of 2018. Moreover, the breakeven spreads of European junk bonds have only been more expensive 11% of the time since 2000 (Chart 12, bottom panel). Despite these observations, high-yield credit is not a uniform block. Caa-rated debt still offers decent value, with a breakeven spread historical percentile standing at 27%. The stretched level of valuation suggests that investors should become more selective in the high-yield space, in order to avoid the industries with the worst risk profiles. To assess the sectors most at risk of experiencing significant spread widening or default occurrences in the coming quarters, we evaluate how the 10 main high-yield industry groups, as defined by Bloomberg Barclays, perform on the following credit metrics: Risk profile The share of firms rated Caa Growth in value of debt outstanding over the past 10 years Change in net debt-to-EBITDA ratio over the past 10 years Risk Profile Chart 13Risk Profile Of HY Sectors We look at the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio to determine the risk profile of each sector (Chart 13). The DTS is a simple measure that correlates closely with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The ratio of an issue’s, or sector’s DTS, to that of the benchmark index is loosely equivalent to the beta of a stock or industry to the equity benchmark. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”); a DTS ratio below 1.0 indicates that the sector is defensive (or “low beta”). Cyclical sectors are expected to outperform (underperform) the benchmark when spreads are narrowing (widening), while the opposite is expected of defensive sectors. In Europe, only three sectors sport a high DTS. Within these cyclical sectors, energy clearly stands out as essentially being the one most at risk of underperforming during the next episode of spread widening. Meanwhile, materials, healthcare, and utilities display the lowest DTS ratios and should trade defensively relative to the high-yield benchmark index. Share of Caa-rated debt Chart 14High Share Of Caa-Rated Debt Implies Higher Risk Of Default The bulk of defaults happens in the Caa-rated space and below. Hence, evaluating sector risk starts by assessing the share of Caa-rated (and below) debt sported by each industry (Chart 14). Sectors bearing a larger share of low-rated debt should display higher spreads. Consumer non-cyclicals and healthcare have the highest instance of low-rated debt, 16% and 13% respectively, and yet their spreads do not adequately compensate investors for this threat. The energy sector also stands out: spreads are wide because, despite the low percentage of Caa-rated debt, this sector has amassed considerable debt and has seen a meaningful deterioration in net debt-to-EBITDA (see below). Meanwhile, utilities shine under this metric, as they have not issued debt rated Caa or lower. Debt Growth Chart 15Debt Growth Justify Spread Levels The speed and amount of debt accumulated during economic recoveries are other important determinants of future spread volatility, because the sectors that have rapidly levered-up are more likely to experience defaults. Chart 15 shows that, if we ignore the outlying utilities, then there is a robust positive linear relationship between this metric and spreads. Utilities, energy, and the tech sectors have added the most debt, while debt accumulation in the basic materials and health care sectors has lagged over the past 10 years. Crucially, tech and communications spreads trade below what their debt growth implies. Net Debt-To-EBITDA Chart 16Only Financials Have Improved Their Net Debt-To-EBITDA A rapid debt accumulation is not a concern, as long as earnings are rising more rapidly or at least at the same pace. From this case, we infer that companies are using the new debt issued efficiently, for CAPEX or to pursue projects exceeding their IRR. In this light, wide spreads are justified for the energy, consumer cyclical, and consumer non-cyclical sectors (Chart 16). Conversely, financials have seen improvement. Bottom Line: After surveying Euro area high-yield corporate sectors based on four credit metrics, it appears that the sectors most at risk are energy and consumer non-cyclical. By contrast, basic materials seem to be a good sector in which to hide.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance

Highlights The US is withdrawing from the Middle East and South Asia and making a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. The third quarter will see risks flare around Iran and the US rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. The result is briefly negative for oil prices but the rise of Iran is a new geopolitical trend that will increase Middle Eastern risk over the long run. The geopolitical outlook is dollar bullish, while the macroeconomic outlook is getting less dollar-bearish due to China’s risk of over-tightening policy. Stay neutral USD and be wary of commodities and emerging markets in the third quarter. European political risk is bottoming. The German and French elections are at best minor risks. However, the continent is ripe for negative black swans, especially due to Russian aggression. Go tactically long global large caps and defensives. Feature Chart 1Three Key Views On Track (So Far) We chose “No Return To Normalcy” as the theme of our 2021 outlook. While the COVID-19 vaccine promised economic recovery, we