High-Yield

Executive Summary We posit three conjectures about the US economy: Inflation has an easy path back to 4%, but a move to 2% will require a higher unemployment rate. It will be more difficult to raise the unemployment rate than many anticipate. The Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many anticipate. Taken together, these conjectures point to a higher fed funds rate in 2023 than is currently discounted in the market. This suggests that investors should be bearish bonds on a 12-18 month investment horizon. While we are bearish bonds in the medium-to-long term, we retain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance for the time being because numerous indicators point to lower bond yields during the next few months. We also recommend an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, though we highlight the potential for solid near-term junk bond returns. Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Bottom Line: Maintain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance. We will recommend reducing portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation converges with our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend. Feature Uncertainty in bond markets remains elevated as investors seemingly can’t decide whether the US economy is in the midst of an inflationary boom or hurtling towards recession. This week’s report details our view of the current macroeconomic environment by offering three conjectures about the state of the US economy and monetary policy. We conclude by explaining how these conjectures shape our recommended investment strategy. Conjecture #1: Inflation Has An Easy Path Back To 4%, The Path To 2% Will Be More Difficult At 5.9%, core CPI inflation is running well above the Fed’s 2% target. However, we know that some portion of that 5.9% reflects supply side constraints related to the pandemic and some portion reflects an overheating of the demand side of the US economy. This distinction is important because the pandemic-related inflation will eventually subside on its own, without the need for materially slower economic growth. In contrast, a significant economic slowdown and a higher unemployment rate will be required to tame any inflation driven by strong US demand. Chart 1Estimating Trend Inflation In a recent report we looked at three different techniques for distinguishing between these two types of inflation.1First, we considered the Atlanta Fed’s decomposition of core inflation into flexible and sticky components. At present, the volatile core flexible CPI is running at an 8.4% annual rate and the core sticky CPI stands at 5.4% (Chart 1). Second, we noted that the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge is running at 4.8% (Chart 1, bottom panel). Finally, we used wage growth net of trend productivity growth as an estimate of inflation’s underlying trend and calculated that to be 3.7% (Chart 1, bottom panel). From this analysis, our general conclusion is that core CPI inflation can fall into a range of 4%-5% just from the unwinding of pandemic-induced supply-side effects. After that, the Fed will be forced to engineer an economic slowdown to bring inflation from the stickier 4% level back down to its 2% target. Inflation Progress Report Last week’s June CPI report shows that even progress back to our 4%-5% estimate of inflation’s underlying trend is proving difficult. Core CPI rose 0.71% in June, well above expectations, and monthly trimmed mean CPI was an even stronger 0.80% (Chart 2A). Base effects led to a small drop in the annual core CPI number – from 6.0% to 5.9% - but annual trimmed mean CPI moved up to 6.9% (Chart 2B). The strong CPI print has led to increased speculation that the Fed will raise rates by 100 bps this month (see Box). Chart 2AMonthly Inflation Chart 2BYearly Inflation Turning to the three major components of core inflation, we see that shelter, goods, and services ex. shelter contributed roughly equal amounts to the June core CPI reading (Chart 3). The elevated reading from core goods inflation is particularly notable because this is one area where we have been anticipating that easing supply-side constraints will send prices lower. Car prices, specifically, have been one of the principal drivers of high inflation and they remained stubbornly high in June (Chart 4). Chart 3Monthly Core CPI Inflation By Major Component Chart 4Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core Goods CPI Chart 5Supply-Side Constraints Are Easing While it has taken much longer than expected for core goods and other pandemic-driven components of inflation to turn down, leading indicators still suggest that these prices are more likely to fall than rise during the next few months. The New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has clearly rolled over and supplier delivery times, as measured by both the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys, have shortened (Chart 5). While core goods and autos are representative of the sort of inflation that will ease naturally as supply chain constraints abate, shelter inflation is representative of the sort of inflation that will be stickier. That is, a higher unemployment rate will be required to significantly lower shelter inflation. Chart 6Shelter CPI Model Shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, can be modeled using the unemployment rate, rental vacancies and home prices (Chart 6). Given that shelter is such a large component of core inflation, it must fall if the Fed is going to achieve its 2% inflation target. That will certainly require a higher unemployment rate and very likely a recession. Bottom Line: Core inflation will move down in the second half of this year, as easing supply-side constraints lead to lower goods prices. Inflation’s downtrend will subside once it reaches its trend level of 4%-5%, at which point a higher unemployment rate and economic recession will be required to move it even lower, back to the Fed’s 2% target. BOX 75 bps Or 100 bps At The Next FOMC Meeting? Guidance provided by Fed Chair Jay Powell at the last meeting FOMC meeting suggested that the committee will choose between lifting rates by 50 bps or 75 bps when it meets later this month. The implication was that any negative inflation surprise would push the committee towards 75 bps. Certainly, last month’s strong employment report and hot CPI print justify a 75 bps move within Powell’s framework. But is it possible that Powell’s guidance from the June FOMC meeting is already stale? Chart B1July FOMC Expectations Investors are increasingly betting that it is, and the market is now discounting some chance of a 100 bps rate hike this month (Chart B1). The reason for this pricing is that the Fed has already backtracked on its guidance once before. Powell ruled out 75 bps rate hikes at the May FOMC press conference. Then, the committee delivered a 75 bps increase in June after core CPI came in hot. Kansas City Fed President Esther George dissented from the June decision because she objected to the Fed flip-flopping on its guidance so quickly. George explained her dissent in a recent speech by saying that “communicating the path for interest rates is likely far more consequential than the speed with which we get there.”2 Where does this leave us for the July meeting? Our expectation is that the Fed will stick to its guidance and deliver a 75 bps increase this month. However, if the market moves to fully price-in a 100 bps move then the committee may be tempted to deliver on those expectations. In other words, the Fed’s recent track record of abandoning its forward rate guidance means that both a 75 bps rate hike and a 100 bps rate hike are in play for July. Conjecture #2: The Labor Market Will Be More Resilient Than Is Widely Believed Chart 7An Extremely Tight Labor Market Our second conjecture is that it will be more difficult to lift the unemployment rate than many people think. This view stems from the fact that the labor market is incredibly tight. As Fed officials have often pointed out, there are currently almost two job openings for every unemployed worker in the country (Chart 7). Further, we noted in last week’s report that while the employment readings from both ISM surveys are in contractionary territory, respondents to those surveys were much more likely to cite concerns about the supply side of the labor market than they were to cite concerns about hiring demand.3 In other words, an economy where there are twice as many job openings as unemployed workers and where firms are complaining about a shortage of labor is not one where we are likely to see an immediate surge in layoffs, even as demand starts to soften. Conjecture #3: The Fed Will Tolerate A Higher Unemployment Rate Than Is Widely Believed Chart 8Optimal Control Monetary Policy Our final conjecture is that the Fed will persistently run a much more restrictive monetary policy than many investors anticipate. We detailed our logic in a recent report where we argued that the Fed will adopt an optimal control approach to monetary policy.4 An optimal control strategy is employed when the Fed is unlikely to perfectly hit both its full employment goal and its 2% inflation target. In such environments, Janet Yellen has argued that the Fed should set monetary policy to minimize the joint deviations of inflation from target and of the unemployment rate from estimates of its full employment level.5 Chart 8 presents an example of an optimal control loss function that consists of adding together the squared deviations of inflation from 2% and of the unemployment rate from the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU. Using this framework, the Fed’s goal is to minimize the output of the loss function shown in the top panel. The dashed lines in Chart 8 illustrate a scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% but where the output from the loss function is held flat. That scenario implies an increase in the unemployment rate from its current level of 3.6% all the way up to 6.7%! This exercise demonstrates that, under an optimal control framework, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an unemployment rate of 6.7% or lower in order to move core inflation back to 4%. We don’t see the unemployment rate hitting 6.7% any time soon. The main point of this analysis is to illustrate that Fed policy is likely to retain a restrictive bias until inflation returns to 2% or lower. It won’t move toward easing policy at the first sign of a higher unemployment rate, as has been the pattern in recent years when inflation was much more contained. Investment Implications To summarize, our three conjectures about the US economy are that: (i) a higher unemployment rate will be required to move inflation from 4% to the Fed’s 2% target, (ii) a lot of demand destruction will be required before we see a significant rise in the unemployment rate and (iii) in its pursuit of lower inflation, the Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many people expect. Taken together, these three conjectures imply that the fed funds rate will be higher in 2023 than what is currently priced in the curve. At present, the market is priced for the fed funds to peak at 3.67% in March 2023 and then fall back to 3.13% by the end of the year (Chart 9). If our three conjectures pan out, then we think it’s likely that the fed funds rate will move above 4% next year and that it will be higher than 3.13% by the end of 2023. Chart 9Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Portfolio Duration Chart 10High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators Obviously, this view makes us inclined toward a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 12-18 month investment horizon. That said, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for now because many indicators suggest that bond yields could fall during the next few months (Chart 10). More specifically, with core CPI still above our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend, we see inflation as more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. At the same time, aggregate demand will be slowing as the Fed tightens policy and the unemployment rate is more likely to rise than fall. These factors will keep bond yields contained between now and the end of the year. While we recommend an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon, we will reduce portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield moves back to 2.5% or once core inflation converges to our 4%-5% estimate of trend. At that point, we think inflation will be stickier and it will make sense to position for higher bond yields. Spread Product Our three conjectures also imply a negative environment for spread product. Monetary policy will become increasingly restrictive, and it will be a long time before the Fed moves toward interest rate cuts – the traditional signal to pile into spread product. We therefore advocate an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. One exception to our underweight spread product allocation is that we retain a neutral allocation to high-yield. Our reasoning is that high-yield spreads are elevated and they have the potential to tighten during the next few months as inflation converges toward our estimate of trend. As inflation falls and fears of immediate recession abate, it’s conceivable that junk spreads could revert to their 2017-19 average, the level that prevailed during the previous tightening cycle (Chart 11), and such a move would lead to roughly 8.4% of excess return.6 If such a move were to occur within the next six months, then we would be inclined to reduce our junk bond exposure to underweight. A Quick Note On 2-Year TIPS Chart 11Junk Spreads Are Elevated Chart 122-Year TIPS Yield Is Positive In last week’s report we recommended upgrading TIPS from underweight to neutral relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. However, given that the 2-year TIPS yield was still negative, we did not close our recommendation to short 2-year TIPS or our recommended 2/10 real yield curve flattener and 2/10 inflation curve steepener positions. The 2-year real yield has continued to rise during the past week and, at +9 bps, it is now in positive territory (Chart 12). We were confident that the 2-year TIPS yield would turn positive because the Fed has implied that it is targeting positive real yields across the entire curve. But now that the yield is positive, we are no longer confident in the trade’s upside. Bottom Line: Investors should close out their short 2-year TIPS positions, as well as their 2/10 real yield curve flatteners and 2/10 inflation curve steepeners. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “No End In Sight For Fed Tightening”, dated June 21, 2022. 2     https://www.kansascityfed.org/Speeches/documents/8875/2022-George-MidAm… 3    Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 6    Return estimate assumes default losses of 1.8% and that the spread tightening occurs over a six month period.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1Are Expectations Too Dovish? The dominant market narrative has clearly shifted in the last few days. The primary concern among investors used to be that the Fed had fallen behind the curve on inflation. Now, asset prices are telling us that investors are more worried about an overly hawkish Fed and an increased risk of recession. The shift is evident in bond market prices. The yield curve is now priced for only 176 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months and only 90 bps of tightening over the next 24 months (Chart 1). What’s more, long-dated market-based inflation expectations have plunged to below the Fed’s target range (bottom panel). We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, as bond yields could still have some downside during the next few months as both inflation and economic growth slow. That said, we suspect that the market is now pricing-in an overly dovish Fed tightening path for the next couple of years, a change that may soon warrant a shift back to below-benchmark portfolio duration. Stay tuned. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 168 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -379 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 28 bps on the month and it currently sits at 158 bps. Similarly, our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread moved up to its 61st percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve is very flat, signaling that we are in the mid-to-late stages of the credit cycle. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during such periods unless spreads start from very high levels. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, there’s a good chance that spreads will narrow during the next few months as inflation falls. That said, the persistent removal of monetary accommodation and flatness of the yield curve will limit how much spreads can compress. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 591 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -889 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 172 bps on the month to reach 578 bps, 209 bps above the 2017-19 average and 41 bps above the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – moved higher in June. It currently sits at 8% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, there’s a good chance that high-yield spreads will stage a relief rally in the back half of this year as inflation falls. But due to the flatness of the yield curve, we think it will be difficult for spreads to move below the average seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). But even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to roughly 11% of excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This potential return is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we would be inclined to downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to 4%.3  MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -171 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4 We noted that MBS’s poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is at its end. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have the incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates (panel 4). The implication is that excess MBS returns will be stronger going forward. That said, we still don’t see enough value in MBS spreads to increase our recommended allocation. The average index spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS remains close to its lowest level since 2000 (bottom panel). At the coupon level, we observe that low-coupon MBS have much higher duration than high-coupon MBS and that convexity is close to zero for the entire coupon stack. This makes the relative coupon trade a direct play on bond yields. Given that we see some potential for yields to fall during the next six months, we recommend favoring low-coupon MBS (1.5%-2.5%) within an overall underweight allocation to the sector. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 182 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -737 bps. EM Sovereigns underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 280 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -925 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 122 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -617 bps. The EM Sovereign Index underperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 99 bps in June. The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative. Further, the relative performance of EM sovereigns versus US corporates has been tracking the performance of EM currencies versus the dollar and our Emerging Markets Strategy service sees further headwinds for EM currencies in the near term (Chart 5).5  The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 1 bp in June. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (bottom panel), and as such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector.   Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 89 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -167 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong and yet governments have also been slow to hire.6  The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and it will take some time to deplete these coffers even as economic growth slows and federal fiscal thrust turns to drag. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past few months. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 94%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 92%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 97%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in June. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 26 bps on the month and the 5-year/30-year slope flattened 13 bps. The 2/10 and 5/30 slopes now stand at 4 bps and 23 bps, respectively. In a recent Special Report we noted the unusually large divergence between flat slopes at the long end of the curve and steep slopes at the front end.7 This divergence has narrowed in recent weeks, but it remains wide by historical standards. For example, the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 0 bps while the 3-month/5-year slope is 122 bps. The divergence is happening because the market moved quickly to price-in a rapid near-term pace of rate hikes, but the Fed has only delivered 150 bps of tightening so far and this is holding down the very front-end of the curve. The oddly shaped curve presents us with an excellent trading opportunity. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. The 5 over 2/10 butterfly spread has narrowed during the past month, but the trade continues to look attractive on our model (Chart 7). We also continue to recommend a position long the 20-year bullet versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell as an attractive carry trade.  TIPS: Underweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 246 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -14 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 31 bps on the month, landing back inside the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Consistently, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator is drifting toward neutral territory, signaling that TIPS are becoming less expensive (panel 2). At the front-end of the yield curve, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 57 bps in June – from 3.86% to 3.29% - and the 2-year TIPS yield rose 96 bps – from -1.33% to -0.37% (bottom 2 panels). The large drop in short-maturity breakevens is the result of increasing investor conviction that inflation has indeed peaked. In a recent report we made the case that core CPI inflation can fall to a range of 4%-5% (from its current 6.0% rate) without the Fed needing to cause a recession. We also argued that a recession will be required to push inflation from 4% back down to 2%.8 The upshot for bond investors is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates will drop further as core inflation rolls over. This will be particularly true at the front-end of the yield curve. We also noted in last week’s report that Fed policymakers have increasingly indicated a desire for positive real yields across the entire curve.9 This tells us that investors should continue to short 2-year TIPS, targeting a positive real 2-year yield.   ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -42 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 25 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -33 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -93 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. Nowhere is this more evident than in the steep drop in the amount of outstanding credit card debt that was witnessed in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 9). In 2022, consumers have started to re-lever. The personal savings rate was just 5.4% in May and the amount of outstanding credit card debt has recovered to its pre-COVID level (bottom panel). But while household balance sheets are starting to deteriorate, they remain exceptionally strong in level terms. In other words, it will be some time before we see enough deterioration to cause a meaningful uptick in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones.  Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -194 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -141 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 52 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -340 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently slightly above their historic averages (Chart 10). Meanwhile, weak commercial real estate (CRE) investment continues to drive strong CRE price appreciation (panel 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 9 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month. It currently sits at 47 bps, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.  Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 176 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of June 30, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of June 30, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -9 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 9 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of June 30, 2022) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3 For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Charts That Matter, “Beware Of Another Downleg In Risk Assets”, dated June 30, 2022. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No End In Sight For Fed Tightening”, dated June 21, 2022. 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary An Optimal Control Policy We could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, but we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession. An optimal control approach to monetary policy tells us that the Fed should be willing to accept a significant increase in the unemployment rate to tame inflation. The implication is that the next recession may not be met with the dramatic easing of monetary policy we have become accustomed to. Short-maturity real yields remain deeply negative, but they will move into positive territory before the end of the economic cycle. Indicators of corporate balance sheet health are not flashing red, but they are moving in the wrong direction.   Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, maintain a defensive posture on corporate bonds and short 2-year TIPS.   The Return Of Optimal Control Bonds rallied into the close last week and, as of Monday morning, their gains have only been partially unwound. The 2-year Treasury yield is down to 3.07% from its recent high of 3.45% and the 10-year yield is down to 3.16% from its recent high of 3.49% (Chart 1). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope remains close to inversion at 9 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Increasingly, the message from the Treasury market is that the Fed is no longer playing catch-up to runaway inflation. Rather, the dominant market narrative is that the Fed may have to moderate its hiking pace to avoid an economic recession. With the unemployment rate at 3.6% and nonfarm payroll growth averaging +408k during the past three months, the US economy is clearly not in a recession today. That said, leading indicators are pointing to increased risk of a downturn within the next 12 months. For example, the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell sharply last week from 57.0 to 52.4 (Chart 2). The more widely tracked ISM Manufacturing PMI remains elevated at 56.1, but regional Fed surveys and trends in financial conditions suggest that the ISM could dip into contractionary territory during the next few months (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Treasury Yields Chart 2Recession Risk Is Rising This is obviously a tricky situation for the Fed as there is a risk that its two mandates of price stability and maximum employment could come into conflict. Not surprisingly, the Fed has a playbook for these sorts of situations, one that was described by Janet Yellen as “optimal control” in a 2012 speech.1 Under an optimal control approach to policymaking the Fed specifies a loss function that is based on deviations of inflation from its 2% target and of the unemployment rate from its estimated full employment level. Understanding that it will be impossible to perfectly achieve both of its objectives, the Fed attempts to set policy so that the output of the loss function is minimized. One example of a simple loss function was given by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard in a speech from 2014.2 That function is as follows: Distance From Goals = (π – π*)2 + (μ - μ*)2 Where: π = inflation π* = The Fed’s target inflation rate μ = the unemployment rate μ* = The Fed’s estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment Chart 3An Optimal Control Policy Let’s apply Bullard’s loss function to the present-day economic situation. The top panel of Chart 3 shows the square root of the function’s output. The Fed’s goal, of course, is to get that line as close to zero as possible. First, let’s see what happens if we input the median FOMC member’s forecast for core PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. That forecast has core PCE inflation falling to 4.3% by the end of this year and it has the unemployment rate edging up to 3.7%. Not surprisingly, this scenario leads to a modest improvement in Bullard’s loss function. Now let’s examine an alternative scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% by the end of the year but we set the loss function to remain at its current level. That outcome can be achieved even with the unemployment rate rising to 6.68%. This scenario is instructive. It tells us that, from an optimal control perspective, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an increase in the unemployment rate all the way up to 6.68% if it meant that inflation would fall back down to 4%. Why is this example important? It’s important because it gives us some perspective on what sort of labor market pain the Fed may be willing to tolerate to tame inflation. More specifically, there is a growing sense among some market participants that the US economy will soon fall into recession and that recessions are usually accompanied by Fed rate cuts. However, the magnitude of the increase in the unemployment rate that is shown in our alternative scenario would almost certainly be classified as a recession, but an optimal control perspective tells us that the Fed shouldn’t back away from tightening if that were to occur. The bottom line is that while we could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession within the next 6-12 months. Given where inflation is today, there are strong odds that the Fed would respond to a rising unemployment rate by simply tempering its pace of rate hikes or perhaps temporarily pausing. Optimal control tells us that we would need to see an extremely large employment shock for the Fed to consider reversing course and cutting rates. Investors should stick with ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration for the time being. A Quick Note On Real Yields   Chart 4Short 2-Year TIPS The 2-year real yield has risen to -0.70% from a 2021 low of -3.05%, but we have high conviction that it has further to run (Chart 4). At the press conference following the June FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Powell hinted that he viewed positive real yields across the entire Treasury curve as a reasonable intermediate-term goal. He then made similar claims when testifying before the Senate last week: It’s really only the very short end of the curve where our rates are still in negative territory from a real perspective. If you look further out, real rates are positive right across the curve and that’s really what you’re trying to achieve in a situation like this where we have 40 year highs in inflation.3 One way or another, we think it is highly likely that the Fed will achieve its goal of positive real yields across the entire curve. This could happen in a benign scenario where falling inflation expectations push short-maturity real yields higher. Or, it could happen in a more dramatic fashion where inflation expectations remain elevated but that only quickens the pace of Fed tightening. In that scenario, rising short-maturity nominal yields would drag real yields with them. Either way, investors should continue to hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Corporate Health Check-Up In prior reports we noted the extremely good condition of corporate balance sheets, while also suggesting that balance sheet health would deteriorate going forward.4  An updated read on the status of corporate balance sheets suggests that conditions are still favorable, but much less so than even a few months ago. We begin with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six financial ratios calculated from the US National Accounts data for the nonfinancial corporate sector. This indicator was deep in “improving health” territory at the end of 2021, but it moved close to neutral in 2022 Q1 (Chart 5). Ratings trends, meanwhile, send a similar message. Through the end of May, upgrades continued to dramatically outpace downgrades in the investment grade space (Chart 5, panel 2), but the rate of net upgrades slowed somewhat in high-yield (Chart 5, bottom panel). Digging deeper, we find that the main culprit behind the CHM’s recent jump is a large drop in the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Total Debt (Chart 6). This drop occurred because after-tax cash flows held roughly flat in Q1 but capital expenditures surged, causing free cash flow to dip (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 5Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Capex Surged In Q1 This trend is confirmed by another important indicator of corporate balance sheet health, the financing gap. The financing gap is the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings. A positive financing gap means that retained earnings are insufficient to cover capital expenditures and firms therefore have an incentive to tap debt markets. We see that the financing gap jumped sharply in Q1, from deeply negative into positive territory (Chart 7). Chart 7The Financing Gap Is Positive A positive financing gap on its own does not send a negative signal for corporate defaults. However, when a positive financing gap coincides with tightening lending standards, then an increase in the default rate becomes likely. For now, lending standards are close to unchanged (Chart 7, bottom panel), but there is a strong chance that continued Fed hiking will push them into ‘net tightening’ territory in the months ahead. Investment Implications Chart 8Attractive Value In HY Corporate balance sheet health isn’t quite flashing red, but it is certainly trending in the wrong direction. With continued Fed tightening likely to weigh on lending standards and interest coverage going forward, a defensive posture toward corporate bonds is warranted. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation (2 out of 5) to investment grade corporate bonds in US fixed income portfolios. We maintain a somewhat higher neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds for the time being. This is because high-yield valuation is quite attractive, and we see potential for some near-term spread tightening as inflation rolls over (Chart 8). That said, the sector’s long-term return prospects are not good, and we will consider turning more defensive should the average high-yield spread narrow to its 2017-19 average or should core inflation move closer to our 4% target.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/bullard/remarks/bullardowensborokychamberofcommerce17july2014final.pdf   3 https://www.c-span.org/video/?521106-1/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-testifies-inflation-economy 4 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary Calculating Trend Inflation Investors should anticipate 50 basis point rate hikes at each FOMC meeting, eventually transitioning to 25 bps per meeting once inflation shows clear and convincing evidence of trending down. This transition should occur later this year. Core inflation has peaked for the year and it can fall to a range of 4-5% even in the absence of an economic recession or meaningful labor market weakness. A recession will eventually be required to push inflation from 4% down to the Fed’s 2% target. Economic growth will slow going forward, but we won’t see enough weakness for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle within the next 6-12 months.       Bottom Line: US bond investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and maintain a defensive posture on corporate bond spreads (underweight IG and neutral HY). The Fed Goes Big Chart 1Inflation Expectations The US Federal Reserve continued to prove its inflation-fighting mettle last week with a 75 basis point rate hike, the largest single-meeting increase since 1994. Chair Powell had initially telegraphed 50 basis point rate increases for both the June and July FOMC meetings, but he made it clear during last week’s press conference that the committee was spooked by May’s surprisingly high CPI number and by the recent jump in 5-10 year household inflation expectations (Chart 1). Alongside the 75 basis point rate hike, committee members revised up their fed funds rate forecasts. The median FOMC member now expects the funds rate to reach a range of 3.25% to 3.5% by the end of 2022. That is consistent with three more 50 basis point rate hikes and one more 25 basis point hike at this year’s four remaining FOMC meetings. Looking further out, the median committee member anticipates 25-50 bps additional upside in the fed funds rate in 2023 but is then forecasting a modest reduction in 2024. Critically, the fed funds rate is still expected to be above estimates of long-run neutral by the end of 2024. Chart 2 shows how current market expectations compare to the Fed’s forecasts. We see that, even after the Fed’s upward forecast revisions, the market still anticipates a somewhat faster pace of tightening this year. The market is also priced for rate cuts in 2023, likely due to the increasingly widespread expectation that a recession is coming within the next 12 months. Chart 2Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed The Fed’s Near-Term Plan As for what we can expect going forward, we found two comments from Chair Powell’s press conference particularly enlightening. First, he called last week’s 75 basis point rate increase “unusually large” and said that he “doesn’t expect moves of that size to be common.” Second, Powell said that the Committee will need to see “convincing” and “compelling” evidence of falling inflation before it starts to moderate its tightening pace.1 From these statements we deduce the following near-term plan: 1. The Fed’s baseline expectation is to lift rates by 50 bps at each meeting. 2.  A significant upside surprise in either the monthly core CPI data or long-dated inflation expectations would cause the Fed to lift by 75 bps instead of 50 bps. 3.  The Fed will not reduce the pace of tightening to 25 bps per meeting until there is clear and convincing evidence that inflation is trending down. Bottom Line: Investors should anticipate 50 basis point rate hikes at each FOMC meeting, eventually transitioning to 25 bps per meeting once inflation shows clear and convincing evidence of trending down. This transition from 50 bps per meeting to 25 bps per meeting should occur later this year, meaning that the Fed will tighten no more quickly than what is already priced into the yield curve for the remainder of 2022. Inflation: All Clear To 4%, 2% Will Be More Challenging It’s evident from the above discussion that inflation remains the critical input for both monetary policy and US bond yields. In particular, the key questions are: 1. Will inflation trend down, and if so, how quickly? 2. Is an economic recession required to curtail inflation? Our answer to these questions is that core US inflation should fall naturally to a trend rate of roughly 4-5%, even in the absence of recession. However, an economic recession and its associated labor market weakness are likely required to move inflation from 4% back to the Fed’s 2% target. Chart 3Calculating Trend Inflation To arrive at these conclusions, we seek out different ways of estimating inflation’s underlying trend (Chart 3). The first method we consider is the Atlanta Fed’s decomposition of core inflation into “flexible” and “sticky” components. As defined by the Atlanta Fed, “flexible” items tend to change price more frequently compared to “sticky” items. Items like hotels and new & used vehicles fall into the flexible index, while rent and medical care fall into the sticky index.2 As of May, 12-month core flexible inflation is running at a rate of 12.3%. Meanwhile, core sticky inflation is running at 5.0% (Chart 3, top panel). Second, we consider the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (UIG). The UIG uses a dynamic factor model to derive a measure of trend inflation from a broad set of data.3 In total, the measure uses 346 data series encompassing price measures and other nominal, real and financial variables. The New York Fed has demonstrated that the UIG provides better forecasts of CPI inflation than other measures of core and trimmed mean inflation. At present, the UIG is running at 4.9% (Chart 3, panel 2). A second “prices only” UIG measure that includes only price data and no other economic or financial variables is running hotter at 6.0%. Finally, we can assess inflation’s underlying trend by looking at wage growth. Specifically, we can look at unit labor costs, a measure of wages relative to productivity. Unit labor costs are volatile, but they tend to track core inflation over long periods of time. Unit labor costs grew at an extremely high rate of 8.2% in the four quarters ending in Q1, but this is partly due to huge post-pandemic swings in productivity growth. If we create a more stable measure of underlying wage pressure by subtracting annualized 5-year productivity growth from the 12-month growth rate in average hourly earnings, we see that this trend inflation measure is running at only 3.8% (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 4Auto Inflation Will Slow We conclude from our analysis that 12-month core CPI inflation will fall from its current 6.0% back down to its trend level of roughly 4-5% without the Fed needing to slam the brakes on economic growth. This will occur because we will finally see the normalization of some prices that were pushed dramatically higher during the pandemic. Auto price inflation, for example, shot up above 20% last year because the pandemic and the fiscal response to the pandemic conspired to cause a surge in auto sales at the same time as a slump in production (Chart 4). Now, for reasons that have nothing to do with monetary policy but everything to do with the waning impact of the pandemic, we see auto sales rolling over as production ramps up. This will push prices lower in the second half of this year. All that said, once core inflation reaches its 4-5% trend level, more economic pain will be required to push it lower. Shelter, for example, carries a huge weight in the Atlanta Fed’s core sticky CPI and it is highly correlated with the economic cycle. A rising unemployment rate, and an economic recession, will eventually be required to push shelter inflation down. Bottom Line: Core inflation has peaked for the year and it can fall to a range of 4-5% even in the absence of an economic recession or meaningful labor market weakness. A recession and a rising unemployment rate will eventually be required to push inflation from 4% down to the Fed’s 2% target. The Risk Of Recession Just because US inflation can fall to 4% in the absence of recession doesn’t mean that the Fed won’t get impatient and cause one anyways. In fact, the Fed made it clear last week that it isn’t interested in nuanced inflation forecasts. The Fed will tighten aggressively until it is apparent that inflation is rolling over, even if it causes economic pain. In this section, we run through several economic and financial market indicators that often send signals near the peak of Fed tightening cycles and in advance of recessions. We conclude that economic growth is slowing, but we do not yet see any evidence of an imminent recession or of any growth slowdown that would be large enough for the Fed to pause or reverse its tightening cycle. First, we look at financial conditions (Chart 5). The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index has tightened rapidly during the past few months and that tightening is broad-based across all five of the index’s components. That said, the index has still not quite moved into “restrictive” territory. Typically, Fed tightening cycles only end once financial conditions are already restrictive, and in this cycle, high inflation means that the Fed will likely tolerate even more tightening of financial conditions than usual. Second, we observe that the end of a Fed tightening cycle is often marked by a dip in the ISM Manufacturing PMI to below 50. Presently, the PMI is a solid 56.1 but it is falling, and regional Fed surveys suggest that it may soon dip into contractionary territory (Chart 6). Chart 5Financial Conditions Chart 6PMIs Are Slowing Third, residential construction activity is a strong predictor of both recession and the end of Fed tightening cycles. Specifically, we have observed that Fed tightening cycles tend to terminate once the 12-month moving average of housing starts falls below the 24-month moving average.4  At present, there is strong evidence that higher mortgage rates are starting to bite the housing market. Housing starts dipped sharply in May and homebuilder confidence is trending down (Chart 7). That said, our housing starts indicator still has a long way to go before it signals the end of the Fed’s tightening cycle (Chart 7, bottom panel). Finally, we turn to the labor market where we do not yet see any evidence of an economic slowdown. Nonfarm payroll growth usually turns negative prior to recession, but right now it is running at a rate of 4.5% during the past 12 months and 3.3% during the past three months (Chart 8). The unemployment rate, for its part, is extremely low, but this only reinforces the idea that the Fed won’t be inclined to abandon its tightening cycle anytime soon. Chart 7US Housing Chart 8The US Labor Market Consider that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the natural unemployment rate is 4.4% and the median FOMC member estimates that it is 4.0%. In other words, the Fed would still consider the labor market tight even if the unemployment rate rose from its current 3.6% level to around 4%. Even though such an increase in the unemployment rate might technically be consistent with a recession, the Fed would not be inclined to ease monetary policy into such a labor market if inflation is still above its 2% target. Additionally, we must also consider that the labor force participation rate is trending up and it still has breathing room before it reaches its pre-pandemic level. Further increases in labor force participation – which seem likely – could support employment growth going forward even if the unemployment rate stops falling. Bottom Line: The Fed’s rate hikes, and tighter financial conditions more generally, will slow economic growth going forward. However, we don’t see any evidence that growth will be weak enough for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle within the next 6-12 months. This is especially true because above-target inflation increases the amount of financial conditions tightening and labor market pain that the Fed will tolerate. Investment Implications Portfolio Duration & US Treasury Curve May’s surprisingly elevated CPI number caused US Treasury yields to move above their 2018 peaks across the entire yield curve (Chart 9). But we wouldn’t be surprised to see that uptrend take a breather during the next few months as inflation descends toward its 4-5% underlying trend. As noted above, falling inflation will likely cause the Fed to tighten by no more than what is already discounted between now and the end of the year, this should keep US Treasury yields rangebound. As a result, we advise investors to keep duration close to benchmark in US bond portfolios, with an eye toward re-evaluating this positioning once core inflation moves closer to its underlying trend. Chart 9US Treasury Yields On the Treasury curve, the 5-year note continues to trade cheap relative to the 2-year/10-year slope (Chart 9, bottom panel). We recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. TIPS Chart 10Underweight TIPS Versus Nominals Investors should position for inflation falling back to trend by underweighting TIPS versus duration-matched nominal US Treasuries. Not only will falling inflation weigh on TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next few months but a resolutely hawkish Fed will also apply downward pressure (Chart 10). We are particularly bearish on short-maturity TIPS, and we advise investors to initiate outright short positions in 2-year TIPS (Chart 10, bottom panel). In last week’s press conference, Chair Powell pointed to negative short-maturity real yields as evidence that financial conditions have room to tighten further. To us, this suggests that the Fed will not quit until real yields move into positive territory across the entire yield curve. In an environment of falling inflation, this is likely to occur because of falling TIPS breakeven inflation rates. However, the Fed has now demonstrated that even if inflation doesn’t fall it will push real yields higher with its policy rate actions and forward guidance. Corporate Credit The combination of slowing economic growth and increasingly restrictive Fed policy compels us toward a defensive positioning on corporate bond spreads. Specifically, we advise investors to carry an underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to investment grade US corporate bonds and a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield US corporate bonds. Our slight preference for high-yield comes from the view that spread widening is likely to take a breather this year as inflation turns down and the Fed tightens by no more than what is already discounted in the yield curve. Though the long-run prospects for corporate bond returns remain bleak, if inflation moderates this year as we expect, then spreads could easily re-tighten to the average levels seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). That would equate to 31 bps of spread tightening for investment grade US corporate bonds (Chart 11), or roughly 300 bps of excess return versus duration-matched US Treasuries.5 For high-yield, a return to average 2017-19 spread levels would equate to 133 bps of spread tightening (Chart 12), or roughly 875 bps of excess return versus duration-matched US Treasuries.6 Chart 11IG Spreads Chart 12HY Spreads In our view, this warrants a slightly higher allocation to high-yield for the time being, though we will likely turn increasingly bearish should spreads tighten to average 2017-19 levels or once inflation converges with its 4-5% trend.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20220615.pdf 2 For more info on the Atlanta Fed’s sticky and flexible CPIs please see: https://www.atlantafed.org/research/inflationproject/stickyprice 3 For more info on the Underlying Inflation Gauge please see https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 4 For more details on this indicator please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5 This excess return estimate is roughly 31 bps of spread tightening multiplied by average index duration of 7.5. We then add half of the index OAS as an estimate of the carry earned during the next six months. 6 This excess return estimate is roughly 133 bps of spread tightening multiplied by average index duration of 4.3. We then add half of the index OAS, less estimated default losses of 200 bps, as an estimate of the carry earned during the next six months. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Chart 1Wage Growth Is Cooling In a speech last week, Fed Governor Christopher Waller presented the theoretical underpinnings for how the Fed plans to achieve a soft landing for the US economy.1 The Fed’s hope is that tighter monetary policy will slow demand enough to reduce the number of job openings – of which there are currently almost two for every unemployed person – without leading to a significant increase in layoffs and the unemployment rate. A reduction in the ratio of job openings to unemployed will lead to softer wage growth and lower inflation. The May employment report – released last Friday – provides some evidence that the Fed’s plan may be working. In May, an increase in labor force participation led to strong employment gains and kept the unemployment rate flat. We also saw continued evidence of a deceleration in average hourly earnings (Chart 1). Fifty basis point rate hikes are all but assured at the June and July FOMC meetings, but softer wage growth and falling inflation make it more likely that the Fed will downshift to a pace of 25 bps per meeting starting in September. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 79 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -215 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and it currently sits at 131 bps. Similarly, our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread downshifted to its 45th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A recent report made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month horizon.2 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve is very flat, signaling that we are in the mid-to-late stages of the credit cycle. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during such periods unless spreads start from very high levels. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we see a high likelihood that spreads will narrow during the next few months as inflation falls and the Fed tightens by no more than what is already priced in the curve. That said, the persistent removal of monetary accommodation and flatness of the yield curve will limit how much spreads can compress. Last week’s report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.3  That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 35 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -316 bps. More specifically, high-yield sold off dramatically early in the month – the junk index lagged Treasuries by 368 bps between May 1 and May 20 – but then staged a rally near the end of May, outperforming Treasuries by 333 bps between May 20 and May 31. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – moved higher in May. It currently sits at 5.1% (Chart 3). Last week’s report reiterated our view that investors should favor high-yield over investment grade within an overall underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries.4 Our main rationale for this view is that there are historical precedents for high-yield bonds outperforming investment grade during periods when the yield curve is very flat but when corporate balance sheet health is strong. The 2006-07 period is a prime example. With that in mind, our outlook for corporate profit and debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 2.7% to 3.7% during the next 12 months, well below the 5.1% that is currently priced in the index. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -109 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.5 We noted that MBS’s poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is at its end. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have the incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates (panel 4). The implication is that excess MBS returns will be stronger going forward. That said, we still don’t see enough value in MBS spreads to increase our recommended allocation. The average index spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS remains close to its lowest level since 2000 (bottom panel). At the coupon level, we observe that low-coupon MBS have much higher duration than high-coupon MBS and that convexity is close to zero for the entire coupon stack. This makes the relative coupon trade a direct play on bond yields. Given that we see some potential for yields to fall somewhat during the next six months, we recommend favoring low-coupon MBS (1.5%-2.5%) within an overall underweight allocation to the sector.ext 12 months, well below the 5.1% that is currently priced in the index. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market (EM) bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -565 bps. EM sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 125 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -664 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 28 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -501 bps. The EM Sovereign Index underperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 27 bps in May. The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 109 bps in May, but it continues to offer a significant yield advantage (panel 4). As such, we maintain our neutral allocation (3 out of 5) to the sector. Despite modest weakness in the trade-weighted US dollar in May, EM currencies continue to struggle (bottom panel). If the Fed tightens no more quickly than what is already priced in the curve for the next six months – as we expect – it could limit the upward pressure on the US dollar and benefit EM spreads in the near term. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 61 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -78 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread product volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong and yet governments have also been slow to hire.6 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers even as economic growth slows and federal fiscal thrust turns to drag. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past few months. The 10-year Aaa Muni/Treasury yield ratio is currently 83%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched corporates is 85%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 92%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-steepened in May. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 13 bps on the month and the 5-year/30-year slope steepened 22 bps. The 2/10 and 5/30 slopes now stand at 30 bps and 16 bps, respectively. In a recent Special Report we noted the unusually large divergence between flat slopes at the long end of the curve and steep slopes at the front end.7 For example, the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 1 bp while the 3-month/5-year slope is 178 bps. The divergence is happening because the market has moved quicky to price-in a rapid near-term pace of rate hikes. However, so far, the Fed has only delivered 75 bps of tightening and this is holding down the very front-end of the curve. The oddly shaped curve presents us with an excellent trading opportunity. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade looks attractive on our model (Chart 7) and will profit if the rate hike cycle moves more slowly than what is currently priced but lasts longer. We also continue to recommend a position long the 20-year bullet versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell as an attractive carry trade. TIPS: Underweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 144 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +237 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 25 bps last month, but it remains above the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that TIPS remain “expensive”, but not as expensive as they were a month ago (panel 2). While TIPS have become less expensive during the past month, we think TIPS breakeven inflation rates will continue to fall during the next few months as inflation moves lower. This will be particularly true at the front-end of the curve where breakevens remain disconnected from the Fed’s target (panel 4) and where breakevens exhibit a stronger correlation with the incoming inflation data. To take advantage of falling inflation between now and the end of the year, investors should position for a steeper TIPS breakeven curve (bottom panel) and/or a flatter real (TIPS) curve. We also recommend that investors hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS.     ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -63 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 26 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -59 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 22 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -88 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. Nowhere is this more evident than in the steep drop in the amount of outstanding credit card debt that was witnessed in 2020 and 2021 (Chart 9). In 2022, consumers have started to re-lever. The personal savings rate was just 4.4% in April, the lowest print since September 2008, and the amount of outstanding credit card debt has almost recovered its pre-COVID level. But while household balance sheets are starting to deteriorate, they remain exceptionally strong in level terms. In other words, it will be some time before we see enough deterioration to cause a meaningful uptick in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 105 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -189 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 84 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 165 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -290 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products. However, after several quarters of easing, commercial real estate lending standards shifted closer to ‘net tightening’ territory in Q1 (Chart 10). This trend will bear monitoring in the coming quarters.  Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -23 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 49 bps, not that far from its average pre-COVID level (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 251 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track RecordWe can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 31, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 31, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -51 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 51 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 31, 2022) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20220530a.htm 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022.       Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Special Report