argued that normalization would create complacency regarding fundamental changes that have taken place in the geopolitical environment. A contradiction between an improving macroeconomic backdrop and a foreboding geopolitical backdrop would develop in 2021 and beyond. The “reflation trade” has begun to lose steam as we go to press. However, global recovery will still be the dominant story in the second half of the year as vaccination spreads. The question for the third quarter and the rest of the year is whether reflation will continue. As a matter of forecasting, we think it will. But as a matter of investment strategy, we are taking a more defensive stance until China relaxes economic policy. In our annual outlook we highlighted three key geopolitical views: (1) China’s headwinds, both at home and abroad (2) US détente with Iran and pivot to Asia (3) Europe’s opportunity. All three trends are broadly on track and can be illustrated by looking at equity performance in the relevant regions for the year so far: Chinese stocks sold off, UAE stocks rallied, and European stocks rallied (Chart 1). However, these trends are not exclusively tied to absolute equity performance. The most important question is what happens to global growth and the US dollar as these three key views continue. Stay Neutral On The Dollar It paid off for us to maintain a neutral stance on the dollar. True, the global recovery and exorbitant US trade and budget deficits are bearish for the dollar and bullish for other currencies. But the greenback’s “counter-trend bounce” is proving more formidable than many investors expected. The fundamentals of the American economy and global position remain strong. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US has secured its recovery with fiscal policy, maintained rule of law amid a contested election, innovated and distributed vaccines, benefited from more flexible social restrictions, refurbished global alliances, and put pressure on its geopolitical rivals. In essence, the combined effect of President Trump’s and Biden’s policies has been to make America “great again” (Chart 2). From a geopolitical perspective, the dollar is appealing. Chart 2Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? In addition, the first two geopolitical views mentioned above – China’s headwinds and the US-Iran détente – imply a negative environment for China and the renminbi. The reason for the US to do a suboptimal deal with Iran, both in 2015 and 2021, is to reduce the risk of war and buy time to enable a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. Three US presidents have been elected on the pledge to conclude the “forever wars” in the Middle East and South Asia. Biden is withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in September. There can be little doubt Biden is committed to an Iran deal, which is supposed to free up the US’s hands (Chart 3). Meanwhile the US public and Congress are unified in their desire to better defend US interests against China’s economic and military rise. There has not yet been a stabilization of US-China policies. Biden is not likely to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping until late October at earliest – and that is a guess, not a confirmed summit. The Biden administration has completed its review of China policy and is maintaining the Trump administration’s hawkish posture, as predicted. The US and China may resume their strategic and economic dialogue at some point but it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante 2015. That was the year the US adopted a more confrontational stance toward China – a stance later supercharged by Trump’s election and trade tariffs. The hawkish consensus on China is one of the rare unifying factors in a deeply divided America. The Biden administration explicitly says the US-China relationship is now defined by “competition” instead of “engagement.”1 One exception to this neutral view on the dollar has been our decision to go long the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, which has not panned out so far. Our reasoning is that geopolitical risk will boost these currencies but otherwise the reduction of geopolitical risk will weigh on the dollar in the context of global growth recovery. So far geopolitical risk has remained subdued while the US dollar has outperformed. We are still sympathetic to these safe-haven currencies, however, as they are attractively valued as long as one expects geopolitical risks to materialize (Chart 4). Chart 3US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Our third key view, that EU was the real winner of the US election last year, remains on track. This is marginally positive for the euro at the expense of the dollar. Given the above points, we favor an equal-weighted basket of the euro and the dollar relative to the renminbi (Chart 5). Chart 4Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Chart 5Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi The geopolitical outlook is dollar-bullish. The macroeconomic outlook is dollar-bearish, except that China’s economy looks to slow down. We expect China to ease policy in the second half of the year but it may come late. We remain neutral dollar in the third quarter. Wait For China To Relax Policy July 1 marks the centenary of the Communist Party of China. The main thing investors should know is that the Communist