Executive Summary European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads Corporate bond spreads in the US and Europe have widened since early April, with European credit taking a bigger hit because of worsening growth and inflation momentum. European corporate bond valuations look fairly cheap, both for investment grade and high-yield.  This is true in absolute terms but also relative to the US, where spread valuations are more mixed.  An easing of stagflation fears in Europe is a necessary condition for a valuation convergence with the US. The US investment grade credit curve is steep relative to the overall level of credit spreads, making longer-maturity corporates more attractive. Energy bonds offer the most compelling combination of valuation and fundamental support (from high oil prices) within US investment grade. Within US high-yield, Energy valuations look much less compelling after the recent outperformance. The best medium-term industry values in European credit are in investment grade Financials and high-yield Consumer Cyclicals & Non-Cyclicals. Bottom Line: Continue to favor both US high-yield and European investment grade corporates versus US investment grade.  Stay neutral high-yield exposure on both sides of the Atlantic.  Within Europe, stay up in quality within both investment grade and high-yield until near-term macro risks on growth & inflation subside. Feature Corporate bonds in the US and Europe have gone through a rough patch in recent weeks, underperforming government bonds in response to the “triple threat” of high inflation, tightening monetary policy and slowing growth momentum.  European credit has taken the more severe hit compared to the US, with markets pricing in greater risk premia because of additional regional threats to growth (and inflation) from the Ukraine war. In this Special Report, jointly presented by BCA Research US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we assess credit spread valuations in US and European corporates after the latest selloff, across credit tiers, maturities and industry groups.  Stay Cautious On US Corporate Bonds Chart 1US Credit Spreads In a recent Special Report, we argued in favor of a relatively defensive allocation to US corporate bonds. Specifically, we advised investors to adopt an underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to US investment grade corporates and a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to US high-yield. Our rationale was that a flat US Treasury curve signaled that we were in the middle-to-late stages of the economic recovery. Additionally, at the time, corporate bond spreads weren’t all that attractive compared to the average levels seen during the last Fed tightening cycle (Chart 1). Spreads have widened somewhat since we downgraded our allocation and, as such, we see some scope for spread tightening during the next few months as inflation rolls over and the Fed lifts rates by no more than what is already priced in the curve. That said, with the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, we think it’s unlikely that spreads can stay below average 2017-19 levels for any meaningful length of time. As a result, we maintain our current cautious allocation to US corporate bonds. US High-Yield Versus US Investment Grade The recent period of US corporate bond underperformance can be split into two stages based on the relative performance of investment grade and high-yield. US investment grade underperformed junk in the early stages of the selloff (between September and mid-March), as spread widening was driven by the Fed’s shift toward a more restrictive policy stance and not a meaningful uptick in the perceived risk of a recession and/or default wave (Chart 2A). Chart 2ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: September 27, 2021 To March 14, 2022 But recession and default fears started to ramp up in mid-March, and this caused high-yield to join the selloff (Chart 2B). In fact, US investment grade corporates managed to recoup some of their earlier losses while lower-rated junk bonds struggled to keep pace. Chart 2BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: March 14, 2022 To Present We contend that the risk of a meaningful uptick in corporate defaults during the next 12 months is low. In fact, we estimate that the US high-yield default rate will fall to between 2.7% and 3.7% during the next year, well below the 5.2% currently priced into junk spreads. Going forward, we expect the US corporate bond landscape to be defined by increasingly restrictive monetary policy and a benign default outlook. As we noted in the aforementioned Special Report, this environment is reminiscent of the 2004-06 Fed tightening cycle when high-yield bonds performed much better than investment grade. Investors should maintain a preference for high-yield over investment grade within an otherwise defensive allocation to US corporate bonds. US Industry Groups Chart 3A shows the performance of US corporate bonds in the early stages of the recent selloff, but this time split by industry group. High-yield Energy sticks out as a strong outperformer, though we also notice that every high-yield sector performed better than its investment grade counterpart. Chart 3ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: September 27, 2021 To March 14, 2022 Chart 3B once again shows how the relative performance between investment grade and high-yield has flipped since mid-March, though we see that high-yield Energy, Transportation and Utilities have performed better than the rest of the index.  Chart 3BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus Duration-Times-Spread: March 14, 2022 To Present Interestingly, despite the strong outperformance of high-yield Energy bonds, investment grade Energy credits performed mostly in line with other investment grade sectors. We believe this presents an excellent opportunity.  The vertical axis of Chart 4A shows our measure of the risk-adjusted spread available in each investment grade industry group. Our risk-adjusted spread is the residual after adjusting for each sector’s credit rating and duration. The horizontal axis shows each sector’s Duration-Times-Spread as a simple measure of risk. Our model shows that Financials, Technology, Energy, Utilities, Communications and Basic Industry all stand out as attractive within the investment grade corporate bond universe. We identify the investment grade Energy sector as a particularly compelling buy. Chart 4AUS Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation In a prior report, we demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that the oil price is an important determinant of whether Energy bonds perform better or worse than the rest of the corporate index. With our commodity strategists calling for the Brent crude oil price to average $122/bbl next year, this will provide strong support to Energy bond returns. Cheap starting valuations for investment grade Energy bonds make them look even more compelling. Chart 4B repeats our valuation exercise but for high-yield industry groups. Within high-yield, we find that Financials, Transportation, Communications and Consumer sectors stand out as attractive. Interestingly, high-yield Energy bonds now look slightly expensive compared to the rest of the junk bond universe, a result of the sector’s recent incredibly strong performance. Chart 4BUS High-Yield Corporate Sector Valuation US Credit Curve We define the credit curve as the difference in option-adjusted spread between the “Long Maturity” and “Intermediate Maturity” sub-indexes for each investment grade credit tier, as defined by Bloomberg. We exclude high-yield from this analysis because very few high-yield bonds are classified as “Long Maturity”. To analyze the credit curve, we observe that credit curves tend to be steeper when credit spreads are tight, and vice-versa. This is because tight spreads indicate that the perceived near-term risk of default is low. As a result, short-maturity spreads tend to be lower than spreads at the long-end of the curve. Conversely, a wide spread environment indicates that the perceived near-term risk of default is high, and this risk will be more reflected in shorter maturity credits. Charts 5A, 5B and 5C show the slopes of the credit curves for Aa, A and Baa-rated securities. Immediately we notice that credit curves are positively sloped in each case, and also that each credit curve is somewhat steeper than would be predicted based on the average spread for the overall credit tier. Chart 5AAa-Rated Credit Curve Chart 5BA-Rated Credit Curve Chart 5CBaa-Rated Credit Curve This strongly suggests that investors should favor long-maturity over short-maturity US investment grade corporate bonds. European Corporates Look Cheap Vs. US Equivalents – For Patient Investors Chart 6European Credit Spreads At Past 'Non-Crisis' Peaks Turning to the euro area, the Bloomberg investment grade OAS and high-yield OAS currently sit at 167bps and 490bps, respectively (Chart 6). These levels are well below the peaks seen during the 2020 COVID recession and the 2011/12 European debt crisis, but are in line with the spread widening episodes in 2014/15 and 2018. Our preferred measure of credit spread valuation, 12-month breakeven spreads, show that European investment grade and high-yield spreads are in the 75th and 67th percentile of outcomes, respectively, dating back to the inception of the euro in 1998 (Chart 7).1 These are both higher compared to the breakeven percentile rankings for US investment grade (48%) and US high-yield (52%). The gap between the breakeven percentile rankings for investment grade bonds in the euro area versus the US is the widest seen over the past two decades.  That gap reflects the fact that European economic growth has softened versus the US according to the S&P Global manufacturing PMIs, while European inflation has accelerated towards very elevated US levels (Chart 8).  Chart 7European Spreads Have Cheapened Up More Than US Spreads Chart 8European Corporate Underperformance Reflects Relative Growth & Inflation Both of those trends are a product of the Ukraine war, which has led to a massive spike in European energy costs given the region's huge reliance on Russian energy supplies, particularly for natural gas. While the US has also suffered a massive increase in its own energy bills, the inflation spike has been higher in Europe, leading to a bigger drag on economic confidence and growth. Thus, the widening spread differential between corporate bonds in Europe relative to the US likely reflects a growth-related risk premium. Chart 9A Turning Point For European Corporate Bond Performance? As euro area inflation has ratcheted higher, so have expectations of ECB monetary tightening. The euro area overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounts 172bps over the next 12 months, a huge swing from the start of 2022 when markets were expecting the European Central Bank (ECB) to stand pat on the interest rate front. In comparison, markets are pricing in another 224bps of Fed tightening over the next 12 months, even after the Fed has already delivered 75bps of tightening since March. Importantly, the gap between our 12-month discounters, which measure one-year-ahead interest rate changes discounted into OIS curves, for the US and Europe has proven to be a reliable leading indicator – by around nine months - of the relative year-over-year excess returns (on a USD-hedged basis) of European and US corporate bonds, especially for investment grade (Chart 9). The fact that this is a leading relationship suggests that the upward repricing of ECB rate expectations seen so far in 2022 is not yet a reason to turn more cyclically negative on European corporate bonds versus the US. The earlier upward repricing of expected Fed tightening is the more relevant factor, and is signaling that both US investment grade and high-yield corporates should underperform European equivalents over at least the rest of 2022.  BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy already has a recommended allocation along those lines, with an overweight to euro area investment grade and an underweight to US investment grade. While the trade has underperformed of late, the combined messages from the relative 12-month breakeven spread rankings (cheaper European valuations) and 12-month discounters (the Fed is further ahead in the tightening cycle) leads us to stick with that relative cross-Atlantic tilt. The main risk to that stance is any deterioration of the flow of energy supplies from Russia to Europe that results in a stagflationary outcome of a bigger growth slowdown with even faster inflation. That is a scenario that would make it difficult for the ECB to back down from its recent hawkish forward guidance, resulting in European corporate spreads incorporating an even wider risk premium.  Given that near-term uncertainty, we are advocating that investors maintain no relative tilt on more growth-sensitive, and riskier, European high-yield relative to the US – stay neutral on both. Stay Up In Quality On European Corporates Looking at euro area corporate debt across credit ratings and maturity buckets, there are few compelling immediate valuation stories in absolute terms, although there are potential opportunities unfolding on a relative basis.  Within investment grade, credit quality curves have steepened during the recent selloff, with lower-rated credit seeing larger spread widening (Chart 10). The gap between Baa-rated and A-rated European corporate spreads now sits at 52bps, right in the middle of the 25-75bps range since 2014. In high-yield, the gap between Ba-rated and B-rated credit spreads is 222bps, and the gap between B-rated and Caa-rated spreads is 370bps (Chart 11) – both are still below the previous peaks in those relationships seen in 2012, 2015 and 2020. Chart 10European IG Credit Quality Curve Can Steepen ##br##More Chart 11European HY Credit Quality Curve Still Below Previous Peaks For both investment grade and high-yield, there is still room for credit curves to steepen if European growth expectations continue to deteriorate. However, when looking at spread valuations across the credit quality spectrum, and across maturity buckets, euro area corporate spreads look much cheaper than US equivalents. In Chart 12, we show a snapshot of the current 12-month breakeven percentile rankings for individual credit quality tiers and maturity groups, for investment grade and high-yield in the euro area and US.  