Party predates China’s capitalist phase by sixty years. The party adopted capitalism to improve the economy – it never sacrificed its political or foreign policy goals. This poses a major geopolitical problem today because the Communist Party’s consolidation of power across Greater China, symbolized by Beijing’s revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in 2019, has convinced the western democracies that China is no longer compatible with the liberal world order. China launched a 13.8% of GDP monetary-and-fiscal stimulus over 2018-20 due to the trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. So the economy is stable for the hundredth anniversary celebration. The centenary goals are largely accomplished: GDP is larger, poverty is nearly extinguished, although urban incomes are still lagging (Chart 6). General Secretary Xi Jinping will mark the occasion with a speech. The speech will contribute to his governing philosophy, Xi Jinping Thought, a synthesis of communist Mao Zedong Thought and the pro-capitalist “socialism with Chinese characteristics” pioneered by General Secretary Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s-90s. The effect is to reassert Communist Party and central government primacy after the long period of decentralization that enabled China’s rapid growth phase. It is also to endorse an inward economic turn after the four-decade export-manufacturing boom. The Xi administration’s re-centralization of policy has entailed mini-cycles of tightening and loosening control over the economy. The administration leans against the country’s tendency to gorge itself on debt and grow at any cost – until it must lean the other way for fear of triggering a destabilizing slowdown. For this reason Beijing tightened policy proactively last year, producing a sharp drop in money, credit, and fiscal expansion in 2021 that now threatens to undermine the global recovery. By our measures, any further tightening will result in undershooting the regime’s money and credit targets, i.e. overtightening, and hence threaten to drag on the global recovery (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Communist Party Centenary Goals Chart 7China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy Overtightening would be a policy mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. So the base case should be that the government will relax policy rather than undermine the post-COVID recovery. However, investors cannot be confident about the timing. The 2015 financial turmoil and renminbi devaluation occurred because policymakers reacted too slowly. One reason to believe policy will be eased is that after July 1 the government will turn its attention to the twentieth national party congress in 2022, the once-in-five-years rotation of the Central Committee and Politburo. The party congress begins at the local level at the beginning of next year and culminates in the fall of 2022 with the national rotation of top party leaders. Xi Jinping was originally slated to step down in 2022. So he needs to squash any last-minute push against him by opposing factions of the party. He may have himself named chairman of the Communist Party, like Mao before him. Most importantly he will put his stamp on the “seventh generation” of China’s leaders by promoting his followers into key positions. All of this suggests that the Xi administration cannot risk triggering a recession, even if its preferences remain hawkish on economic policy. Policy easing could come as early as the end of July. As a rule of thumb, we have noticed that the Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy is often an inflection point, as was the case in 2007, 2015, 2018, and 2020 (Table 1). Some observers claim the April Politburo meeting already signaled an easing in policy, although we do not see that. If July clearly signals relaxation, global investors will cheer and emerging market assets and commodities will rise. Table 1China’s Politburo Often Hits Inflection Point On Economic Policy In July Still we maintain a defensive posture going into the third quarter because we do not have a high level of confidence that policymakers will act preemptively. A market riot may precede and motivate the inflection point in policy. Also the negative impact of previous policy tightening will be felt in the third quarter. China plays and industrial metals are extremely vulnerable to further correction (Chart 8). Chart 8China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction The earliest occasion for a Biden-Xi summit comes at the end of October, as mentioned. While US-China talks will occur at some level, relations will remain fundamentally unstable. While a Biden-Xi summit may improve the atmosphere and lead to a new round of strategic and economic dialogue, or Phase Two trade talks, the fact is that the US is seeking to contain China’s rise and China is seeking to break out of the strictures of the US-led world order. The global elite and mainstream media will put a lot of emphasis on the post-Trump return to diplomatic “normalcy” and summits. But this is to overemphasize style at the expense of substance. Note that the positive feelings of the Biden-Putin summit on June 16 fizzled in less than a week when Russia allegedly dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer in the Black Sea. The US and UK were training Ukraine’s military. Britain denies any bombs were dropped but Russia says next time they will hit their target. (More on this below.) This episode is instructive for US-China relations: summitry is overrated. China is building a sphere of influence and the US no longer believes dialogue alone is the answer. Tit-for-tat punitive measures and proxy battles in China’s neighboring areas, from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait to the South and East China Seas, are the new normal. Bottom Line: Tactically, stay defensive on global risk assets, especially China plays. Strategically, maintain a constructive outlook on the cycle given the global recovery and China’s need eventually to relax monetary and fiscal policy. US-Iran Deal Likely – Then The Real Trouble Starts The US will likely rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) by August and pull out of its longest-ever war in Afghanistan in September. The US is wrapping up its “forever wars” to meet the demands of a war-weary public. Ironically, the long-term consequence is to create power vacuums that invite new geopolitical conflicts in the context of the US’s great power struggle with China and Russia. But for now a deal with Iran – once it is settled – reduces geopolitical risk by reducing the odds of military escalation in the region. The Iran talks are more significant than the Afghanistan pullout. We are confident in a deal because Biden can rejoin the 2015 deal unilaterally – it was never approved by the US Senate as a formal treaty. The Iranians will not support any militant action so aggressive as to scupper a deal that offers them the chance of reviving their economy at a critical time in the regime’s history. Reviving the deal poses a downside risk for oil prices in the third quarter though not over the long run. It is negative in the short run because investors will have to price not only Iran’s current and future production (Chart 9) but also any resulting loss of OPEC 2.0 discipline. Brent crude is trading at $76 per barrel as we go to press, above the $65-$70 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects to see over the coming five years (Chart 10). Chart 9Iran's Oil Production Will Return Chart 10Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude The oil price ceiling is enforced by the cartel of oil producers who fear that too high of prices will incentivize US shale oil production as well as the global shift to renewable energy. The Russians have always dragged their feet over oil production cuts and are now pushing for production hikes. The government needs an oil price of around $50-55 per barrel for the budget to break even. The Saudis need higher prices to break even, at $70-75 per barrel. Moscow must coordinate various oil producers, led by the country’s powerful oligarchs and their factions, which is inherently more difficult than the Saudi position of coordinating one producer, Aramco. The Russians and Saudis have maintained cartel discipline so far in 2021, as expected, because the wounds of the market-share war last year are still raw. They retreated from that showdown in less than a month. However, a major escalation in Saudi Arabia’s strategic conflict with Iran could push the Saudis to seek greater market share at Iran’s expense, as occurred before the original Iran deal in 2014-15. Hence our view that the risk to oil prices will shift from the upside to the downside in the second half of the year if the US-Iran deal is reconstituted. Over the long run, the deal is not negative for oil prices. The deal is a tradeoff for lower geopolitical risk today but higher risk in the future. The reason is that Iran’s economic recovery will strengthen its strategic hand and generate a backlash in the region. The global oil supply and demand balance will fluctuate according to circumstances but regional conflict will inject a risk premium over time. Biden’s likely decision to rejoin the 2015 deal should be seen as a delaying tactic. It is impossible to go back to 2015, when the US had mustered a coalition of nations to pressure Iran and when Iran’s “reformist” faction stood to receive a historic boost from the opening of the country’s economy. Now the US lacks a coalition and the reformists are leaving office in disgrace, with the hardliners (“principlists”) taking full power for the foreseeable future. Iran is happy to go back to complying with a deal that consists of sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. The 2015 deal’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program begin expiring in 2023 and continue to expire through 2040. Biden has no chance of negotiating a newer and more expansive deal that extends these sunset clauses while also restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional militant activities. He will say that easing sanctions is premised on a broader “follow on” deal to achieve these US goals. But the broader deal is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. The Iranians will commit to future talks but they will have no intention of agreeing to a more expansive deal unless forced. The country’s leaders will never abandon their nuclear program after witnessing the invasions of non-nuclear Libya and Ukraine – in stark contrast with nuclear-armed North Korea. Moreover Biden cannot possibly reassemble the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China anytime soon. The US is directly confronting these states. They could conceivably work with the US when Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons but not before then. They did not prevent North Korea. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the soon-to-be-inaugurated President Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence, and other pillars of the regime are focused exclusively on strengthening the regime in advance of Khamenei’s impending succession sometime in the coming decade. The succession could easily lead to domestic unrest and a political crisis, which makes the 2020s a critical period for the Islamic Republic. With Tehran focused on a delicate succession, it is not a foregone conclusion that Iran will go on the offensive to expand its sphere of influence immediately after the US deal. But sooner or later a major new geopolitical trend will emerge: the rise of Iran. With sanctions removed, trade and investment increasing, and Chinese and Russian support, Iran will be capable of pursuing its strategic aims in the region more effectively. It will extend its influence across the “Shia Crescent,” including Iraq. The fear that this will inspire in Israel and the Gulf Arab states has already generated a slow-boiling war in the region. This war will intensify as the US will be reluctant to intervene. The purpose of the deal is to enable the war-weary US to reduce its active involvement in the region. The US foreign policy and defense establishment do not entirely see it this way – they emphasize that the US will remain engaged. But US allies in the Middle East will not be convinced. The region already has a taste for the way this works after the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which lead to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. Biden will try not to be so precipitous but the writing is on the wall: the US will reduce its focus and commitment. A scramble for power in the region will begin the moment the ink dries on Biden’s signature of the JCPA. Israel and the Arab states are forming a de facto alliance – based on last year’s Abraham Accords – to prepare for Iran’s push to dominate the region. Even if Iran is not overly aggressive (a big if), Israel and the Gulf Arabs will overreact as a result of their fear of abandonment. They will also seek to hedge their bets by improving ties with the Chinese and Russians, making the Middle East the scene of a major new proxy battle in the global great power struggle. As a risk to our view: if the Biden administration changes course this summer and refuses to lift sanctions or rejoin the Iran deal – low but not zero probability – then tensions with Iran will explode almost instantaneously. The Iranians will threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and a crisis will erupt in the third or fourth quarter. Bottom Line: The US will most likely rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal by August to avoid an immediate crisis or war. The Biden administration will wager that it can lend enough support to regional allies to keep Iran contained. This might work, as the Iranians will focus on fortifying the regime ahead of its leadership succession. However, Iran’s hardline leadership will see an opportunity in America’s withdrawal from its “forever wars.” Iran will increasingly cooperate with Russia and China. Iran’s conflict with Israel and Saudi Arabia will be extremely difficult to manage and will escalate over time, quite possibly creating a revolution or war in Iraq. The Gulf Arabs are already under immense pressure from the green energy revolution. Thus while oil prices might temporarily fall on the return of Iranian exports, they will later see upward pressure from a new wave of Middle Eastern instability. European Political Risk Has (Probably) Bottomed By contrast with all the above we have viewed Europe as a negligible source of (geo)political risk in 2021. European policy uncertainty is falling in Europe relative to these other powers and the rest of the world (Chart 11). Chart 11Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Chart 12EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) The risk of a break-up of the European Union has wilted and remains at historic lows (Chart 12). There is no immediate threat of any European countries emulating the UK and attempting to exit. Even Italian support for the euro has surged. Immigration flows have plummeted. European solidarity is not on the ballot in the upcoming German and French elections. Germany is choosing between the status quo and a “green revolution” that would not really be a revolution due to the constraints of coalition politics. The Greens have lost some momentum relative to their polling earlier this year but underlying trends suggest they will surprise to the upside in the September 26 vote (Charts 13A and 13B). They embrace EU solidarity, robust government spending, weariness with the Merkel regime, and concerns about climate change, Russia, China, and social justice. Chart 13AGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Chart 13BGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside We expect the Greens to surprise to the upside. But as they are forced into a coalition with the ruling Christian Democrats then they will be limited to raising spending rather raising taxes (Table 2). The market will cheer this result. Table 2German Greens’ Ambitious Tax Hike Proposals If the Greens disappoint then a right-leaning government and too early fiscal tightening could become a risk – but it is a minor risk because Merkel’s hand-picked successor, the CDU Chancellor Candidate Armin Laschet, will be pro-Europe and fiscally dovish, just like the mainstream of his party under Merkel. The only limitation on this dovishness is that it would take another global shock for there to be enough votes in the Bundestag to loosen the schuldenbremse or “debt brake.” In France, President Emmanuel Macron is likely to win re-election – the populist candidate Marine Le Pen remains an underdog who is unlikely to make it through France’s two-round electoral system. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Draghi is overseeing a national unity coalition that will dole out EU recovery funds. An election cannot be held ahead of the presidential election in January, which will be secured by the establishment parties as a major check on any future populist ruling coalition. The risk in these countries, as in Spain and elsewhere, is that neoliberal structural reform and competitiveness are falling by the wayside. Fiscal largesse is positive for securing the recovery but long-term growth potential will remain depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14European And Global Fiscal Stimulus (Updated June 2021) Europe remains stuck in a liquidity trap over the long run. It depends on the rest of the world for growth. This is a problem given that China’s potential growth is slowing and there is no ready substitute that will prop up global growth. Europe is increasingly ripe for negative “black swan” events. The power vacuum in the Middle East described above will lead to instability and regime failures that will threaten European security. Russia will remain aggressive, a reflection of its crumbling structural foundations. The Putin administration has not changed its strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and pushing back against the West, as signaled by the threat to bomb ships that sail in Crimean waters – a unilateral expansion of Russia’s territorial waters following the Crimean invasion. The Biden administration is not seeking anything comparable to the diplomatic “reset” with Russia from 2009-11, which ended in acrimony. In other words, European political risk may be bottoming as we speak. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill US Peak Fiscal Stimulus: The Biden administration is highly likely to pass an infrastructure package through Congress, either as a bipartisan deal with Republicans or as part of the American Jobs Plan. The result is another $1-$1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, albeit over an eight-year period, with infrastructure funding taking until 2024-25 to ramp up. Biden’s other plans probably will not pass before the 2022 midterm election, which will likely bring gridlock. Investors are well aware of these proposals and the policy setting will probably be frozen after this year. Hence there is limited remaining upside for global materials sector and US infrastructure plays (Chart 15). The extravagant US fiscal thrust of 2020-21 will turn into a huge fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 16). The Federal Reserve, however, will remain ultra-dovish as long as labor market slack persists – regardless of who is at the helm. Chart 16US Fiscal Drag Very Large In 2022 Chart 17Go Long Large Caps And Defensives China’s Headwinds Persist: China may or may not ease policy in time to prevent a market riot. China plays and industrial metals are highly exposed to a correction and we recommend steering clear. US-Iran Deal Weighs On Oil Price: Tactically we are neutral on oil and oil plays. An Iran deal could depress oil prices temporarily – and potentially in a major way if the Saudis agree with the Russians on increasing production. Fundamentals are positive but depend on the OPEC 2.0 cartel. The cartel faces the risk that higher prices will incentivize both alternative oil providers and the green revolution. Europe’s Opportunity: We continue to see the euro and European stocks offering value. Given the troubles with Russia we favor developed Europe plays over emerging Europe. The German election would be a bullish catalyst for European assets but headwinds from China will prevail, which is negative for cyclical European stocks. The Russian Duma election, also in September, creates high potential for Russia to clash with the West between now and then. Tactically, go long global large caps and defensives (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders recently felt it was necessary to warn against a second cold war. Sanders, a democratic socialist, is a reliable indicator of the left wing of the Democratic Party and a dissenter who puts pressure on the center-left Biden administration. His fears underscore the dominance of the new hawkish consensus. Appendix China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia

Special Report

Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.1 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.2 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach   This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).3 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 3 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com