The relative attractiveness of European credit relative to the US is evident, with European spreads now at higher percentile rankings across all quality tiers and maturity buckets. The largest gaps between 12-month breakeven percentile rankings are in the +10 year maturity bucket, the AAA-rated and AA-rated investment grade credit tiers, and the Ba-rated high-yield credit tier. This suggests any trades favoring European corporates versus the US should stay up in credit quality. Chart 12Corporate Spread Valuations By Maturity & Credit Rating Favor Europe Comparing European & US Industry Spread Valuations When looking at the industry composition of the euro area and US corporate bond indices, there are a few major notable differences. Within investment grade, there is a greater concentration of Energy and Technology names in the US, while Financials are more represented in the European index (Chart 13).  Those same three industries also have the largest relative weightings in the high-yield indices (Chart 14), although there is also a slightly larger weighting of high-yield Transportation companies in Europe compared to the US.  This means that a bet on European credit versus the US is essentially a bet on European Financials versus US Energy and Technology. Chart 13Investment Grade Corporate Bond Market Cap Weights Chart 14High-Yield Corporate Bond Market Cap Weights When looking at the same sector metrics that were shown earlier in this report for the US – comparing risk-adjusted spreads to Duration-Times-Spread – we find some interesting cross-Atlantic valuation differentials. For investment grade in Europe (Chart 15), only Energy and Financials have positive risk-adjusted spread valuations (after controlling for duration and credit quality), while having the highest level of risk expressed via Duration-Times-Spread. This contrasts to the US where more sectors have positive risk-adjusted spreads - Energy, Financials, Utilities, Basic Industry and Communications. Investors should favor the latter three industries in the US relative to Europe. Chart 15Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation Within high-yield in Europe, Energy and Financials also offer positive risk-adjusted valuations, but so do Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Non-Cyclicals (Chart 16). This lines up similarly to US high-yield valuations. The notable valuation gaps exist in Transportation and Communications, which look cheap in the US and expensive in Europe, creating potential cross-Atlantic relative value trade opportunities between those sectors (and within an overall neutral allocation to junk in both regions). Chart 16Euro Area High-Yield Corporate Sector Valuation Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 12-month breakeven spreads measure the amount of spread widening that would be necessary to make the return on corporate bonds equal to that of duration-matched government bonds over a one-year horizon.  The spread is calculated as a ratio of the index OAS and index duration for the relevant credit market. We look at the historical percentile ranking of that ratio to make a more “apples for apples” comparison of spreads that factors in index duration changes over time. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary First IG, Then HY Corporate bonds are following the 2018 roadmap. Investment grade underperformed Treasuries as interest rate expectations rose from low levels, then junk joined the selloff once rate expectations moved above estimates of neutral. Inflation is too high for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, as it did in 2018/19, but the Fed will move more slowly than what is priced in the curve for 2022. Underlying economic growth is stronger than it was in 2018 and corporate balance sheets are in better shape. That being the case, even a modest dovish surprise from the Fed will be sufficient for corporate bond returns to form a bottom. Municipal bonds are attractively priced versus both Treasuries and credit, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent condition. Stay overweight.   Bottom Line: We maintain our cautious stance on corporate bonds for the time being, but are now on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or dovish signals from the Fed could cause us to increase exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned.  Feature The similarities between recent market action and what occurred in 2018 are striking. Back in 2018, the Fed was in the process of lifting the policy rate back toward estimates of neutral. The yield curve flattened as a result, and investment grade corporate bonds responded to the removal of policy accommodation by underperforming duration-matched Treasuries (Chart 1). Chart 1The 2018 Experience Despite the Fed’s actions, high-yield initially performed well in 2018. That is, until the market started to believe that the Fed would over-tighten. Recession fears increased in late 2018 as near-term rate expectations surpassed estimates of neutral and high-yield sold off sharply, giving back all of its gains from earlier in the year and then some. Now let’s turn to the present day (Chart 2). Once again, investment grade corporates underperformed Treasuries as near-term rate expectations moved higher and the yield curve flattened. For its part, high-yield performed well during the early stages of the interest rate adjustment but returns plunged once 12-month forward rate expectations moved above survey estimates of neutral. Chart 2First IG, Then HY What’s Different This Time? While we think the 2018 roadmap is a good one, it’s important to consider the differences between 2018 and today before drawing any firm conclusions about future credit market performance. The first obvious difference is that the Fed had already been lifting rates for some time in 2018. In fact, the fed funds rate was above 2%. Today, the Fed is still in the early stages of its tightening cycle and the fed funds rate is only 0.83%. We think this difference is less significant than it initially appears because the level of the fed funds rate itself is less important than the perceived restrictiveness of monetary policy. Today, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to hit 3.18% in 12 months, higher than at any point in 2018 (Chart 3). We also see that the Treasury slope beyond the 2-year maturity point is about as flat today as it was in 2018 (Chart 3, bottom panel). This strongly suggests that the market perceives monetary policy as about as restrictive today as it was in late 2018. The second difference we identify is that inflation is much higher today than it was in 2018 (Chart 4). This is potentially bad news for future credit market performance. High inflation gives the Fed a strong incentive to keep lifting rates even if risky assets sell off. In 2018, the Fed reversed course on its tightening cycle once broad financial conditions tightened into restrictive territory. That’s an easy decision to make when inflation is close to 2%. It’s much more difficult to do with inflation where it is now. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Are Similar Chart 4Inflation Is Much Higher … High inflation makes it unlikely that the Fed will pull a 180 on its tightening cycle. But on the flipside, today’s strong underlying economic growth means that a complete reversal on rate hikes is probably not necessary to avoid a recession. Just look at the labor market. Labor market utilization, as measured by both the unemployment rate and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio, is in a similar place today as it was in 2018 (Chart 5). However, despite a tight labor market, job growth is running at a much stronger pace this year. Nonfarm payroll gains have averaged 523 thousand during the past three months. In 2018, in a similarly tight labor market, monthly job growth averaged just 191 thousand. Now turn to housing, arguably the most important channel through which interest rates impact the economy. In a prior report we identified that the 12-month moving average of housing starts dipping below the 24-month moving average is a good indicator for the end of a Fed rate hike cycle.1 In 2018, our housing starts indicator was barely positive. Today, it is extremely elevated (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5… But Growth Is Much Stronger The key point is that with employment growth and housing starts trending at much better levels than in 2018, we can conclude that the Fed has a fair amount of scope to tighten policy before threatening to push the economy into recession. The upshot for corporate bond markets is that the threshold for Fed capitulation is also different. While a full backtracking away from rate hikes was necessary to avoid a recession and spur corporate bond outperformance in 2018, both the economy and financial markets likely require less of a Fed reversal today. The final difference we identify between 2018 and today relates to the health of corporate balance sheets (Chart 6). Compared to 2018, nonfinancial corporations are carrying much less debt as a percentage of net worth, have significantly higher interest coverage and are benefiting from net ratings upgrades. Much like with the labor market and housing indicators, there’s every reason to believe that corporations are better equipped to handle higher interest rates today than they were in 2018. Chart 6Balance Sheets Are Healthier The Way Forward If we look back at Chart 1, we see that the 2018 roadmap is for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, leading to a sharp drop in near-term rate expectations and a V-shaped bottom in excess corporate bond returns. We won’t get such a swift Fed reversal this year, but there are strong odds that the Fed will lift rates by less than what is currently discounted in the market between now and the end of 2022. As we noted in last week’s Webcast, we expect the Fed to deliver two more 50 basis point rate hikes (in June and July) before shifting to 25 bps per meeting increments in September once it’s clear that inflation is trending down (Chart 7).2  We also see potential for relief at the long-end of the yield curve, where 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have room to fall back toward survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 8). Chart 7Rate Expectations Chart 8Yields Above Fair Value It’s also worth noting that corporate bond valuations have improved markedly during the past few weeks. The 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is back above its historical median, and the junk index is priced for a 6.3% default rate during the next 12 months (Chart 9). Investment grade and high-yield index spreads are also now well above their respective 2017-19 averages, as is the spread differential between high-yield and investment grade (Chart 10). Chart 9Corporate Bond Valuation Chart 10Favor HY Over IG The bottom line is that we are slowly turning more positive on corporate bonds. Falling inflation will cause the Fed to tighten by less than what is expected this year, and it will soon become apparent that – as was the case in 2018 – the US economy is not close to tipping into recession. Spreads also present an increasingly attractive opportunity. That said, with the Fed still poised to deliver 100 bps of tightening within the next two months, we are not yet ready to abandon our relatively cautious corporate bond allocation. We maintain our underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and our neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield, but we are now firmly on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or signals that the Fed will pivot to a hiking pace of 25 bps per meeting could cause us to increase our recommended corporate bond exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned. Seek Refuge In Municipal Bonds While we wait for clearer signs of a bottom in corporate credit, investors can more confidently deploy capital in the municipal bond market. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios have jumped in recent weeks, and they are now back above post-2010 averages across the entire yield curve (Chart 11). Long-maturity municipal bonds are even trading at a before-tax premium relative to US Treasuries (Chart 11, top 2 panels). Municipal bonds are also trading at above-average yields relative to credit rating and duration-matched corporate bonds (Chart 12). This is despite the recent back-up we’ve witnessed in corporate bond spreads. Chart 11Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 12Munis Cheap Versus Credit Not only are munis attractively priced versus both Treasuries and corporates, but state & local government balance sheet indicators show that municipal credit quality is sky high (Chart 13). Tax revenues have accelerated since the pandemic, but state & local governments have remained cautious about spending their windfalls. Despite being flush with cash, state & local governments have re-hired only a small fraction of the employees that were let go during the pandemic (Chart 13, panel 2). The result of this lack of spending is that state & local government net savings are the highest they’ve been in years (Chart 13, panel 3). Chart 13State & Local Government Health Bottom Line: Municipal bonds are attractively valued versus both Treasuries and investment grade corporates, and state & local government balance sheets are in superb condition. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 2 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/537 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 17 at 9:00 AM EDT, 14:00 PM BST, 15:00 PM CEST and May 18 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Executive Summary Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our current strategic recommendations are centered around four key themes: global inflation will slow over the rest of 2022, Europe remains too weak to handle significantly higher interest rates, corporate default risk in the US and Europe is relatively low, and the fundamental backdrop for emerging markets is poor. If we are going to be proven wrong on any of those themes, it will most likely be because global inflation remains high for longer due to resilient commodity prices and lingering supply chain disruptions. A sluggish economy will handcuff the ECB’s ability to raise rates as fast as markets are discounting over the next year. The state of corporate balance sheet health in the developed world is not problematic, on average, even with some sectors taking on more leverage in response to the 2020 COVID downturn. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. Bottom Line: We remain comfortable with our main fixed income investment recommendations: maintaining neutral global portfolio duration, overweighting core European bonds versus US Treasuries, favoring high-yield corporates over investment grade (both in the US and Europe), and underweighting EM hard currency debt. Feature One of the foundations of a sound medium-term investment process is to allocate capital towards highest conviction views, while constantly assessing - and reassessing - if those views are unfolding as expected. Trades that are not going according to plan may need to be reconstructed, if not exited entirely, to avoid losses. We feel the same way about the investment recommendations highlighted in the pages of our reports, which represent our portfolio, as it were. With this in mind, in this report we identify the four most critical themes underpinning our current main investment recommendations and evaluate the potential risks that our views will not turn out as expected. Theme #1: Global Inflation Will Decline In The Latter Half Of 2022 Our biggest theme for the rest of this year is that global inflation will cool off after the massive acceleration over the past year. Many of our current fixed income investment recommendations across the developed markets – maintaining neutral overall global duration exposure, underweighting global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, betting against additional yield curve flattening (especially in the US) – are predicated on reduced inflationary pressure on interest rates. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyA Crude Awakening For Bond Investors The expectation of lower inflation is based on some easing of the forces that first caused the current inflationary overshoot – booming commodity prices and rapidly accelerating goods prices due to supply-chain disruptions. Already, the commodity price factor is starting to fade, on an annual rate-of-change basis that matters for overall inflation, thanks to more favorable comparisons to the commodity surge in 2021 (Chart 1). The year-over-year growth rate of the CRB index has decelerated from a peak of 54.4% in June 2021 to 19.3% today, even with many commodity prices seeing big increases in response to the Russia/Ukraine war. This is because the increases in commodity prices were even larger one year ago when much of the global economy reopened from COVID-related economic restrictions. Favorable base effect comparisons are not the only reason why commodity inflation has slowed. Commodities are priced in US dollars, and the steady appreciation of the greenback, with the trade-weighted dollar up 5% on an year-over-year basis, has also helped to slow commodity price momentum (Chart 2). Slower global growth, coming off the overheated pace of 2021, has also acted as a drag on overall commodity price inflation (middle panel). Beyond the commodity space, some easing of global supply chain tensions has resulted in indicators of shipping costs seeing meaningful declines even with supplier delivery times still elevated (bottom panel). Chart 1Our Main Strategic Theme: Decelerating Global Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 2Disinflationary Momentum From Commodities Already Underway​​​​​ A more fundamental factor that should help moderate global inflation momentum this year beyond the commodity/supply chain effects relates to a lack of broad-based global "excess demand", even as the world economy continues to recover from the massive pandemic shock in 2020. The IMF’s latest projections on output gaps – estimates of the amount of spare economic capacity – show that few major developed or emerging market economies are expected to have positive output gaps over 2022 and 2023 (Chart 3). The US is the most notable exception, with an output gap projected to average +1.6% this year and next. Most other developed market countries are projected to have an output gap close to zero. This suggests that the US is facing the most inflationary pressure from an overheating economy, which is why we continue to see the Fed as being the most hawkish major developed market central bank over the next couple of years. Chart 3Few Countries Expected To Have Inflationary Output Gaps In 2022/23 Yet even with so much of the macro backdrop supporting our call for slower global inflation in the coming months, there are several potential risks to that view. Chart 4A Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Resilient Oil Prices Another war-related upleg in global oil prices Our commodity strategists continue to see oil prices settling down to the low $90s by year-end. Yet oil has seen tremendous volatility since the Ukraine war began as prices had to factor in the potential loss of Russian oil supplies in an already tight crude market. The benchmark Brent oil price briefly hit $140 in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. A similar move sustained over the latter half of 2022 would trigger a reacceleration of oil momentum, putting upward pressure on overall global inflation rates. A renewed bout of energy-induced inflation would push global interest rate expectations, and bond yields, even higher from current levels – a challenge to both our neutral duration stance and underweight bias on global inflation-linked bonds (Chart 4). More supply-chain disruption from China Chinese authorities are clamping down hard on the current COVID wave sweeping across China. The current lockdowns in major cities like Shanghai could shave as much as one percentage point off Chinese real GDP growth for 2022, according to our China strategists. Those same lockdowns in a major transportation and shipping hub like Shanghai are already causing supply chain disruption within China. Supplier delivery times saw big increases in the March PMI data (Chart 5), while the number of cargo ships stuck outside Shanghai has soared. The longer this lasts, the greater the risk that supply chains beyond China would be disrupted, erasing the improvements in global supplier delivery times seen over the past few months. That could keep goods price inflation elevated for longer. Stubbornly resilient services inflation A big part of our lower inflation view is related to a rebalancing of consumer demand in the developed world away from goods towards services as economies move away from COVID restrictions. This implies an easing of the excess demand pressures that have triggered supply shortages for cars and other big-ticket consumer goods. The result would be a sharp slowing of goods price inflation, with the result that overall inflation rates in the major economies would gravitate towards the slower rate of services inflation. The latter, however, is accelerating in the US, UK and Europe (Chart 6) – largely because of soaring housing costs – which raises the risk that overall inflation will fall to a higher floor in 2022 as goods inflation slows. Chart 5Another Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: China Lockdowns​​​​​ Chart 6One More Risk To Our Lower Inflation View: Sticky Service Prices In the end, we see the balance of risks still tilted towards much slower global inflation this year. However, if we are going to be proven wrong on any of our major investment themes in 2022, it will most likely be because global inflation remains resilient for longer. Theme #2: Europe’s Economy Is Too Fragile To Handle Higher Interest Rates Beyond the global inflation call, our next highest conviction view right now is that markets are overestimating the ECB’s ability to tighten euro area monetary policy. Markets are now pricing in 85bps of ECB rate hikes by the end of 2022, according to the euro area overnight index swap (OIS) curve, which would take policy rates back to levels last seen before the 2008 financial crisis. The war has put the ECB in a difficult spot vis-à-vis its next policy move. High euro area inflation, with annual headline HICP inflation climbing to 7.4% in March and core HICP inflation reaching 2.9%, the highest level of the ECB era dating back to 1996, would justify a move to begin hiking policy interest rates as soon as possible.   However, European growth momentum has slowed significantly so far in 2022. Initially this was due to the spread of the Omicron COVID variant that resulted in a wave of economic restrictions. That was followed by the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that has hit European economic confidence and raised fears that Europe would lose access to Russian energy supplies. Our diffusion indices of individual country leading economic indicators and inflation rates within the euro area highlight the pickle the ECB finds itself in (Chart 7). All countries have headline and core inflation rates above the ECB’s 2% target, yet only 60% of euro area countries have an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than year ago levels. In the three previous tightening cycles of the “ECB era” since the inception of the euro in 1998, the diffusion indices for both growth and inflation reached 100% - in other words, every euro area economy was seeing faster growth and above-target inflation. Chart 7The ECB Will Have Difficulty Hiking As Much As Expected Chart 8Warning Signs On European Growth Other economic data are also sending worrying messages. The euro area manufacturing PMI fell to the lowest level since January 2021 in March, while the European Commission consumer confidence index and the ZEW expectations index have plunged to levels last seen during the depths of the 2020 COVID recession (Chart 8). Euro area export growth has also decelerated sharply, with exports to China contracting on a year-over-year basis. Simply put, these are not the kind of growth data consistent with a central bank that needs to begin tightening policy aggressively. The inflation data also does not paint a clean picture for the ECB. ECB President Christine Lagarde has repeatedly noted that the central bank is on the lookout for any “second round effects” from the current commodity-fueled surge in European inflation on more lasting inflationary measures like wages. On that front, European wage growth remains stunningly subdued. European annual wage growth was only 1.6% in Q4/2021, despite the unemployment rate for the whole euro area falling below the OECD’s full employment NAIRU estimate of 7.7% (Chart 9). Unit labor costs only grew at an 1.5% annual rate at the end of 2021, suggesting little underlying pressure on European inflation from wages. Chart 9No Inflationary Pressures From Wages In Europe​​​​​ Chart 10European Bond Yields Discount Too Much ECB Hawkishness Without a bigger inflation boost from labor costs, the ECB will feel less pressured to begin tightening monetary policy as rapidly and aggressively as markets are discounting – especially if global goods/commodity inflation slows as we expect. We remain comfortable with our overweight recommendation on core European government bonds (Germany and France), both within a global bond portfolio but especially versus the US. The Fed is far more likely to deliver the aggressive rate hikes discounted in money markets compared to the ECB (Chart 10). Theme #3: Corporate Default Risk In The US And Europe Is Relatively Low Another of our main investment themes relates to corporate credit risk. Specifically, we see high-yield debt in the US and Europe as being relatively more attractive than investment grade credit, even in a typically credit-unfriendly environment of tightening global monetary policy and slowing global growth momentum. Our Corporate Health Monitors are highlighting that corporate finances are in relatively good shape on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 11). This is primarily related to strong readings on interest coverage, free cash flow generation and profit margins, all of which are helping to service higher levels of corporate leverage. Defaults are expected to rise over the next year in response to slowing growth momentum, but the increase is projected to be moderate. Moody’s is forecasting the US and European high-yield default rates to be virtually identical, climbing to 3.1% and 2.6%, respectively, by February 2023. Those relatively low default rates, however, are for the aggregate of all high-yield borrowers. Default risks may be higher for some companies and industries that were more severely impacted by the pandemic. Chart 11US/Europe Default Risk Remains Relatively Modest​​​​​ Chart 12The IMF Sees Fewer Financially Vulnerable Firms​​​​​​ Chart 13Default-Adjusted HY Spreads Still Offer Some Value An analysis of global private sector debt included in the latest IMF World Economic Report highlighted that companies that suffered the most significant declines in revenues in 2020 also took on greater amounts of debt than companies whose businesses were least impacted by the 2020 growth shock (Chart 12). Industries that were “worst-hit” by COVID also saw significant worsening of debt servicing capability, described by the IMF analysts as the percentage of firms among the “worst-hit” that had interest coverage ratios less than one (middle panel). Importantly, the IMF report noted that the “worst-hit” industries have seen significant improvements in interest coverage since 2020, reducing the number of financially vulnerable firms (those with high debt-to-assets ratios and interest coverage less than one). The IMF analysis uses corporate data from a whopping 71 countries, but the conclusions are like those from our Corporate Health Monitors for the US and Europe – corporate credit quality has improved, on the margin, since the dark days of the 2020 COVID recession for an increasing number of borrowers. Default-adjusted spreads for high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, which subtract expected default losses from high-yield index spread levels, show that high-yield bonds currently offer decent compensation for expected credit losses (Chart 13). This is especially true for European high-yield, where the default-adjusted spread is just below the average level since 2000. This fits with our current recommendation to maintain neutral allocations to both US and European high-yield. We have a bias to favor the latter, however, due to better valuation metrics and a more dovish outlook on ECB monetary policy compared to the Fed. Theme #4: The Fundamental Backdrop For Emerging Markets Is Poor Chart 14The Backdrop Remains Challenging For EM We have been negative on emerging market (EM) credit dating back to the latter months of 2021. Specifically, we are now underweight EM USD-denominated debt, both sovereigns and corporates. This is a high-conviction view and one that remains fundamentally supported. A sustainable rebound in EM markets would require a “perfect storm” combination of events to occur – aggressive China policy stimulus, a de-escalation of Russia/Ukraine tensions, a weaker US dollar and diminished global inflation pressures. While we expect the latter to occur in the coming months, there are meaningful risks to that view, as described earlier. Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine appears to be worsening with Russia pushing the offensive and showing no desire for reengaging talks with Ukraine. Chinese policymakers are starting to respond to slowing Chinese growth, made worse by the COVID lockdowns, with some easing measures on monetary policy. Credit growth has also started to pick up, but the credit impulse remains too weak to warrant a more positive view on Chinese growth and import demand from EM countries (Chart 14). Finally, the US dollar remains well supported by a hawkish Fed and widening US/non-US interest rate differentials. This may be the most critical variable to watch before turning more positive on EM credit, given the strong historical correlation between the US dollar and EM hard currency spreads (bottom panel). For now, the trend of the US dollar remains EM-negative. Concluding Thoughts Chart 15Summarizing Our Main Investment Themes In One Chart Our four main investment themes, and associated recommendations, are summarized in Chart 15. The credit-related themes – underweighting high-yield bonds in the US and Europe versus investment grade equivalents, and underweighting EM USD-denominated debt – are already performing as expected. The interest rate related themes – slower global inflation and fading European rate hike expectations – should unfold in favor of our recommendations over the balance of 2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades

Special Report

Executive Summary Spreads Near 2017-19 Average The main indicators that determine corporate bond performance are valuation, the cyclical/monetary environment and corporate balance sheet health. US corporate bond valuation is quite expensive. Spreads are off their post-COVID lows, but consistent with the 2017-19 average. The flat 2-year/10-year Treasury curve indicates that the cyclical/monetary backdrop is relatively poor. What’s more, the yield curve could easily invert within the next few months as the Fed tightens. This would send an even more negative signal for corporate bond returns.  Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but their health will deteriorate within the next 12 months as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. Relative valuation favors high-yield over investment grade corporates, and high-yield has a track record of outperformance during periods of restrictive monetary conditions and strong corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: Investors should cyclically reduce exposure to US corporate bonds while retaining a preference for high-yield over investment grade. We recommend downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Feature Chart 1A Rapid Recovery US corporate bonds have had a very good run since the March 2020 peak in spreads. Investment grade corporates outperformed a duration-matched position in US Treasuries by 23% during the first 12 months of the recovery, the best 12-month excess return since 2010 (Chart 1). That same period also saw an extremely rapid re-normalization of credit spreads. It took just 11 months for the investment grade corporate index option-adjusted spread (OAS) to reach 90 bps following its March 2020 peak, and the index delivered an annualized excess return of 26% during that period. In contrast, it took 109 months for the index OAS to reach 90 bps following the 2008 recession and corporates only beat duration-matched Treasuries by an annualized 4% during that time (Table 1). Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns From Spread Peak Until 90 BPs The outlook for US corporate bond returns looks much different today. Spreads are tighter and the Fed is rapidly removing policy accommodation. Against this backdrop, we decided last week to cyclically reduce our corporate bond exposure.1  Specifically, we recommended downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) within US bond portfolios. This Special Report discusses the rationale for our recent decision. First, we examine trends in the main indicators that determine corporate bond performance. These indicators fall into three categories: (i) valuation, (ii) cyclical/monetary indicators and (iii) balance sheet health. We then discuss the outlook for the relative performance of high-yield versus investment grade corporates. Valuation Starting with a simple examination of the average investment grade index OAS, we see that the spread has widened somewhat off its pre- and post-pandemic lows, but remains close to the average level seen between 2017 and 2019 (Chart 2). The index OAS is a reasonable gauge of value relative to recent history, but for a longer historical perspective we should adjust the index to account for its changing average credit rating and duration. To do this, we first re-weight the index to maintain a constant distribution between the different credit rating buckets. Next, we control for the index’s changing duration by calculating a 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that must occur during the next 12 months for the corporate index to perform in line with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. It can be approximated by dividing the index OAS by average index duration. Finally, Chart 3 presents the 12-month breakeven spread as a percentile rank since 1995. It shows that, after controlling for credit rating and duration, the investment grade corporate index has only been more expensive than current levels 24% of the time since 1995. Notice that the spread bounced off the 0% line in late-2021, indicating that it had reached all-time expensive levels. Chart 2Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Chart 3Investment Grade Valuation All in all, we can conclude that investment grade corporate bonds are quite expensive. Spreads aren’t so low that they would justify an underweight allocation in a supportive cyclical/monetary environment. But they are tight enough that it makes sense to proceed cautiously in a neutral or negative cyclical/monetary environment, like the one we are in today.   Cyclical/Monetary Indicators The slope of the yield curve is the key variable we use to assess the current state of the cyclical/monetary environment. A very flat or inverted yield curve signals a relatively restrictive monetary policy backdrop, and we have shown that such a backdrop tends to coincide with poor excess corporate bond returns. Conversely, we have found that corporate bonds perform best early in the economic recovery when the yield curve is very steep. This steep yield curve signals that monetary conditions are highly accommodative, and thus supportive of credit spread tightening. Today, the yield curve is sending a somewhat confusing message. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope briefly inverted last week, and it remains flat at 22 bps. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is very steep, up above 200 bps (Chart 4)! Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve We discussed how to interpret the signals from different yield curve segments in a recent Special Report.2 We found that the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope sends the most useful signal for corporate bond excess returns, and we therefore view current cyclical/monetary conditions as negative for corporate bonds. In Table 2 we split each of the past six economic cycles into phases based on the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. We define Phase 1 of the cycle as the period from the end of the prior recession until the 2-year/10-year slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle encompasses the time when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 of the cycle spans from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Table 2US Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle The table shows annualized excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds in each of the three phases, and those returns exhibit a clear pattern. Returns are best in Phase 1 when the yield curve is steep. They take a step down in Phase 2 when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, though they usually stay positive. Negative returns are most likely in Phase 3, after the yield curve inverts. Chart 5Limited Room For Curve Steepening With the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope at 22 bps, we are firmly in Phase 2 of the cycle. However, we could easily see the 2-year/10-year slope invert within the next few months while a breakout above 50 bps seems less likely. In fact, there are only two ways in which the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope can steepen further from current levels. First, the market could bid up its expectation of the long-run neutral fed funds rate, pushing long-dated bond yields higher. Second, expectations for the pace of near-term Fed tightening could diminish, pulling short-dated yields down. At the long-end, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already above survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 5). At the front-end, the market is discounting a rapid pace of 272 bps of tightening during the next 12 months (Chart 5, bottom panel), but that pace has limited room to fall given current extremely high inflation readings. Turning back to a comparison of the signals from the 2-year/10-year slope and 3-month/10-year slope, it is worth pointing out that the 3-month/10-year slope is influenced by yield movements at the very front-end of the curve. Meanwhile, the 2-year/10-year slope is purely a function of rate expectations beyond the next two years. As a result, we can view the 3-month/10-year slope as sending a timelier signal about Fed rate hikes and cuts, while the 2-year/10-year slope gives a better reading of how the market views the ultimate economic impact of Fed actions. For example, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverted in 2019 just before the Fed started cutting rates (Chart 6A). The 2-year/10-year slope, however, only briefly dipped below zero. The message from the market was that the Fed would cut rates, but those cuts would be sufficient to sustain the economic recovery. As a result, corporate bonds performed well during this period, consistent with the message from the 2-year/10-year slope. Another interesting example occurred in early 2000 (Chart 6B). This time, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope inverted while the 3-month/10-year slope remained steep. In this case, the 3-month/10-year slope was telling us that Fed rate hikes would continue, while the 2-year/10-year slope was telling us that those hikes would eventually kill the economic recovery. Once again, corporate bonds took their cues from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope and performed poorly during this period. Chart 6AStrong Performance In 2019 Chart 6BPoor Performance In 2000 Obviously, the current situation looks more like 2000 than 2019, but with the 2-year/10-year slope still positive there remains scope for positive excess corporate bond returns in the near-term. That said, with high odds of 2-year/10-year curve inversion within the next few months and spreads at relatively tight levels, it makes sense to scale back exposure today in advance of the worst phase of the cycle. Balance Sheet Health The final factor we consider is the health of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets, and in fact, this is currently the lone bright spot for corporate bond investors. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six key balance sheet ratios, is deep in “improving health” territory (Chart 7). This positive signal is driven by exceptionally high Interest Coverage (Chart 7, panel 2) and Free Cash Flow-To-Debt that is just off its highs (Chart 7, panel 3). Return On Capital is up sharply since 2020 but has not recovered its previous peak (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape While corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape right now, their health will certainly deteriorate going forward as profit growth comes down off its highs and interest rates rise. The only question is whether this deterioration will happen slowly or quickly. Turning to history, two relevant periods stand out (Chart 8). First is the mid-1990s when investment grade corporate bond excess returns peaked in July 1997, 16 months before our CHM moved into “deteriorating health” territory. Conversely, the CHM sent a negative signal before the excess return peak in 2007. But even then, investment grade corporates only outperformed Treasuries by an annualized 0.8% between when the 2-year/10-year slope fell below 50 bps in 2005 and when the CHM moved above zero in 2006. In other words, investors didn’t sacrifice much return by heeding the yield curve’s signal even when the CHM was deep in “improving health” territory. Chart 8Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Investment Conclusions In summary, we view corporate bond valuations as expensive, and the flat 2-year/10-year Treasury slope suggests that the economic recovery is in its mid-to-late stages. Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but they will deteriorate going forward as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. The above three factors suggest that corporate bonds could continue to outperform duration-matched Treasuries in the near-term. However, with spreads already at tight levels, we likely aren’t sacrificing much in the way of excess returns by turning cyclically defensive today. This move also ensures that we will not be invested when the credit cycle eventually turns and corporate bond spreads move significantly wider. Retain A Preference For High-Yield Versus Investment Grade While we recommend downgrading allocations for both investment grade (from neutral to underweight) and high-yield (from overweight to neutral), we think investors should still retain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. To see why, let’s return to the 2005-06 period we looked at in the previous section. The yield curve dipped below 50 bps in 2005 when the CHM was still deep in “improving health” territory, and while investment grade corporate bond returns were low during the time between the signal from the yield curve and the signal from the CHM, junk excess returns were very strong (Chart 9). This makes some sense intuitively. Higher-rated investment grade corporates responded negatively to the Federal Reserve’s removal of monetary policy accommodation, but lower-rated junk spreads stayed well bid because actual default risk was benign. It wasn’t until after the CHM rose above zero that junk bonds started to underperform. In terms of present-day valuations, much like for investment grade, junk spreads are up off their 2021 lows. However, they remain close to their pre-pandemic trough (Chart 10). We also note that the differential between high-yield and investment grade spreads was much tighter in 2006-07. Given the similarities between that period and today, we wouldn’t be surprised to see junk spreads compress further relative to investment grade. Chart 9The Bullish Case For Junk Chart 10High-Yield Valuation Another way to approach high-yield bond valuation is through the lens of our Default-Adjusted Spread. The Default-Adjusted Spread is the difference between the junk index OAS and 12-month default losses, and we have shown that it has a strong correlation with excess returns (Table 3). Specifically, a Default-Adjusted Spread above 100 bps usually coincides with positive excess junk returns versus Treasuries, and higher spreads tend to coincide with higher returns. Table 3The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns To estimate the Default-Adjusted Spread for the next 12 months we need assumptions for the default and recovery rates (Chart 11). To do this, we model the 12-month speculative grade default rate as a function of gross nonfinancial corporate leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – and lagged C&I lending standards. We then model the 12-month recovery rate based on the default rate itself. Chart 11Default And Recovery Rate Models Corporate pre-tax profit growth was exceptionally strong during the past 12 months, and we expect it to slow significantly going forward. Profit growth can be modeled as a function of nominal GDP growth and unit labor costs (Chart 12). If we assume that nominal GDP growth comes in at 7.3% this year (the Fed’s median 2.8% real GDP estimate plus 4.5% inflation) and that unit labor cost growth rises to 6%, then profit growth will fall to 0.5% during the next 12 months. If we assume that corporate debt growth remains close to its current level (Chart 12, bottom panel), then we calculate that gross leverage will rise to 6.5 during the next 12 months. Chart 12Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Table 4 shows the output from our default and recovery rate models under the base case assumption described above. It also shows results for an optimistic case where leverage is 6.0 and a pessimistic case where it is 7.0. The Default-Adjusted Spread is fairly low in the base and pessimistic cases, but it is comfortably above the key 100 bps threshold in all three scenarios. This suggests that junk bonds should deliver positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. Table 4Default-Adjusted Spread Scenarios   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Beginning Of The End”, dated April 5, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations