Money/Credit/Debt

Global equity valuations are at a level where they are very sensitive to changes in the discount rate. Chart 1 shows that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield on the S&P 500 is slightly below its 2000 low. Equity investors have thus far taken comfort from the fact that US bond yields have been depressed, and taking into consideration low bond yields the US equity market is not as bubbly as it was in the 2000s. Chart 1Rising US Bond Yields Threatens US Equity Valuations However, the fact that the US equity market’s valuations after accounting for the level of interest rates are not as expensive as they were in 2000 does not mean share prices cannot experience a meaningful shakeout. Notably, there is a lot of speculation and euphoria among investors, reminiscent of the late 1990s (please refer to Charts 24-26 below). Critically, when equity multiples are very elevated and bond yields are extremely low, the sensitivity of multiples to interest rates is most pronounced. Hence, rising US Treasury yields could result in a setback in share prices. All in all, our themes for now are as follows: Chart 2A Full-Fledged Mania In Asian TMT Stocks Enormous US fiscal and monetary stimulus, strong economic growth and supply bottlenecks will push up the US core inflation rate. As a result, the ongoing sell-off in long-term US bond yields will continue. EM and DM credit spreads are currently very tight and credit spreads might not be able to compress further to offset the rise in US Treasury yields. Hence, rising US Treasury yields will trigger higher corporate and EM sovereign bond yields. In brief, rising EM bond yields is the key risk to EM share prices. Charts 5 and 6 below illustrate these points. Given that the US trade-weighted dollar is extremely oversold, rising US Treasury yields will likely trigger a countertrend rally in the greenback. This will cause a shakeout in EM currencies, fixed-income markets and commodities prices. Historically, the greenback has not had a stable relationship with US Treasury yields – they were both positively and negatively correlated in different periods. In such an environment, DM growth stocks will underperform DM value stocks. We have less conviction in growth/value performance in the EM space. The reason lies in the speculative frenzy taking place in Chinese new economy stocks trading in Hong Kong as well as tech share prices in Korea and Taiwan. As Chart 2 reveals, the Hang Seng Tech index and EM TMT stocks have been rising exponentially. Visibility is very low. The timing of a reversal of this equity euphoria is impossible to predict. Outside these TMT stocks, the relative performance of EM equities has been rather underwhelming, as is illustrated in Charts 71-73. Notably, the economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies (please refer to Charts 63 and 66). This will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. In addition, peak stimulus in China means that the mainland’s construction and infrastructure investment will slow meaningfully in H2 2021. This is another risk to EM economies supplying to China. Weighing pros and cons, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to EM in a global equity portfolio. The same is true for EM credit (sovereign and corporate) within a global credit portfolio. For local bonds, inflation in EM – including China – is still very low and will likely stay depressed. As a result, we continue recommending receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, Malaysia, India and China. Investors should use a rebound in the US dollar  to transition from receiving rates to being long on cash bonds. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Yellow Flags For Share Prices Rising US corporate bond yields pose a risk to the equity rally. Interestingly, New Zealand’s stock market has begun correcting. Often but not always, this development heralds a pullback in EM share prices (albeit for unknown reasons). Chart 3Yellow Flags For Share Prices Chart 4Yellow Flags For Share Prices Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Historically, rising EM corporate USD bond yields led to a selloff in EM share prices. If rising US Treasury yields begin pushing up EM sovereign and corporate bonds yields, which is quite likely, the EM equity rally will be jeopardized. Chart 5Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields Chart 6Beware Of Potential Rise In EM Sovereign And Corporate USD Bond Yields EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery So far, the EM equity index has snubbed the rollover in China’s credit impulse and plummeting gold prices in non-US dollar currencies. The ongoing EM corporate earnings recovery has justified the rally in of share prices. However, much  of the good news has already been priced in. Chart 7EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 8EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery Chart 9EM Equities Are Ignoring Many Warning Signs Due To Profit Recovery   Investors Are Super Bullish European investors are very bullish on EM equities and European growth. From a contrarian perspective, this does not always herald a bear market but suggests that odds of a meaningful shakeout are non-trivial. Chart 10Investors Are Super Bullish Chart 11Investors Are Super Bullish Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Our proxy for global growth expectations as well as EM net EPS revisions are elevated. Similarly, analysts’ EM 12-month forward EPS growth differential vs. US are the widest since 2001. Chart 12Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High Chart 13Investor Growth Expectations Are Super High US Inflation And Rates US core goods inflation has been rising due to strong US household demand and supply bottlenecks. When the economy fully reopens, US core service inflation will rise as pent-up demand for services is unleashed. This will push up US bond yields regardless of the Fed’s rhetoric. Chart 14US Inflation And Rates Chart 15US Inflation And Rates   Chart 16US Inflation And Rates Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space A rise in US TIPS and nominal yields will likely send shockwaves through EM risk assets and commodities that have greatly benefited from the plunge in TIPS yields. Watch out for cracks in the EM high-yield bond space. Chart 17Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 18Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 19Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space Chart 20Look Out For Cracks In EM High-Yield Bond Space   EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Although cyclically and for some countries structurally speaking EM currencies have more upside and their appreciation path will not be without major setbacks. In fact, several key currencies like MXN and ZAR are facing an important technical resistance. Investors should not chase them higher but accumulate them on a relapse. Chart 21EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are OverboughtChart 23EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought Chart 22EM Currencies Are Not Yet Expensive But Are Overbought   Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Certain measures of stock market activity – like the call-put ratio, trading volumes and margin loans –  reveal engulfing speculative behavior not only in the US but also in other markets like Korea. Chart 24Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 25Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild Chart 26Equity Market Euphoria Is Running Wild   A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision The IPO boom is not as expansive as it was at its 2000 and 2007 peaks and there is some US dollar cash left to be put to work. Visibility is very low. Chart 27A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 28A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision Chart 29A Mania Can Run Further And Longer Than Rational Analysis Can Envision   Steep Equity Volatility Curves A steep equity volatility curve heralds a correction. Chart 30Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 31Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 32Steep Equity Volatility Curves Chart 33Steep Equity Volatility Curves   Volatilities Across FX, Bonds And Commodities Oil volatility has been and remains in a bull market – making higher lows. Currency volatility remains elevated while US bond volatility is still very low and is bound to rise. Chart 34Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 35Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 36Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 37Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Chart 38Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities Chart 39Volatilities Across FX, Bonds and Commodities   Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Global cyclical stocks’ relative performance versus defensive stocks might be due for a pause. Growth will underperform value in DM due to rising bond yields. We are less convinced about the growth/value performance in the EM equity space due to the mania occurring in EM TMT stocks. Chart 40Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 41Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 42Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance Chart 43Cyclicals Vs. Defensives And Growth Vs. Value Performance   Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Many global equity indexes excluding US or TMT have either not broken out or have done so only marginally. Chart 44Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 45Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 46Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes Chart 47Profiles Of Various Global Equity Indexes   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Excluding TMT stocks, EM equity indexes have not broken above their previous highs. It has been a mania in TMT stocks that has boosted the EM overall equity index. Chart 48EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 49EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 50EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive Chart 51EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Unimpressive   A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chinese offshore stocks ex-TMT and onshore equal-weighted and small caps have done rather poorly. The latest euphoria in Hong Kong-listed Chinese stocks has been due to an increased quota for mainland investors to buy offshore stocks. This has led to massive southbound outflows and has propelled Chinese stock trading in Hong Kong. Chart 52A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks Chart 53A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks   Chart 54A Mania In Chinese Stocks, Especially In TMT Stocks The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Rollover in credit and fiscal stimulus in Q4 2020 entails weak growth in H2 2021 in segments leveraged to stimulus. Chart 55The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 56The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Chart 57The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021 Chart 58The Chinese Economy: Peak Stimulus = Weak Growth In H2 2021   Commodity Prices The end of commodities restocking in China, weaker demand from mainland construction in H2 and elevated investor net long positions in commodities constitute the basis for a setback in commodities prices this year. Nevertheless, such a pullback will occur only if the USD rebounds and global equity prices sell off. Chart 59Commodity Prices Chart 60Commodity Prices Chart 61Commodity Prices Chart 62Commodity Prices   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued The economic recovery in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has been much weaker than those in DM and North Asian economies. Chart 63The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 64The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 65The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued Chart 66The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Has Been Very Subdued   The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag EM ex-North Asia’s economic underperformance will continue as many of these nations are lagging in vaccine rollouts and their fiscal and monetary support has been much smaller. Besides, their banks are reluctant to lend due to high NPLs. Chart 67The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 68The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 69The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag Chart 70The Recovery In EM ex-North Asia Will Continue To Lag   EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming A slow recovery in EM ex-TMT industries explains why EM equity performance outside TMT stocks has been underwhelming. Chart 71EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 72EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming Chart 73EM ex-TMT Equity Performance Has Been Underwhelming   Footnotes

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1China's PMIs Dropped In January January’s official PMI suggests that China’s economic recovery started the year on a weaker note. While both manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs remain in expansionary territory, the moderation was larger than in previous Januarys, which implies that more than seasonal factors were at play (Chart 1). The lockdowns in January due to a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in China are distorting business activities. Moreover, travel restrictions imposed for the upcoming Lunar New Year (LNY) will profoundly affect household consumption and the service sector in February and perhaps into March. Chinese stock prices, on the other hand, registered gains in January in both onshore and offshore markets. As noted in last week’s report, Chinese stocks face downside risks in the near term and we recommend that investors turn cautious. Economic and profit growth may disappoint in the first quarter, against a tightening policy backdrop. Feature Monetary Policy Normalization Remains On Track In the past three weeks, the PBoC drained short-term liquidity on a net basis from the interbank system. This action reversed market expectations in earlier January that the central bank would start to loosen monetary stance. Chart 2Chinas Monetary Policy Unlikely To Change Course When The Economy Strengthens The soft patch in China’s first-quarter economic recovery may prompt the PBoC to temporarily slow the pace of interest rate tightening, but it is unlikely that policymakers will reverse their policy normalization over the next 6 to 12 months (Chart 2). The authorities have been increasingly concerned about asset price inflation. In our view, near-term policy shifts will be tied to asset prices rather than consumer prices. The PBoC stated that its policymaking will be data dependent, but it may not succumb to a marginally slower recovery, particularly if the weakness proves to be transitory. Moreover, the unprecedented growth contraction from Q1 last year will boost economic data in the first three months of this year due to a low base effect. This year’s monetary policy could be reminiscent of 2019 when the PBoC frequently adjusted the short-term interbank rate (i.e. 1- to 7-days) while keeping the longer rate (3-month repo rate) mostly trendless throughout the year (Chart 3). In this scenario, China's 10-year government bond yield will not rise by as much as in 2017-2018 (Chart 4). Without a substantial improvement in profit growth, however, a slower rise in bond yields will be only marginally positive for Chinese stocks (Chart 4, bottom panel).  Chart 3Policy Normalization Remains On Track Chart 4Smaller Bond Yield Hikes Are Marginally Positive For Chinese Stocks   Corporations May Not Deliver Strong Profit Growth In 2021 Chart 5An Impressive Profit Recovery Supported The Stock Rally In 2H20 The newly released industrial profits data showed a sharp rebound in growth this past December, with the annual profit up by 4.1% over 2019. An impressive recovery in profit growth in the second half of last year helped to drive up Chinese stock prices (Chart 5). However, the magnitude of the rally in stock prices has been much more substantial than implied by the underlying profit growth. Industrial profits have barely recovered to their 2018 levels, while A shares have jumped by 40% in the past two years (Chart 5, bottom panel). Moreover, the strong recovery in profit growth may not be sustainable in 2021. While sales revenues may pick up even more this year, operating costs will likely increase, which would compress corporate profit margins (Chart 6). Lower operating costs from last year’s cheaper financing and growth-support policies, such as tax cuts and loan payment deferrals, helped to widen corporate profit margins. China’s social security contribution exemption and reduction policy reduced the cost burden of enterprises by 1.5 trillion yuan in 2020. Moreover, cheaper global commodity and oil prices in earlier 2020 also lowered China’s industrial input prices (Chart 7). Chart 6Increasing Operation Costs May Weigh On Industrial Profit Margins Chart 7Input Prices Have Risen Faster Than Output Prices Chart 8Product Inventories And Account Receivables Have Not Fully Recovered The normalization of policy rates and bond yields along with the rebound in commodity prices will weigh on industrial profit margins and profit growth this year. Furthermore, some cost-reduction benefits will be rolled back: policymakers have announced an end to the social security contribution waiver for corporations in 2021.  However, they will extend the reduction of unemployment insurance from the end of April 2021 to April 2022. It is still unclear whether China will grant the same scale of corporate tax relief this year as it did in 2020. We note that industrial inventory turnover has not recovered to its pre-pandemic level, finished product inventories remain high, and accounts receivable payments are taking longer to reach businesses compared with 2019. All these factors highlight a lack of vigor in the industrial sector’s recovery (Chart 8).  Travel Restrictions Will Dampen Q1 Economic Growth Chart 9A New Wave Of COVID-19 Cases In China New travel restrictions may cause some short-term distortion in China’s aggregate economy in the first quarter. China announced inter-provincial travel constraints for the LNY, effective between January 28 and March 8, due to a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in Beijing and the northern provinces (Chart 9). Local authorities urged migrant workers to stay in their work places and not return to their hometowns. According to the Ministry of Transport, it is estimated that around 50% of migrant workers will remain in place during the LNY. Manufacturing production (secondary industry) may increase slightly because workers will take fewer vacation days during the LNY. Nevertheless, the positive effect will be more than offset by large losses from consumption and tourism (tertiary industry). Reduced consumption from holiday travel, restaurant dining, offline shopping and services will overwhelm online retail sales of goods and services. All these factors will negatively impact Q1 GDP because tertiary industry accounts for around 55% of China’s GDP, a much larger slice than secondary industry1  (Chart 10).    January’s PMI shows that after narrowing in the past six months, the gap between production (supply) and new orders (demand) sub-indexes widened again in January (Chart 11). We expect the travel restrictions to exacerbate the goods oversupply in February and perhaps even into March. Chart 10New Travel Restrictions Will Have A Negative Impact On Q1 GDP Chart 11Goods Oversupply May Last Through Q1 Lingering Deflationary Pressures While headline CPI moved back into inflationary territory in December, mainly driven by food price increases, core CPI has fallen to its lowest level since late 2010 (Chart 12). Prices for some key consumer goods and services remain firmly in deflation and they may deteriorate further in Q1 due to a high price base during last year’s LNY. Chart 12Lingering Deflationary Pressures On Consumer Prices Chart 13PPI Will Likely Turn Positive In Q1 Due To Low Base Effect Chart 14A Stronger RMB Will Exacerbate Deflationary Pressures PPI deflation has eased and will probably turn positive in Q1 this year, supported by an expansionary business cycle and a low base (Chart 13). However, the risk of deflation may resurface in the second half of the year as stimulus effects subside. As such, China’s corporate profit growth will again face downward pressure, which would be exacerbated by a stronger RMB and rising real interest rate (Chart 14). Shipping Disruptions Should Be Transitory China’s export sector remains strong, benefiting from improving global demand and strength in China’s manufacturing supply chains. The drop in January’s PMI export new orders sub-index was mainly seasonal and could be due to the recent pandemic-related logistical disruptions and bottlenecks at ports (Chart 15).  The recent massive jump in freight costs reflects these one-off factors and bouts of inflation this year due to disruptions in logistics, which will likely prove to be transitory (Chart 16). Chart 15Exports Should Remain Robust Through 1H21 Chart 16A Jump In Freight Costs is Probably Transitory Real Estate Sector Under Stricter Scrutiny Housing demand and prices in top-tier cities picked up again in December despite rising mortgage rates and more restrictive bank lending to the real estate sector (Chart 17). In our view, the rebound in floor space started will be short-lived, and the gap between floor space started and completed will continue to converge (Chart 18). Real estate developers face stricter borrowing regulations and the rate of expansion of new projects will slow this year due to shrinking land transfers in 2020. Still, real estate developers will continue to finish their existing projects and promote new home sales. Therefore, on a net basis, we expect real estate investment and construction activities to remain stable in the first half of 2021.  Chart 17Housing Demand In First Tier Cities Climbed Again In December Chart 18A Rebound In Floor Space Started May Be Short lived Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1China’s secondary industry is mainly comprised of mining, manufacturing, the production and supply of electricity, gas and water, and construction. The tertiary industry refers to traffic, storage and mail businesses, information transfer, computer services and software, wholesale and retail trade, accommodation and food, finance, and other services. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights GameStop & Bond Yields: The reflationary conditions that helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Remain overweight the latter versus the former. Italy: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year. Feature Dear Client, The next Global Fixed Income Strategy publication will be a Special Report on Canada, jointly published with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, February 12. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, February 16. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Chart of the WeekExpect More Bubbles & GameStop-Like Silliness The “Reddit Retail Revolution” has exposed the dangers of staying too long in crowded short positions for equities like GameStop, but bond markets were unfazed by the wild moves in stocks last week. US Treasury yields actually crept upwards as the mother of all short squeezes became the top news story in America. Corporate credit spreads worldwide were essentially unchanged, despite the pickup in US equity volatility measures like the VIX. Bond investors recognize that, while the sideshow of rebel traders taking on mighty hedge funds makes for great theater, the underlying reflationary global policy backdrop remains the main driver of global bond yields and credit risk premia (Chart of the Week). Global fiscal policy risks are increasingly tilted towards more stimulus than currently projected, even as the pace of new COVID-19 cases is starting to slow in the US and much of Europe. Vaccine rollouts in many countries are going far slower than expected, which has forced global central banks to commit to maintaining highly accommodative policies - zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE) and cheap bank funding – for longer. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted in his press conference following last week’s FOMC meeting, “There’s nothing more important to the economy now than people getting vaccinated.” Chart 2Vaccine Rollout Critical For Fed/ECB/BoE Policy On that front, the largest economies on both sides of the Atlantic continue to perform poorly. According to data from the Duke Global Health Innovation Center, vaccination coverage (defined as actual vaccination doses acquired on a per person basis) in the US, UK and European Union remains low relative to the intensity of COVID-19 cases within the population (Chart 2) – especially compared to the experience of other major Western countries.1 As we discussed in last week’s report, it is far too soon for investors to fear a hawkish move by global central banks towards tapering asset purchases and signaling future interest rate hikes.2 The GameStop episode may cause some policymakers to worry about the financial stability risks resulting from cheap money policies, but not before the greater risks to global growth from the COVID-19 pandemic are contained. Until vaccination rates rise to levels where there is the potential for herd immunity to be reached, central banks will have little choice by to maintain 0% (or lower) policy rates for longer with continued expansion of their balance sheets (Chart 3). Policy makers will even likely respond with more QE in the event of broad financial market turmoil occurring before inflation expectations return to central bank targets (Chart 4). Chart 3Expect More Global QE ... Chart 4...To Moderate Reflationary Pressure On Bond Yields We continue to recommend the following medium-term positioning for reflation-based themes in global fixed income markets: below-benchmark overall duration exposure, favoring lower-quality corporate bonds versus government debt, and underweighting US Treasuries within global government bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The reflationary conditions that have helped create a backdrop highly conducive to the wild stock market speculation on display last week – namely, aggressive monetary and fiscal policy stimulus to fight the pandemic – remain bearish for global government bonds and bullish for risk assets like global corporate credit. Italy: ECB Policy Trumps Political Uncertainty One of our highest conviction fixed income investment recommendations over the past year has been to overweight Italian government bonds (BTPs). We have maintained that bullish stance with an expectation that Italian bond yields (and spreads over German debt) would converge to the levels of Spain, restoring a relationship last seen sustainably in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5A Small Response To Italian Political Uncertainty The recent collapse of the coalition government of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would, in a more “normal” time, represent a serious threat to the stability of the Italian bond market and our bullish view. Yet the response so far has been muted, with the spread between 10-year BTPs and German Bunds up only 11bps from the mid-January lows. The current political drama stemmed from a disagreement within the ruling coalition over how the government was planning to use Italy’s share of the €750bn EU Recovery Fund. As we go to press, the survival of the current government hangs in the balance, with President Sergio Mattarella testing whether the political parties can form a government with a majority. The initial announcement of that Recovery Fund was considered to be a major reason for a reduced risk premium on Italian government bonds, as it represented a potential step towards greater fiscal integration within Europe. Unfortunately, it took the COVID-19 crisis to get the rest of Europe to offer help to the more economically fragile countries like Italy. The country suffered one of the world’s worst initial waves of the virus and the late-2020 surge has also hit hard – although, more recently, Italy has fared far better than Southern European neighbors Spain and Portugal with a slower pace of new cases and hospitalizations (Chart 6). Italy’s economy has struggled under the weight of some of the most stringent restrictions on activity within Europe to stop the spread of the virus, according to the Oxford COVID-19 database (Chart 7). Domestic spending on retail and recreation activities is estimated to be down nearly 50% from the start of the pandemic, a hit to the economy made worse by the collapse of tourism revenue that will take years to fully recover. In other words, Italy desperately needs the money from the EU Recovery Fund. Chart 6Italy's COVID-19 Situation Is Slowly Improving Chart 7A Big Economic Hit To Italy From COVID-19 Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and his Italia Viva party precipitated the crisis by withdrawing their support from Conte’s coalition, but are in a weak position electorally. They claim that the funds should be handled by parliament, rather than a technocratic council overseen by Conte, and devoted to long-term structural reform rather than short-term fixes. Renzi’s withdrawal from the ruling coalition, however, is not grounded in substantial disagreements over fiscal spending: First, the EU recovery fund requires all member states to use 30% of the funds on climate change initiatives and 25% on digitizing the economy, and none of the major parties oppose this use of the €209 billion coming their way. Second, Prime Minister Conte adjusted his spending plans, nearly doubling the allocations for health, education, and culture, in response to Renzi’s criticisms that not enough spending focused on structural needs. Third, Renzi wants to tap €36 billion from the European Stability Mechanism in addition to taking recovery funds, but this would come with austerity measures attached (which is self-defeating) and would be opposed by the left-wing populist Five Star Movement, a linchpin in the ruling coalition. Even if the immediate political turmoil passes, there will still be an elevated risk of an early election as the various parties jockey for power in the wake of the cataclysmic pandemic, and as they eye control of the presidency, which is up for grabs in 2022. The only real change on the fiscal front would come if the populist League and Brothers of Italy ended up winning a majority and control of government in the eventual elections, as they favor much greater fiscal largesse. It is possible that Conte will survive as his personal support has increased throughout the crisis. Otherwise, former ECB President Mario Draghi could replace him, although he is now less popular than Conte. President Mattarella is not eager to dissolve parliament given that the combined strength of right-wing anti-establishment parties is greater than that of the centrist and left-wing parties in the ruling coalition judging by public opinion polls (Chart 8). Yet sooner rather than later, a new election looms. The country already completed an electoral reform via a referendum in September 2020 that cleared the way for a new election to be held. Chart 8Unstable Coalition Wants To Delay Election As Populist Right Slightly Ahead Chart 9Waning Immigration Undercuts Italian Populists (For Now) The current crisis is different than past bouts of Italian political uncertainty as there is less of a question over Italy’s commitment to the euro - which in the past has resulted in higher Italian bond yields and wider BTP-Bund spreads as markets had to price in euro breakup risk. The current coalition, and any new coalition cobbled out of the current morass to prevent a snap election, are united in their opposition to the populist League and the Brothers of Italy. They will strive to remain in power to distribute the EU recovery funds and secure the Italian presidency for an establishment political elite – one, like Mattarella, who will act as a check on the power of any future populist government and its cabinet choices, just as Mattarella himself hobbled the League’s most radical proposals from 2018-19. Chart 10Italian Support For EU & The Euro Sufficient But Not Ironclad While the right-wing “sovereigntist” parties lead in the opinion polls, the League has lost support since its leader Matteo Salvini’s failed bid to trigger an election in August 2019 and especially since the COVID-19 outbreak has boosted the establishment parties and coalition members. Anti-immigration sentiment, a key support of this faction, has subsided as the EU has cut down the influx of immigrants (Chart 9). Salvini and his supporters have also compromised their euroskepticism to appeal to a broader audience as 60% of the populace still approves of the euro – although this support is falling again and bears monitoring (Chart 10). Another economic shock or a new wave of immigration could put the right-wing populists into power. Moreover, an unstable ruling coalition will lose support over time in what will be a difficult post-pandemic environment. Thus, the risk of euroskepticism and fiscal populism will persist over the coming two years, even though they are most likely contained at the moment. Has The ECB Removed The Tail Risk Of BTPs? The ECB has shown they are willing to use their balance sheet via QE and cheap bank funding tools like TLTROs to support the euro area’s weakest link – Italy. Thus, any upward pressure on Italian bond yields/spreads from the current political fracas will almost certainly be met by a more aggressive ECB response (more QE for longer, new TLTROs), limiting the damage to the Italian bond market. Chart 11What Would Italian Loan Growth Be WITHOUT ECB Support? The ECB’s TLTROs appear to have been helpful for Italy, whose LTRO allotments represent 14.7% of total bank lending (Chart 11). Yet Spanish banks have relied on cheap ECB funding to a similar degree, while the growth of bank lending in Italy has substantially lagged that of Spain since the start of the pandemic in 2020 – even with Italy having less restrictive lending standards according to the ECB’s Bank Lending Survey. The ECB has also helped Italy by being more flexible with its purchases of Italian government bonds within both the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) that began in response to COVID-19. ECB data show that, after the worst days of the COVID-19 market rout last spring when the 10-year Italian bond yield soared from 1% to 2.4% over just three weeks, the ECB increased the Italy share of its bond buying to levels well above the Capital Key weighting scheme that “officially” governs the bond purchases. This was true within both the PSPP (Chart 12) and the PSPP (Chart 13). Chart 12ECB Paying Less Attention To The Capital Key In The PSPP ... Chart 13… And The PEPP Chart 14Stay Overweight Italian Government Bonds The ECB’s actions helped stabilize Italian bond yields, sowing the seeds of the major decline in yields that took place between April and September. Once Italian bond yields fell back to pre-pandemic levels, the ECB slowed the pace of its purchases of Italian bonds to levels at or below the Capital Key weights. Thus, the ECB was willing to deviate from its own self-imposed rules for its bond purchase schemes in order to ease financial conditions in Italy during a pandemic. There is no reason to believe that would not occur again if yields rise because of a growing political risk premium while the pandemic was still raging. A prolonged period of political uncertainty in Italy, especially one that ends with fresh elections, could even force the ECB to maintain or extend its full current mix of policies and not just QE. For example, a new TLTRO could be initiated later this year, or the subsidized cost of banks borrowing from existing TLTROs could be reduced further, all in an effort to help boost Italian lending activity. More likely, the PEPP could be expanded in size or extended beyond the current March 2022 expiration, or the PSPP could be upsized to allow for more purchases of Italian debt (Chart 14). From an investment strategy perspective, there is still a strong case for overweighting Italian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios, even with the current political uncertainty. The weight of ECB policy actions removes much of the usual upside risk to BTP yields. However, investors will likely be more reluctant to drive Italian yields (and spreads versus Germany) to fresh lows if there is a risk of early elections, as we expect. Italian bonds are now more of a pure carry with yields trapped between politics and QE, but that still justifies an overweight stance - especially given the puny levels of alternative sovereign bond yields available elsewhere in the euro area. Bottom Line: The latest bout of political uncertainty in Italy has only paused the medium-term spread compression story for BTPs versus core European government bonds, for two reasons: a) this political battle has, to date, had far less of the fiscal populism and anti-Europe flavor of past conflicts; and b) the ECB has shown that it will aggressively use its balance sheet to prevent a spike in Italian bond yields. Maintain an overweight stance on Italy in global bond portfolios, even with early elections likely later this year.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Duke Global Health Innovation Center data on COVID-19 can be found here: https://launchandscalefaster.org/COVID-19. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "A Pause, Not A Peak, In Global Bond Yields", dated January 26, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights US-China tensions are escalating over the Taiwan Strait as Beijing tests the new Biden administration, yet financial markets are flying high and unprepared for a resumption of structurally elevated geopolitical risk. US restrictions on Chinese tech and arms sales, US internal political divisions, Taiwanese independence activists, China’s power grab in Hong Kong, and aggressive foreign policy from Xi Jinping create what could become a perfect storm. The rattling of sabers can escalate further as a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” has been a long time coming – though “gun to head” we do not think China’s civilian leadership is ready to initiate a war over Taiwan. Biden’s shift to a more defensive US strategy on tech offers Beijing the far less risky alternative of continuing its current (very successful) long game. We are closing most of our risk-on, cyclical trades and shifting to a neutral position until we can get a better read on how far the crisis will escalate. Maintain hedges and safe-haven trades: gold, yen, health stocks, an Indian overweight in EM, and defense stocks relative to others. Feature President Joe Biden faces his first crisis as the US and China rattle sabers over the Taiwan Strait. The crisis does not come at a surprise to watchers of geopolitics but it could produce further negative surprises for financial markets that are just starting to take note of it. This premier geopolitical risk combined with vaccine rollout problems, weak economic data releases, and signs of froth sent global equities down 2% over the past five days. The US 10-year Treasury yield fell to 1%, the USD-CNY rose by 0.03%, gold fell by 0.6%, and copper fell by 2%. As things stand today, we are prepared to buy on the dip but we are closing most of our long bets and positioning for a big dip now that our premier geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait shows signs of materializing. A series of Chinese air force drills have cut across the far southwestern corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the past week, giving alarm to the Taiwanese military (Map 1). Beijing is sending a clear warning to the Biden administration that Taiwan is its “red line” – namely Taiwanese independence but also Beijing’s access to Taiwanese-made semiconductors. There is not yet a clear signal that China is about to attack or invade Taiwan but an attack is possible. Investors should not underrate the significance of a show of force over Taiwan at this juncture. Map 1Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 24, 2021 Chart 1Global Trade Troubles We are also taking this opportunity to book a 37% gain on our long US energy trade. Global politics are fundamentally anarchic in the context of the US’s relative geopolitical decline, and internal divisions and distractions, and the simultaneous economic shocks that have knocked global trade off course (Chart 1), jeopardizing the newfound success and stability of the ambitious emerging market challengers to the United States. Geopolitical Risk Is Back (Already) Chart 2US And China Lead Global Growth Recovery The US and China have snapped back more rapidly than other economies from the COVID-19 pandemic despite their entirely different experiences (Chart 2). The virus erupted in China but its draconian lockdowns halted the outbreak while it unleashed a wave of monetary and fiscal stimulus to reboot the economy. The US showed itself unwilling and unable to maintain strict lockdowns, leaving its economy freer to operate, and yet also unleashed a wave of stimulus. The US stimulus is the biggest in the world yet China’s is underrated in Chart 3 due to its reliance on quasi-fiscal credit expansion, which amounted to 8.5% of GDP. That goes on top of the 5.6% of GDP fiscal expansion shown here. For most of the past year financial markets have priced the positive side of this stimulus – the fact that it prevented larger layoffs, bankruptcies, and defaults and launched a new economic cycle. Going forward they will face the negative side, which includes financial instability and foreign policy assertiveness. Countries that are domestically unstable yet fueled by government spending can take risks that they would not otherwise take if their economy depended on private or foreign sentiment. The checks and balances that prevent conflict during normal times have been reduced. Chart 3US Leads Stimulus Blowout This Time, Though China Stimulus Larger Than Appears Global economic policy uncertainty has fallen from recent peaks around the world but it remains elevated in the US, China, and Russia, which are engaged in a great power struggle that will continue in the coming years (Chart 4). This struggle has escalated with each new crisis point, from 2001 to 2008 to 2015 to 2020, and shows no sign of abating in 2021. Chart 4APolicy Uncertainty Still Rising Here ... Chart 4B... And Can Easily Revive Here   Chart 5Terrorism Falling In World Ex-US (For Now) Europe, the UK, Australia, and various emerging markets will suffer spillover effects from this geopolitical struggle as well as from their own domestic turmoil in the wake of the global recession. Immigration and terrorism have dropped off in recent years but will revive in the Middle East and elsewhere when the aftershocks of the global crisis lead to new state failures, weakened governments, and militant extremism (Chart 5). In many countries, domestic political risks appear contained today but the reality is that social unrest and political opposition will mount over time if unemployment is not dealt with and inflation starts to climb. These two factors combine form the “Misery Index,” a useful indicator of socio-political discontent. India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia are just a few of the major emerging markets that face high or rising misery indexes and hence persistent forces for political change (Chart 6). Chart 6AMore Social And Political Unrest To Come Chart 6BMore Social And Political Unrest To Come So far there have not been many changes in government – the US is the major exception. But change will accelerate from here. It is not hard to see that weakening popular support for national leaders and their ruling coalitions will result in more snap elections, election upsets, and surprise events in the coming months and years (Chart 7). Chart 7Changing Of The Guard Under Way In Global Politics Chart 8Italian Elections Heighten Sovereign Spread For example, Italian voters likely face an early election even though Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte saw some of the best opinion polling of any first-world leader since COVID emerged. Last year we identified Italy as a leading candidate for an early snap election and we still maintain that an election is the likeliest outcome of the crumbling ruling coalition. The pandemic has created havoc in the country and now the ruling parties want to take advantage of the situation to strengthen their hand in distributing the $254 billion in European recovery funds destined for Italy. A new electoral law was passed in the fall, enabling an election to go forward, and the leading parties all hope to have control of parliament when the next presidential election occurs in early 2022, since the president is a key player in government and cabinet formation. Political risk is therefore set to increase and boost the risk premium in Italian bonds, producing a counter-trend spread widening for the coming 12 months or so (Chart 8). Anti-establishment right-wing parties, which taken together lead in public opinion, threaten to blow out the Italian budget. It is not a foregone conclusion that they will prevail – and these parties have moderated their rhetoric on the euro and monetary union – but it is an understated risk at present and has some staying power, even if moderate by the standards of geopolitical risks in other regions. Russia also faces rising political and geopolitical risk in the aftermath of the pandemic, which has had an outsized effect on a population that is disproportionately old and unhealthy (Chart 9). Moscow is now witnessing the most serious outpouring of government opposition since 2011 despite the fact that its cyclical economic conditions are not the worst among the emerging markets. The economic recovery is likely to be stunted by the new US administration’s efforts to extend and expand sanctions and any geopolitical conflicts that ensue. We remain negative on Russian equities as we have for the past two years and look at other emerging market oil plays as offering the same value without the geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 9Russian Social Unrest Aggravated By Pandemic Chart 10Russian Equities Face Persistent Geopolitical Risk Investors do not need to care about social unrest in itself but do need to pay attention when it leads to a change in government or the overall policy setting. This is what we will monitor for the countries highlighted in these charts as being especially at risk. Italy and Spain are the most likely to see government change in the developed world, though we should note that however stable Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats appear as Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down, there could still be an upset this fall (Chart 11). France’s Emmanuel Macron is still positioned for re-election next year but his legislative control is clearly in jeopardy – and it is at least worth noting that the right-wing anti-establishment leader Marine Le Pen has started to move up in the polls for the first time since 2017, even though she has a very low chance of actually taking power (Chart 12). Chart 11German Election Not A Foregone Conclusion Chart 12Signs Of Life For Marine Le Pen? Chart 13UK Now Turns To Keeping Scotland Even the UK, which has found the “middle way” solution to the Brexit imbroglio, in true British form, faces a significant increase in political risk beginning with local elections in May. If these produce a resounding victory for the Scottish National Party then it will interpret the vote as a mandate to pursue a second independence referendum, which will be a narrow affair even if Prime Minister Boris Johnson is tentatively favored to head it off (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Financial markets have been preoccupied with the pandemic and global stimulus. But now political and geopolitical risks are underrated once again. They are starting to rear their heads, not only in the US-China-Russia power struggle but also in the domestic politics of countries that face high policy uncertainty and high or rising misery indexes. Biden And Xi Bound To Collide It is too soon to identify the “Biden Doctrine” in American foreign policy, as the new president has not yet taken significant action, but the all-too-predictable showdown in the Taiwan Strait could provide the occasion. Since the fall of 2019 we have warned that US-China great power competition would intensify despite any “phase one” trade deal. President Trump undertook a flurry of significant punitive measures on China during his lame duck months in office and now Beijing is pressuring the Biden administration to reverse these measures or at least call a halt to them. The fundamental premise of Biden’s campaign against President Trump was that he would restore America’s active role in international affairs against the supposed isolationism of Trump. Of course, the fact that the Democrats gained full control of Congress means that Biden will not be restricted to foreign policy over his four-year term but will be consumed with trying to cut deals on Capitol Hill to pass his domestic agenda. Nevertheless Biden’s foreign policy schedule is already packed as he is rattling sabers with China, issuing warnings to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to signal that he intends to reformulate the Iranian nuclear deal. Americans broadly favor an active role in the world, which is clear from opinion polling in the wake of Trump’s challenge to the status quo – they are weary of wars in the Middle East but are not showing appetite for a broader withdrawal from global affairs (Chart 14). Similarly polling on global trade shows that Trump, if anything, roused the public’s support for trade despite French or Japanese levels of skepticism about it. Chart 14Americans Still Favor Global Engagement The implication is that the US budget deficit will remain larger for longer and that the US trade deficit will balloon amidst a surge in domestic demand. Trump’s attempt to shrink trade deficits without shrinking the budget deficit (or overall demand) proved economically impossible. Chart 15Biden And The US Role In The World The Biden administration is opting for expanding the twin deficits albeit at a much greater risk to the dollar’s value. Markets have already discounted this shift to the point that the dollar is experiencing a bounce from having reached oversold levels. The bounce will continue but it is against the grain, the fall will resume later, as indicated by these policies. Another implication is that defense spending will not fall much due to the geopolitical pressures facing the Biden administration. Non-defense spending will go up but defense spending will remain at least flat as a share of overall output (Chart 15). With this policy setting in the US, policy developments in China made it inevitable that US-China strategic tensions would resume where Trump left off despite Biden’s campaign platform of de-emphasizing the China threat. In the long run, Biden’s push for renewed engagement with China runs up against the fact that Beijing’s overarching political and economic strategy is focused on import substitution and technological acquisition, as outlined in the fourteenth five-year plan. China’s share of global exports has grown even larger despite the pandemic and yet China is weaning itself off of global imports in pursuit of strategic self-sufficiency. The US will be left with less global export share, less market access in China, and ongoing dependency on trade surplus nations to buy its debt (Chart 16). Unless, that is, the Biden administration engages in very robust diplomacy and is willing to take geopolitical risks not unlike those that Trump took. Chart 16China's Role In The World Motivates Opposition Chart 17China Plays Are Getting Stretched One of the clear takeaways from the above is that industrial metals and China plays, like the Australian dollar and Swedish equities, are facing a pullback. Though Chinese policymakers will ultimately accommodate the economy, the combination of a domestic policy tug-of-war and a renewal of US-China tensions will take the air out of these recent outperformers (Chart 17). Bottom Line: The Biden administration faces a resumption in strategic tensions with China. First, the immediate crisis over the Taiwan Strait can escalate from here (see below). Second, the US-China economic conflict is set to escalate over the long run with the US pursuing an unsustainable policy of maximum reflation while China turns away from the liberal “reform and opening” agenda that enabled positive US-China ties since 1979. This combination points to a large increase in the US trade dependency on China even as China grows more independent of the US and technologically capable. This result ensures that tensions will persist over the long run. Is The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Already Here? Biden may be forced into significant foreign policy action right away in the Taiwan Strait, where General Secretary Xi Jinping has put his fledgling administration to the test. Over the past week Beijing has sent a large squadron of nuclear-capable bombers and fighter jets to cut across the far southwest corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (Map 2). This activity is a continuation of an upgraded tempo of military drills around the island, including a flight across the median line last year, and follows an alleged army build-up across from the island last year.1 The US for its part has upgraded its freedom of navigation operations over the past several years, including in the Taiwan Strait (though not yet putting an aircraft carrier group into the strait as in the 1990s). Map 2Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 25-28, 2021 In response to China’s sorties on January 23, the US State Department urged the People’s Republic to stop “attempts to intimidate its neighbors, including Taiwan,” called for mainland dialogue with Taiwan’s “elected representatives” (albeit not naming anyone), declared that the US would deepen ties with Taiwan, and pledged a “rock-solid” commitment to the island. Not coincidentally the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier arrived in the South China Sea on the same day as China’s largest sortie, January 24. Meanwhile a Chinese government spokesman said the military drills should be seen as a “solemn warning” to the Biden administration that China will reunify the island by force if necessary. China is not only concerned about Taiwanese secession and US-Taiwan defense relations, as always, but is specifically concerned that the Biden administration will persist with the technological “blockade” that the Trump administration imposed on Huawei, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), their suppliers, and a range of other Chinese state-owned enterprises and tech firms. Neither the US nor Chinese statements have yet made a definitive break with the longstanding policy framework on Taiwan that first enabled US-China détente and engagement. The US State Department reiterated its commitment to the diplomatic documents that frame the relationship with the People’s Republic and the Republic of China, namely the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances. It did not make explicit mention of the One China Policy although the US version of that policy is incorporated in the first of the three communiques (the 1972 Shanghai Communique). However, China may not be appeased by this statement. Xi Jinping has gradually shifted the language in major Communist Party policy statements over the past several years to indicate a greater willingness to use force against Taiwan, even suggesting that he envisions the reunification of China by 2035.2 The Trump administration’s offensives have accelerated this security dilemma. In addition to export controls on high tech, Trump signed several significant bills on Taiwan into law over the course of his term that aim to upgrade the relationship. These include the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 at the end of last year, which calls for deeper US-Taiwan relations, greater Taiwanese involvement in international institutions, larger US arms sales to support Taiwan’s defense strategy, and more diplomatic exchanges.3 Separately, the US and Taiwan also signed a science-and-technology cooperation agreement on December 15 and the Biden administration is interested in negotiating a free trade agreement.4 A few additional points: The struggle over access to Taiwan’s state-of-the-art semiconductor production continues to escalate. The Trump administration concluded its tenure by cutting off American exports of chips, parts, designs, and knowhow to Chinese telecom giant Huawei, thus putting Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) into the position of having to halt sales of certain goods to the mainland. TSMC accounts for one-fifth of global semiconductor capacity and produces the smallest, fastest, and most efficient chips. China’s SMIC has been hamstrung by these controls as well as Huawei and other Chinese tech champions. This issue remains unresolved and is the primary immediate driver of conflict between the US and China since both economies would suffer if semiconductor supplies were severed. The US’s capability of imposing a tech blockade on China threatens its long-term productivity and hence potentially regime survival, while China’s capability of attacking Taiwan threatens the critical supply lines of the US and its northeast Asian allies, including essential computer chips for US military needs (the main reason the US has tried to strong-arm TSMC into building a fabrication plant in Arizona).5 US arms sales en route to Taiwan. While there are rumors that the Biden administration will delay these sales, the Taiwanese government claims they have been assured that the transfers will go forward. This arms package does not include the most provocative weapons systems, such as F-35 fighter jets, but it does contain advanced weapons systems and weapons that can be seen as offensive rather than defensive. These include truck-mounted rocket launchers, precision strike missiles, 66 F-16 fighter jets, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, subsea mines, and advanced drones. So it is possible that Beijing will put its foot down to prevent the transfer, just as it tried to halt the less-sensitive transfer of THAAD missiles to South Korea during the last US presidential transition. If this should be the case then it will cause a major escalation in tensions until the US either halts the arms transfer or completes it – and completing the transfer, if China issues an ultimatum, will lead to conflict. Growth of “secessionist forces” in Taiwan. Chinese media have specifically cited a political “alliance” that formed on January 24 and aims to revise the island’s democratic constitution. The Taiwanese public no longer sees itself primarily as Chinese but as Taiwanese and is increasingly opposed to eventual reunification. What is the end-game? First, as stated, the current escalation in tensions can go much further in the coming weeks and months. We are not prepared to sound the “all clear” as a confrontation has been building for years and could conceivably amount to Cuban Missile Crisis proportions, which would likely trigger a bear market. Second, we do not yet see China staging a full-scale attack or invasion on Taiwan. China’s goal is to continue expanding its economy and technology, its economic heft in Asia and the world, and thus its global influence and military power. It cannot achieve this goal if it is utterly severed from Taiwan, but it also cannot achieve this goal if it precipitates a war with not only Taiwan but also the US, Japan, other US allies, and a devastation of the very semiconductor foundries upon which Taiwan’s critical importance stands. Playing the long game of growing its economy and taking incremental steps of imposing its political supremacy has paid off so far, including in Hong Kong and the South China Sea. Both Russia’s and China’s gradual slices of regional power have demonstrated that the US does not have the appetite, focus, and resolve to fight small wars at present – whereas Washington is untested on its commitment to major wars such as an invasion of Taiwan would precipitate. At very least China needs to determine whether the Biden administration intends to impose a technological blockade, as the Trump administration looked to do. Biden has so far outlined a “defensive game” of securing US networks, preventing US trade in dual-use technologies that strengthen China’s military, on-shoring semiconductor production, and accelerating US research and development. This leaves open the possibility of issuing waivers for trade in US-made or US-designed items that do not have military purposes, albeit with the US retaining the possibility of removing the waivers if China does not reciprocate. This strategy amounts to what Biden’s “Asia Tsar,” Kurt Campbell, has called “stable competition.” Therefore the earliest indications from the Biden administration suggest that it will seek a lowering of temperature while defending the US’s red lines – and this should prevent a full-scale Taiwan war in the short run, though it does not prevent a major diplomatic crisis at any time. If Biden does in fact pursue this more accommodative approach, and seeks to reengage China, then that Beijing has a much lower-cost strategy that is immediately available, as opposed to an all-or-nothing gambit to stage the largest amphibious assault since D-Day, which is by no means assured to succeed and could in the worst case provoke a nuclear war. This strategy includes negotiating waivers on US tech restrictions, accelerating its high-tech import substitution strategy, and continuing to poach the talent from Taiwan and steal the technology needed to circumvent US restrictions. As long as Washington does not make a dash for a total blockade, Beijing should be expected to pursue this alternate strategy. Investment Takeaways The market is not priced for a serious escalation in US-China-Taiwan tensions. If there is a 17% chance of a 30%-40% drawdown in equities on jitters over a major war, then equities should suffer a full 7%+ correction to discount the possibility. While the prospects of full-scale war are much lower, at say 5%, these odds could escalate rapidly if the two sides fail to mitigate a diplomatic or military crisis through red telephone communications. Chart 18China/Taiwan Policy Uncertainty Will Converge To Upside While Chinese policy uncertainty remains elevated, it still has plenty of room to rise. It has diverged unsustainably from Taiwanese uncertainty, which only recently showed signs of ticking up in response to manifest strategic dangers. This gap will converge to the upside as US-China tensions persist and the global news media gradually turns its spotlight away from Donald Trump, alerting financial markets to the persistence of the world’s single most important geopolitical risk right under their nose (Chart 18). Inverting our market-based Geopolitical Risk Indicators, so that falling risk is shown as a rising green line, it becomes apparent that Chinese equities and Taiwanese equities have gone vertical, have only started to correct, and are highly exposed to exogenous events stemming from their fundamentally unstable political relationship. Hong Kong stocks, by contrast, have performed in line with the market’s perception of their political risk, so that there is less discrepancy between market sentiment and reality – even though they will also sell off in the event that this week’s events escalate into a larger confrontation (Chart 19). Chart 19Geopolitical Risks Lurking In Asian Equities Chart 20Stay Long Korea / Short Taiwan Due To Geopolitical Risk South Korean stocks were also overstretched and due for correction. We have long advocated a pair trade favoring Korean over Taiwanese stocks to capture the relative geopolitical risk as well as more favorable valuations in Korea (Chart 20). The ingredients for a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis are all present. This week’s showdown could escalate further. Global and East Asian equities are overbought and vulnerable to a larger correction, especially Taiwanese stocks. US equities are also sky-high and vulnerable to a larger correction, although they would be favored relative to the rest of the world in the event of a full-fledged crisis. Chart 21Geopolitical Flare-Up Would Upset This Trend We maintain our various geopolitical longs and hedges, including gold, Japanese yen, an Indian overweight within EM, and health stocks. We remain long global defense stocks as well. Because our base case is that the current crisis will not result in war, but rather high diplomatic tensions, we are inclined to buy on the dips. But we expect a big dip even in the event of a merely diplomatic crisis that involves no jets shot down or ships sunk. Therefore for now we are closing long municipal bonds versus Treasuries, long international stocks versus American, long GBP-EUR, long Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, and long value versus growth stocks. These trades should be reinitiated once we have clarity on the magnitude of the US-China crisis, given the extremely accommodative economic and policy backdrop, which will, if anything, become more accommodative if geopolitical risks materialize yet fall short of total war. Oil and copper would suffer relative to gold in the meantime (Chart 21). Our remaining strategic portfolio still favors stocks that would ultimately benefit from instability in Greater China, such as European industrials relative to global, Indian equities relative to Chinese, and South Korean equities relative to Taiwanese. While the spike in tensions reinforces our conclusion in last week’s report that long-dated Chinese government bonds should rally on Taiwan risk, this recommendation was made in the context of discussing domestic Chinese markets and is primarily intended for mainland investors or those with a mandate to invest in Chinese assets. Foreign investors could conceivably be exposed to sanctions or capital controls in the event of a major crisis – as we have long flagged is also a risk with foreign holders of Russian ruble-denominated bonds. We have made a note in our trade table accordingly.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Brad Lendon, "Almost 40 Chinese warplanes breach Taiwan Strait median line; Taiwan President calls it a 'threat of force,'" CNN, September 21, 2020, cnn.com. 2 Richard C. Bush, "8 key things to notice from Xi Jinping’s New Year speech on Taiwan," Brookings Institute, January 7, 2019, brookings.com. 3 Trump also signed the Taiwan Travel Act on March 16, 2018 and the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act on March 26, 2019. For the Taiwan Assurance Act, see Kelvin Chen, "Trump Signs Taiwan Assurance Act Into Law," Taiwan News, December 28, 2020, taiwannews.com. 4 Jason Pan, "Alliance formed to draft Taiwanese constitution," Taipei Times, January 24, 2021, taipeitimes.com; Emerson Lim and Matt Yu, "Taiwan, U.S. sign agreement on scientific cooperation," Focus Taiwan, December 18, 2020, focustaiwan.tw; Ryan Hass, "A case for optimism on US-Taiwan relations," Brookings Institute, November 30, 2020, brookings.com. 5 Thomas J. Shattuck, "Stuck in the Middle: Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry, the U.S.-China Tech Fight, and Cross-Strait Stability," Foreign Policy Research Institute, Orbis (65:1) 2021, pp. 101-17, www.fpri.org. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Highlights Global Yields: The fall in global bond yields over the past two weeks represents a corrective pullback from an overly rapid rise in inflation expectations, especially in the US. The underlying reflationary themes that drove yields higher, however, remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Duration Strategy: We maintain our broad core recommendations on global government bonds: stay below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, overweighting non-US markets versus US Treasuries, while favoring inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. Australia vs. US: Following from the conclusions of our Special Report on Australia published last week, we are initiating a new cross-country spread trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio: long 10-year Australian government bond futures versus short 10-year US Treasury futures. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Banks Will Stay Very Dovish The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield fell to 1.04% yesterday as this report went to press, after reaching a high of 1.18% on January 12th. 10-year government bond yields have also fallen over the same period, but by lesser amounts ranging between 5-10bps, in Germany, France, the UK and Australia. We view these moves as a consolidation before the next upleg in global yields, and not the start of a new bullish cyclical phase for government bond markets. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all showing diminished pressure for easier monetary policies, but are not yet signaling a need for tightening to slow overheating economies (Chart of the Week). Realized inflation and breakevens from inflation-linked bond markets remain below levels consistent with central bank policy targets, even in the US after the big run-up in TIPS breakevens. Reflationary, pro-growth monetary (and fiscal) policies are still necessary. Policymakers can talk all they want about optimism on future global growth with COVID-19 vaccines now being rolled out in more countries, but it is far too soon to expect any shift away from a maximum dovish monetary policy stance that is bearish for bonds and bullish for risk assets. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall stance on global cyclical duration exposure, with a country allocation focused most intensely on underweighting US Treasuries. The Global Backdrop Remains Bond Bearish Optimism over a potential boom in global economic growth in the second half of 2021 - fueled by the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, massive pandemic income support programs and other increased government spending measures, and ongoing easy monetary policies – has become an increasingly consensus view among investors. As evidence of this, the latest edition of the widely-followed Bank of America Fund Managers’ Survey highlighted that the biggest tail risks for financial markets all relate to that bullish narrative: a disappointing vaccine rollout, a “Tantrum” in bond markets, a bursting of the US equity bubble and rising inflation expectations.1 We can understand why investors would be most worried about the success of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution which has started with mixed results. According to the Oxford University COVID-19 database, the UK has now delivered 10.38 vaccinations per 100 people, while the US has given out 6.6 shots per 100 people (Chart 2). By comparison, the pace of the vaccine rollout has been far slower in Germany, France, Italy and China. Note that this data shows total vaccine shots administered and does not represent a count of the total number of inoculated citizens, as a full dose requires two shots. Chart 2Vaccine Rollout So Far: Operation Impulse Power Success on the vaccine front is what is needed for investors to envision an eventual end to the pandemic … or at least an end to the growth-damaging lockdowns related to the pandemic. So a slower-than-expected rollout does justify somewhat lower bond yields, all else equal. However, the news on the spread of the virus itself has turned more encouraging during this “dark winter” of COVID-19. The latest data on new cases of the virus shows that the severe surge in the US and UK appears to have peaked (Chart 3). In the euro area, the overall number of new cases is at best stabilizing with more divergence between countries: cases are continuing to explode higher in Italy and Spain but slowing in large economies like Germany and the Netherlands (and stabilizing in France). The growth in new virus-related hospitalizations, however, has clearly slowed across those major economies, including in places with surging new case numbers like Italy. Chart 3Lockdowns Will Not Last Forever Chart 4European Lockdowns Taking A Bite Out Of Growth A reduction in the strain on hospital bed capacity gives hope that the current severe economic restrictions seen in Europe and parts of the US can soon begin to be lifted. This can help sustain the cyclical upturn in global economic growth, especially in countries where lockdowns have been most onerous like the UK, which saw a sharp plunge in the preliminary Markit PMI data for January (Chart 4). So on the COVID-19 front, we interpret the overall backdrop as more positive for global growth expectations, and hence more supportive of higher global bond yields. Chart 5Reflationary Expectations Remain Well Entrenched Expectations are still tilted towards rising yields, judging by the ZEW survey of global financial market professionals (Chart 5). The survey shows that the bias continues to lean towards expectations of both higher long-term interest rates and inflation, but without any expected increase in short-term interest rates. This fits with the overall yield curve steepening theme that has driven global bond markets since last summer, which has been consistent with the dovish messaging from central banks. The Fed, ECB and other major central banks continue to project a very slow recovery of labor markets from the COVID-19 shock, with no return to pre-pandemic levels until at least 2024 (Chart 6). This is forcing central banks to maintain as dovish a policy mix as possible, including projecting stable policy rates over the next several years supported by ongoing quantitative easing (QE). These policies have helped support the rise in global inflation expectations and helped fuel the “Everything Rally” that has stretched the valuations of risk assets worldwide. So it is also not surprising that worries about a bond “Tantrum”, rising inflation expectations and a bursting of equity bubbles would also top the tail risks highlighted in that Bank of America investor survey. All are connected to the next moves of the major global central banks. Chart 6Central Banks Must Stay Easy For A Long Time On that front, we are not worried about any premature shift to a less dovish stance, given the lingering uncertainties over COVID-19 and with actual inflation – and inflation expectations - remaining below central bank targets. Several officials from the world’s most important central bank, the US Federal Reserve, have made comments in recent weeks discussing the outlook for US monetary policy. A few FOMC members raised the possibility of a potential discussion of slower bond purchases by year-end, if the US economy grows faster than expected and the vaccine rollout goes smoothly. Although the majority of FOMC members, including Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida, noted that any such discussion was premature and would not take place until 2022 at the earliest. In our view, the Fed will not begin to signal any shift to a less dovish policy stance before US inflation and inflation expectations have all sustainably returned to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 7). That means seeing TIPS breakevens rise to the 2.3-2.5% range that has prevailed during previous periods when headline PCE inflation as at or above 2%. Chart 7US Inflation Still Justifies Maximum Fed Dovishness Chart 8The Fed Is Not Yet Worried About Overly Easy Financial Conditions Such a shift by the Fed could happen by year-end, but only if there was also concern within the FOMC that financial conditions in the US had become overly stimulative and risked future instability of overvalued asset prices (Chart 8). At the present time, however, the Fed will continue to focus on policy reflation and worry about any negative spillover effects on financial markets at a later date. Financial conditions are also a potential issue for other central banks, but from a different perspective – currencies. Financial conditions in more export-focused economies like the euro area and Australia are more heavily influenced by the impact on competitiveness from currency values (Chart 9). Chart 9Currencies Dictate Financial Conditions Outside The US Chart 10Projected Relative QE Favors UST Underperformance The combination of the Fed’s lingering dovish policy bias and the improving global growth backdrop should keep the US dollar under cyclical downward pressure. The weaker greenback means that non-US central banks must try to maintain an even more dovish bias than the Fed to limit the upward pressure on their own currencies. A desire to fight unwanted currency appreciation via a more rapid pace of QE relative to the Fed – at a time when US Treasury yields are likely to remain under upward pressure from rising inflation expectations – should support a narrowing of non-US vs US bond spreads over the next 6-12 months (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The underlying reflationary themes that drove global bond yields higher over the past several months remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, overweighting non-US government bond markets versus US Treasuries, while also favoring global inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. A New Cross-Country Spread Trade: Long Australian Government Bonds Vs. US Treasuries In last week’s Special Report on Australia, which we co-authored jointly with BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy, we concluded that a neutral exposure to Australian government debt within global bond portfolios was still warranted.2 Uncertainty over the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) reaction function and the future path of Australia’s yield beta, which measures the sensitivity of Australian yields to global yields and remains elevated, justified a neutral stance. We do, however, have a higher conviction view that Australian government debt will outperform US Treasuries – especially given our expectation that US yields have more cyclical upside – given that the yield beta of the former to the latter has declined (Chart 11). Chart 11Australian Government Bonds Are "Defensive" When US Yields Are Rising This week, we translate that view into a new tactical trade—going long 10-year Australian government bonds versus shorting 10-year US Treasuries. This trade will be implemented through bond futures (details of the trade can be seen in our trade table on page 15). In addition to the yield beta argument, the Australia-US 10-year spread looks attractive on a fair value basis. Chart 12 presents our new Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model, based on fundamental factors such as relative policy interest rates, inflation and unemployment. The model also accounts for the impact from the massive bond buying by the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA); we include as an independent variable the relative central bank balance sheets as a share of respective nominal GDP. Although the Australia-US spread has converged somewhat towards fair value since the blow out in March 2020, it is still at attractive levels at 13bps or 0.8 standard deviations above fair value. The model-implied fair value of the Australia-US spread could also fall further, thereby creating a lower anchor point for spreads to gravitate towards. While the policy rate differential will likely remain unchanged until 2023, other factors will move to drag down the spread fair value (Chart 13). The gap in relative headline inflation should, much to the RBA’s chagrin, move further into negative territory given the relatively weaker domestic and foreign price pressures in Australia. On the QE front, the RBA also has much more room to expand its balance sheet relative to developed market peers, and will feel pressured to do so if the Australian dollar continues to rally. Finally, the RBA expects a much slower recovery in Australian unemployment than the Fed does for the US. This should further push down fair value if the central bank forecasts play out as expected. Chart 12The Australia-US 10-Year Spread Is Undervalued Technical considerations also seem to be in favor of our trade (Chart 14). While the deviation of the Australia-US 10-year spread from its 200-day moving average, and its 26-week change, are both slightly negative, the 2008 period is instructive. Chart 13Relative Fundamentals Point Towards A Lower Australia-US Spread Chart 14Technicals Favor Further Reduction In The Australia-US Spread For both measures, after blowing up to around the +75-150bps zone, they likewise fell by a commensurate amount, attributable to a strong “base effect”. A similar dynamic should play out now after the dramatic 2020 spike in spread momentum. Meanwhile, duration positioning in the US, while it is short on net, is still far from levels where it has troughed. Lastly and most importantly, forward curves are pricing in an Australia-US spread close to zero, which provides us a golden opportunity to “beat the forwards” as the spread tightens without incurring negative carry. As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash 10-year Australia-US bond spread at 4bps, with a target range of -30bps to -80bps over the usual 0-6 month horizon that we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We seek to capitalize on our view that Australian yields will be slower to rise relative to US yields by introducing a new spread trade: buy Australian government bond 10-year futures and sell US 10-year Treasury futures. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/record-number-of-fund-managers-overweight-on-emerging-markets-says-bofa-survey 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Chinese equities have rallied enthusiastically since the COVID-19 outbreak and are now exposed to underlying political and geopolitical risks. Xi Jinping’s intention is to push forward reform and restructuring, creating a significant risk of policy overtightening over the coming two years. In the first half of 2021, the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment suggest that overtightening will be avoided. But the risk will persist throughout the year. Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan and new focus on import substitution will exacerbate growing distrust with the US. We still doubt that the Biden administration will reduce tensions substantially or for very long. Chinese equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction. The renminbi is at fair value. Go long Chinese government bonds on the basis that political and geopolitical risks are now underrated again. Feature The financial community tends to view China’s political leadership as nearly infallible, handling each new crisis with aplomb. In 2013-15 Chinese leaders avoided a hard landing amid financial turmoil, in 2018-20 they blocked former President Trump’s trade war, and in 2020 they contained the COVID-19 pandemic faster than other countries. COVID was especially extraordinary because it first emerged in China and yet China recovered faster than others – even expanding its global export market share as the world ordered more medical supplies and electronic gadgets (Chart 1). COVID-19 cases are spiking as we go to press but there is little doubt that China will use drastic measures to curb the virus’s spread. It produced two vaccines, even if less effective than its western counterparts (Chart 2). Monetary and fiscal policy will be utilized to prevent any disruptions to the Chinese New Year from pulling the rug out from under the economic recovery. Chart 1China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID Chart 2China Has A Vaccine, Albeit Less Effective In short, China is seen as a geopolitical juggernaut that poses no major risk to the global bull market in equities, corporate bonds, and commodities – the sole backstop for global growth during times of crisis (Chart 3). The problem with this view is that it is priced into markets already, the crisis era is fading (despite lingering near-term risks), and Beijing’s various risks are piling up. Chart 3China Backstopped Global Growth Again First, as potential GDP growth slows, China faces greater difficulty managing the various socioeconomic imbalances and excesses created by its success – namely the tug of war between growth and reform. The crisis shattered China’s attempt to ensure a smooth transition to lower growth rates, leaving it with higher unemployment and industrial restructuring that will produce long-term challenges (Chart 4). Chart 4China's Unemployment Problem The shock also forced China to engage in another blowout credit surge, worsening the problem of excessive leverage and reversing the progress that was made on corporate deleveraging in previous years. Second, foreign strategic opposition and trade protectionism are rising. China’s global image suffered across the world in 2020 as a result of COVID, despite the fact that President Trump’s antics largely distracted from China. Going forward there will be recriminations from Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and its power grab in Hong Kong yet Trump will not be there to deflect. By contrast, the Biden administration holds out a much greater prospect of aligning liberal democracies against China in a coalition that could ultimately prove effective in constraining its international behavior. China’s turn inward, toward import substitution and self-sufficiency, will reinforce this conflict. In the current global rebound, in which China will likely be able to secure its economic recovery while the US is supercharging its own, readers should expect global equity markets and China/EM stocks to perform well on a 12-month time frame. We would not deny all the positive news that has occurred. But Chinese equities have largely priced in the positives, meaning that Chinese politics and geopolitics are underrated again and will be a source of negative surprises going forward. The Centennial Of 1921 The Communist Party will hold a general conference to celebrate its 100th birthday on July 1, just as it did in 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011. These meetings are ceremonial and have no impact on economic policy. We examined nominal growth, bank loans, fixed asset investment, industrial output, and inflation and observed no reliable pattern as an outcome of these once-per-decade celebrations. In 2011, for example, General Secretary Hu Jintao gave a speech about the party’s triumphs since 1921, reiterated the goals of the twelfth five-year plan launched in March 2011, and reminded his audience of the two centennial goals of becoming a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and a “modern socialist country” by 2049 (the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic). China is now transitioning from the 2021 goals to the 2049 goals and the policy consequences will be determined by the Xi Jinping administration. Xi will give a speech on July 1 recapitulating the fourteenth five-year plan’s goals and his vision for 2035 and 2049, which will be formalized in March at the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament. As such any truly new announcements relating to the economy should come over the next couple of months, though the broad outlines are already set. There would need to be another major shock to the system, comparable to the US trade war and COVID-19, to produce a significant change in the economic policy outlook from where it stands today. Hence the Communist Party’s 100th birthday is not a driver of policy – and certainly not a reason for authorities to inject another dose of massive monetary and credit stimulus following the country’s massive 12% of GDP credit-and-fiscal impulse from trough to peak since 2018 (Chart 5). The overarching goal is stability around this event, which means policy will largely be held steady. Chart 5China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred Far more important than the centenary of the Communist Party is the political leadership rotation that will begin on the local level in early 2022, culminating in the twentieth National Party Congress in the fall of 2022.1 This was supposed to be the date of Xi’s stepping down, according to the old schedule, but he will instead further consolidate power – and may even name himself Chairman Xi, as the next logical step in his Maoist propaganda campaign. This important political rotation will enable Xi to elevate his followers to higher positions and cement his influence over the so-called seventh generation of Chinese leaders, pushing his policy agenda far into the future. Ahead of these events, Beijing has been mounting a new battle against systemic risks, as it did in late 2016 and throughout 2017 ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. The purpose is to prevent the economic and financial excesses of the latest stimulus from destabilizing the country, to make progress on Xi’s policy agenda, and to expose and punish any adversaries. This new effort will face limitations based on the pandemic and fragile economy but it will nevertheless constitute the default setting for the next two years – and it is a drag on growth rather than a boost. The importance of the centenary and the twentieth party congress will not prevent various risks from exploding between now and the fall of 2022. Some political scandals will likely emerge as foreign or domestic opposition attempts to undermine Xi’s power consolidation – and at least one high-level official will inevitably fall from grace as Xi demonstrates his supremacy and puts his followers in place for higher office. But any market reaction to these kinds of events will be fleeting compared to the reaction to Xi’s economic management. The economic risk boils down to the implementation of Xi’s structural reform agenda and his threshold for suffering political pain in pursuit of this agenda. For now the risk is fairly well contained, as the pandemic is still somewhat relevant, but going forward the tension between growth and reform will grow. Bottom Line: The hundredth birthday of the Communist Party is overrated but the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is of critical importance to the governance of China over the next ten years. These events will not prompt a major new dose of stimulus and they will not prevent a major reform push or crackdown on financial excesses. But as always in China there will still be an overriding emphasis on economic and social stability above all. For now, this is supportive of the new global business cycle, commodity prices, and emerging market equities. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-25) The draft proposal of China’s fourteenth five-year plan (2021-25) will be ratified at the annual “two sessions” in March (Table 1). The key themes are familiar from previous five-year plans, which focused on China’s economic transition from “quantity” to “quality” in economic development. Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan China is seen as having entered the “high quality” phase of development – and the word quality is used 40 times in the draft. As with the past five years, the Xi administration is highlighting “supply-side structural reform” as a means of achieving this economic upgrade and promoting innovation. But Xi has shifted his rhetoric to highlight a new concept, “dual circulation,” which will now take center stage. Dual circulation marks a dramatic shift in Chinese policy: away from the “opening up and reform” of the liberal 1980s-2000s and toward a new era of import substitution and revanchism that will dominate the 2020s. Xi Jinping first brought it up in May 2020 and re-emphasized it at the July Politburo meeting and other meetings thereafter. It is essentially a “China First” policy that describes a development path in which the main economic activity occurs within the domestic market. Foreign trade and investment are there to improve this primary domestic activity. Dual circulation is better understood as a way of promoting import substitution, or self-reliance – themes that emerged after the Great Recession but became more explicit during the trade war with the US from 2018-20. The gist is to strengthen domestic demand and private consumption, improve domestic rather than foreign supply options, attract foreign investment, and build more infrastructure to remove internal bottlenecks and improve cross-regional activity (e.g. the Sichuan-Tibet railway, the national power grid, the navigation satellite system). China has greatly reduced its reliance on global trade already, though it is still fairly reliant when Hong Kong is included (Chart 6). The goals of the fourteenth five-year plan are also consistent with the “Made in China 2025” plan that aroused so much controversy with the Trump administration, leading China to de-emphasize it in official communications. Just like dual circulation, the 2025 plan was supposed to reduce China’s dependency on foreign technology and catapult China into the lead in areas like medical devices, supercomputers, robotics, electric vehicles, semiconductors, new materials, and other emerging technologies. This plan was only one of several state-led initiatives to boost indigenous innovation and domestic high-tech production. The response to American pressure was to drop the name but maintain the focus. Some of the initiatives will fall under new innovation and technology guidelines while others will fall under the category of “new types of infrastructure,” such as 5G networks, electric vehicles, big data centers, artificial intelligence operations, and ultra-high voltage electricity grids. With innovation and technology as the overarching goals, China is highly likely to increase research and development spending and aim for an overall level of above 3% of GDP (Chart 7). In previous five-year plans the government did not set a specific target. Nor did it set targets for the share of basic research spending within research and development, which is around 6% but is believed to need to be around 15%-20% to compete with the most innovative countries. While Beijing is already a leader in producing new patents, it will attempt to double its output while trying to lift the overall contribution of technology advancement to the economy. Chart 6China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency Dual circulation will become a major priority affecting other areas of policy. Reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, will take place under this rubric. The Xi administration has dabbled in SOE reform all along, for instance by injecting private capital to create mixed ownership, but progress has been debatable. Chart 7China Will Surge R&D Spending The new five-year plan will incorporate elements of an existing three-year action plan approved last June. The intention is to raise the competitiveness of China’s notoriously bloated SOEs, making them “market entities” that play a role in leading innovation and strengthening domestic supply chains. However, there is no question that SOEs will still be expected to serve an extra-economic function of supporting employment and social stability. So the reform is not really a broad liberalization and SOEs will continue to be a large sector dominated by the state and directed by the state, with difficulties relating to efficiency and competitiveness. Notwithstanding the focus on quality, China still aims to have GDP per capita reach $12,500 by 2025, implying 5%-5.5% annual growth from 2021-25, which is consistent with estimates of the International Monetary Fund (Chart 8). This kind of goal will require policy support at any given time to ensure that there is no major shortfall due to economic shocks like COVID-19. Thus any attempts at reform will be contained within the traditional context of a policy “floor” beneath growth rates – which itself is one of the biggest hindrances to deep reform. Chart 8China's Growth Target Through 2025 Chart 9Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions As the economy’s potential growth slows the Communist Party has been shifting its focus to improving the quality of life, as opposed to the previous decades-long priority of meeting the basic material needs of the society. The new five-year plan aims to increase disposable income per capita as part of the transition to a domestic consumption-driven economy. The implied target will be 5%-5.5% growth per year, down from 6.5%+ previously, but the official commitment will be put in vague qualitative terms to allow for disappointments in the slower growing environment. The point is to expand the middle-income population and redistribute wealth more effectively, especially in the face of stark rural disparity. In addition the government aims to increase education levels, expand pension coverage, and, in the midst of the pandemic, increase public health investment and the number of doctors and hospital beds relative to the population. Beijing seems increasingly wary of too rapid of a shift away from manufacturing – which makes sense in light of the steep drop in the manufacturing share of employment amid China’s shift away from export-dependency. In the thirteenth five-year plan, Beijing aimed to increase the service sector share of GDP from 50.5% to 56%. But in the latest draft plan it sets no target for growing services. Any implicit goal of 60% would be soft rather than hard. Given that manufacturing and services combined make up 93% of the economy, there is not much room to grow services further unless policymakers want to allow even faster de-industrialization. But the social and political risks of rapid de-industrialization are well known – both from the liquidation of the SOEs in the late 1990s and from the populist eruptions in the UK and US more recently. Beijing is likely to want to take a pause in shifting away from manufacturing. But this means that China’s exporting of deflation and large market share will persist and hence foreign protectionist sentiment will continue to grow. The fourteenth five-year plan ostensibly maintains the same ambitious targets for environmental improvement as in its predecessor, in terms of water and energy consumption, carbon emissions, pollution levels, renewable energy quotas, and quotas for arable land and forest coverage. But in reality some of these targets are likely to be set higher as Beijing has intensified its green policy agenda and is now aiming to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030. China aims to be a “net zero” carbon country by 2060. Doubling down on the shift away from fossil fuels will require an extraordinary policy push, given that China is still a heavily industrial economy and predominantly reliant on coal power. So environmental policy will be a critical area to watch when the final five-year plan is approved in March, as well as in future plans for the 2026-30 period. As was witnessed in recent years, ambitious environmental goals will be suspended when the economy slumps, which means that achieving carbon emissions goals will not be straightforward (Chart 9), but it is nevertheless a powerful economic policy theme and investment theme. Xi Jinping’s Vision: 2035 On The Way To 2049 At the nineteenth National Party Congress, the critical leadership rotation in 2017, Xi Jinping made it clear that he would stay in power beyond 2022 – eschewing the nascent attempt of his predecessors to set up a ten-year term limit – and establish 2035 as a midway point leading to the 2049 anniversary of the People’s Republic. There are strategic and political goals relevant to this 2035 vision – including speculation that it could be Xi’s target for succession or for reunification with Taiwan – but the most explicit goals are, as usual, economic. Chart 10Xi Jinping’s 2035 Goals Officially China is committing to descriptive rather than numerical targets. GDP per capita is to reach the level of “moderately developed countries.” However, in a separate explanation statement, Xi Jinping declares, “it is completely possible for China to double its total economy or per capita income by 2035.” In other words, China’s GDP is supposed to reach 200 trillion renminbi, while GDP per capita should surpass $20,000 by 2035, implying an annual growth rate of at least 4.73% (Chart 10). There is little reason to believe that Beijing will succeed as much in meeting future targets as it has in the past. In the past China faced steady final demand from the United States and the West and its task was to bring a known quantity of basic factors of production into operation, after lying underutilized for decades, which made for high growth rates and fairly predictable outcomes. In the future the sources of demand are not as reliable and China’s ability to grow will be more dependent on productivity enhancements and innovation that cannot be as easily created or predicted. The fourteenth five-year plan and Xi’s 2035 vision will attempt to tackle this productivity challenge head on. But restructuring and reform will advance intermittently, as Xi is unquestionably maintaining his predecessors’ commitment to stability above all. Outlook 2021: Back To The Tug Of War Of Stimulus And Reform The tug of war between economic stimulus and reform is on full display already in 2021 and will become by far the most important investment theme this year. If China tightens monetary and fiscal policy excessively in 2021, in the name of reform, it will undermine its own and the global economic recovery, dealing a huge negative surprise to the consensus in global financial markets that 2021 will be a year of strong growth, rebounding trade, a falling US dollar, and ebullient commodity prices. Our view is that Chinese policy tightening is a significant risk this year – it is not overrated – but that the government will ultimately ease policy as necessary and avoid what would be a colossal policy mistake of undercutting the economic recovery. We articulated this view late last year and have already seen it confirmed both in the Politburo’s conclusions at the annual economic meeting in December, and in the reemergence of COVID-19, which will delay further policy tightening for the time being. The pattern of the Xi administration thus far is to push forward domestic reforms until they run up against the limits of economic stability, and then to moderate and ease policy for the sake of recovery, before reinitiating the attack. Two key developments initially encouraged Xi to push forward with a new “assault phase of reform” in 2021: First, a new global business cycle is beginning, fueled by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus across the world (not only in China), which enables Xi to take actions that would drag on growth. Second, Xi Jinping has emerged from the US trade war stronger than ever at home. President Trump lost the election, giving warning to any future US president who would confront China with a frontal assault. The Biden administration’s priority is economic recovery, for the sake of the Democratic Party’s future as well as for the nation, and this limits Biden’s ability to escalate the confrontation with China, even though he will not revoke most of Trump’s actions. Biden’s predicament gives Beijing a window to pursue difficult domestic initiatives before the Biden administration is capable of turning its full attention to the strategic confrontation with China. The fact that Biden seeks to build a coalition of states first, and thus must spend a great deal of time on diplomacy with Europe and other allies, is another advantageous circumstance. China is courting and strengthening relations with Europe and those very allies so as to delay the formation of any effective coalition (Chart 11). Chart 11China Courts EU As Substitute For US Thus, prior to the latest COVID-19 spike, Beijing was clearly moving to tighten monetary and fiscal policy and avoid a longer stimulus overshoot that would heighten the country’s long-term financial risks and debt woes. This policy preference will continue to be a risk in 2021: Central government spending down: Emergency fiscal spending to deal with the pandemic will be reduced from 2020 levels and the budget deficit will be reined in. The Politburo’s chief economic planning event, the Central Economic Work Conference in December, resulted in a decision to maintain fiscal support but to a lesser degree. Fiscal policy will be “effective and sustainable,” i.e. still proactive but lower in magnitude (Chart 12). Local government spending down: The central government will try to tighten control of local government bond issuance. The issuance of new bonds will fall closer to 2019 levels after a 55% increase in 2020. New bonds provide funds for infrastructure and investment projects meant to soak up idle labor and boost aggregate demand. A cut back in these projects and new bonds will drag on the economy relative to last year (Chart 13). Chart 12China Pares Government Spending On The Margin Chart 13China Pares Local Government Spending Too Monetary policy tightening up: The People’s Bank of China aims to maintain a “prudent monetary policy” that is stable and targeted in 2021. The intention is to avoid any sharp change in policy. However, PBoC Governor Yi Gang admits that there will be some “reasonable adjustments” to monetary policy so that the growth of broad money (M2) and total social financing (total private credit) do not wildly exceed nominal GDP growth (which should be around 8%-10% in 2021). The risk is that excessive easiness in the current context will create asset bubbles. The implication is that credit growth will slow to 11%-12%. This is not slamming on the brakes but it is a tightening of credit policy. Macro-prudential regulation up: The People’s Bank is reasserting its intention to implement the new Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework designed to tackle systemic financial risk. The rollout of this reform paused last year due to the pandemic. A detailed plan of how the country’s various major financial institutions will adopt this new mechanism is expected in March. The implication is that Beijing is turning its attention back to mitigating systemic financial risks. This includes closer supervision of bank capital adequacy ratios and cross-border financing flows. New macro-prudential tools are also targeting real estate investment and potentially other areas. Larger established banks will have a greater allowance for property loans than smaller, riskier banks. At the same time, it is equally clear that Beijing will try to avoid over-tightening policy: The COVID outbreak discourages tightening: This outbreak has already been mentioned and will pressure leaders to pause further policy tightening at least until they have greater confidence in containment. The vaccine rollout process also discourages economic activity at first since nobody wants to go out and contract the disease when a cure is in sight. Local government financial support is still robust: Local governments will still need to issue refinancing bonds to deal with the mountain of debt coming into maturity and reduce the risk of widespread insolvency. In 2020, they issued more than 1.8 trillion yuan of refinancing bonds to cover about 88% of the 2 trillion in bonds coming due. In 2021, they will have to issue about 2.2 trillion of refinancing bonds to maintain the same refinancing rate for a larger 2.6 trillion yuan in bonds coming due (Table 2). Thus while Beijing is paring back its issuance of new bonds to fund new investment projects, it will maintain a high level of refinancing bonds to prevent insolvency from cascading and undermining the recovery. Table 2Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule Monetary policy will not be too tight: The People’s Bank’s open market operations in January so far suggest that it is starting to fine-tune its policies but that it is doing so in an exceedingly measured way so as not to create a liquidity squeeze around the traditionally tight-money period of Chinese New Year. The seven-day repo rate, the de facto policy interest rate, has already rolled over from last year’s peak. The takeaway is that while Beijing clearly intended to cut back on emergency monetary and fiscal support this year – and while Xi Jinping is clearly willing to impose greater discipline on the economy and financial system prior to the big political events of 2021-22 – nevertheless the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment will ensure a relatively accommodative policy for the first half of 2021 in order to secure the economic recovery. The underlying risk of policy tightening is still significant, especially in the second half of 2021 and in 2022, due to the underlying policy setting. Investment Takeaways The CNY-USD has experienced a tremendous rally in the wake of the US-China phase one trade deal last year and Beijing’s rapid bounce-back from the pandemic. The trade weighted renminbi is now trading just about at fair value (Chart 14). We closed our CNY-USD short recommendation and would stand aside for now. China’s current account surplus is still robust, real reform requires a fairly strong yuan, and the Biden administration will also expect China not to depreciate the currency competitively. Thus while we anticipate the CNY-USD to suffer a surprise setback when the market realizes that the US and China will continue to clash despite the end of the Trump administration, nevertheless we are no longer outright short the currency. Chinese investable stocks have rallied furiously on the stimulus last year as well as robust foreign portfolio inflows. The rally is likely overstretched at the moment as the COVID outbreak and policy uncertainties come to the fore. This is also true for Chinese stocks other than the high-flying technology, media, and telecom stocks (Chart 15). Domestic A-shares have rallied on the back of Alibaba executive Jack Ma’s reappearance even though the clear implication is that in the new era, the Communist Party will crack down on entrepreneurs – and companies like fintech firm Ant Group – that accumulate too much power (Chart 16). Chart 14Renminbi Fairly Valued Chart 15China: Investable Stocks Overbought Chart 16Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Chart 17Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Chinese government bond yields are back near their pre-COVID highs (though not their pre-trade war highs). Given the negative near-term backdrop – and the longer term challenges of restructuring and geopolitical risks over Taiwan and other issues that we expect to revive – these bonds present an attractive investment (Chart 17). Housekeeping: In addition to going long Chinese 10-year government bonds on a strategic time frame, we are closing our long Mexican industrials versus EM trade for a loss of 9.1%. We are still bullish on the Mexican peso and macro/policy backdrop but this trade was premature. We are also closing our long S&P health care tactical hedge for a loss of 1.8%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Indeed the 2022 political reshuffle has already begun with several recent appointments of provincial Communist Party secretaries.

Highlights US Reflation: The Georgia senate victories for the Democratic Party have returned the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenarios to the forefront. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. US Treasury Strategy: Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Global Corporate Sector Valuation: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Policy Reflation Is Negative For USTs In a week of stunning US political events, the most important one for financial markets was not the mob invasion of the US Capitol. The Georgia senate runoff votes completed the unfinished business of the 2020 US elections, with Democratic Party candidates winning both seats. This effectively delivered a change in party control of the US Senate to the Democrats, with a 50/50 seat split that would give incoming Vice-President Kamala Harris the potential tiebreaking vote. With the Democratic Party now in control of the US House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenario that we discussed in our pre-election Special Report last October – with greater odds that the highly expansionary Biden policy agenda can be more fully implemented - is now coming to fruition.1 The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield broke above 1% after the election results, continuing to climb to 1.13% yesterday. The overall US Treasury market action has continued the reflationary trends seen in the latter half of 2020, with a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and wider inflation breakevens in the TIPS market (Chart of the Week). Treasuries continue to underperform other developed economy government bond markets (in USD-hedged terms), continuing a move that started back in the spring of 2020. We expect these trends to remain in place over the next several months, given the current and likely future monetary and fiscal policy mix in D.C. The Biden Boost To US Treasury Yields BCA Research’s newest service, US Political Strategy, launched last week with a discussion of the US fiscal policy outlook after the Georgia senate elections.2 The conclusion was that the most radical parts of the Democratic Party agenda will be difficult to pass given their narrow majorities in the House and Senate, but some sizeable fiscal stimulus is still likely. In the near term, an expansion of the COVID relief passed in the December stimulus bill, such as boosting monthly checks to individuals from $600 to $2000, is likely to come relatively quickly after Biden is inaugurated via a “reconciliation bill”. Additional stimulus measures could also be enacted, partially funded by some rollback of the Trump tax cuts. Beyond that, the Biden administration will attempt to push through some of the more expansionary parts of incoming president’s campaign platform related to items like infrastructure spending. In the end, the expectation is that the US fiscal drag (a reduction in the deficit) that was set to occur in 2021 after the massive stimulus measures enacted in 2020 will be much smaller with full Democratic control in D.C. This will help boost US GDP growth this year. A greater implementation of the Biden agenda would have a more lasting impact on US economic growth in the following years. Last September, Moody’s published a report that compared the policy platforms of Candidate Biden and President Trump, running the details of the agendas into the Moody’s US economic model.3 The analysts concluded that under realistic assumptions about how much of the Biden platform would be implemented under a “Blue Sweep” scenario, US real GDP growth would average 6% in 2021 and 2022 under President Biden, a full two percentage points higher than the baseline scenario (Chart 2). This would also drive the US unemployment rate back toward pre-pandemic levels more quickly. Moody’s concluded that the Fed would start hiking rates in 2023 under the Democratic sweep scenario, similar to the current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve, but with a more aggressive pace of tightening expected over the subsequent two years (bottom panel) – a bond bearish outcome that would push the 10-year Treasury yield back to 2% by the end of 2022 and 3% by the end of 2023. We expect the Fed to normalize US monetary policy at a slower pace than Moody’s, but we do agree on there is still plenty of upside potential for Treasury yields over the next 1-2 years. This will initially come more from rising inflation breakevens than real yields. Currently, US TIPS breakevens are drifting steadily higher, even as realized US inflation is starting to cool off a bit (Chart 3). The 10-year breakeven is now up to 2.1%, a level last seen in 2018 but still below the 2.3-2.5% level we deem consistent with the market expecting that the Fed’s 2% inflation target will be sustainably achieved. The idea that inflation breakevens can widen without higher realized inflation may seem odd on the surface, but it is not unprecedented. In the years immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, when the Fed kept rates at 0% while the economy recovered from the Great Recession, TIPS breakevens rose alongside very weak US inflation. Chart 2How 'Bidenomics' Can Be Bond-Bearish Chart 3Fed Policy Stance Favors Wider TIPS Breakevens With the Fed having shifted to an Average Inflation Targeting framework last year, we don’t expect the Fed to turn more hawkish too quickly. We expect the Fed to keep the funds rate well below US realized inflation for at least the next couple of years and likely longer, keeping real US interest rates negative and preventing an unwanted flattening of the Treasury curve (Chart 4). The Fed’s low interest rate policies will also make it easier to service the growing stock of US government debt during the Biden Administration (Chart 5). Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”.  Chart 4US Policy Mix Favors UST Curve Steepening Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”. We expect the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield to rise to the 1.25-1.5% range over the next six months, with higher yields possible if the market begins to question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate anchored at 0% - an outcome that could occur by year-end if the Fed starts to consider a slower pace of Treasury purchases via quantitative easing (Chart 6). Chart 5Low Interest Rates Help Service Rising Debt Chart 6More Upside Room For UST Yields We continue to recommend an overall US Treasury investment strategy that will perform well as yields rise. Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The odds of a major US fiscal spending boost from the incoming Biden Administration, both in the short-run and over the medium term, are now much higher after the Georgia senate elections. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. Maintain positions that will benefit from higher Treasury yields. Finding Value In Global Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors As we discussed in our 2021 Model Bond Portfolio Update published last week,4 the strong performance of global spread product in H2/2020 has led to an across-the-board narrowing of credit spreads, with investment grade spreads hovering close to, or below, pre-COVID levels in developed markets (Chart 7). Predictably, this has stretched valuations to historically expensive levels across developed economy investment grade corporate bond markets. Our preferred measure of spread valuation, the 12-month breakeven spread, measures how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. These breakeven spread percentile rankings for investment grade corporates are now at the bottom percentile in the US and below the 25th percentile level in the euro area, UK, Australia, and Canada, indicating that there is limited potential for additional spread tightening from current levels (Chart 8). Chart 7Investment Grade Spreads At Or Below Pre-Covid Lows As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. To accomplish this, we return to our cross-sectional relative value framework, which we last discussed in the summer of 2020.5 Readers should refer to that report for details on our framework methodology. In this report, we apply our relative value framework to investment grade corporate bond markets in the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia. Chart 8Valuations Look Stretched On A Breakeven Spread Basis US In Table 1, we present the latest output from our US investment grade sector valuation model. In keeping with the framework used by BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we use the average credit rating, duration, and duration-squared (convexity) of each sector as the model inputs. As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation To determine our US sector recommendations, we not only need to look at the spread valuations from the relative value model, but we must also consider what level of overall US spread risk, which we measure as duration-times-spread (DTS), to target. With valuations for US investment grade looking stretched, we are looking to target only a neutral DTS at or around that of the benchmark index. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. The sweet spot, therefore, is the upper half of Chart 9, around the dotted horizontal line denoting the benchmark DTS. Given the large amount of spread narrowing seen since we last published these models, there are fewer obvious overweight candidates, with most sectors priced close to our model-implied fair value. However, Finance Companies, Lodging, and REITs are interesting opportunities that fit our “risk budget”. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. Sectors to avoid, meanwhile, are Restaurants, Environmental, and Other Utilities. Chart 9US Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Euro Area In Table 2, we present the results of our euro area investment grade sector valuation model. The independent variables in this model are each sector’s duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating. Note that we will be using the same independent variables in our UK model. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation In keeping with our neutral stance on euro area investment grade, we will be targeting an overall level of spread risk at or around the benchmark. Therefore, we are interested in overweighting sectors in the upper half of Chart 10 that are close to the overall index DTS. Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward On that basis, Subordinated Debt, Brokerage Asset Managers, and Integrated Energy seem appealing overweight candidates while Airlines, Independent Energy, and Building Materials are ones to avoid. UK In Table 3, we present the latest output from our UK relative value spread model. We are currently overweight UK investment grade, one of the best performers in our model bond portfolio universe last year. Although investment grade spreads are below pre-pandemic lows, the major factor to watch is how the economy adjusts to the Brexit trade deal. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with other regions, our ideal overweight candidates here are those with positive risk-adjusted residuals and a relatively neutral DTS—represented in the upper half of Chart 11 near the dotted line. The best overweight candidates are concentrated within Financials, with Brokerage Asset Managers, REITs and Insurance appearing attractive. Tobacco and Railroads also fit our criteria. Meanwhile, Metals and Mining, Aerospace, and Restaurants are sectors to avoid. Chart 11UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Canada Table 4 shows the output from our Canadian relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are: sector duration, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg) and credit rating. While we do not have an allocation to Canadian corporate debt in our model bond portfolio, our key insight regarding other markets also applies here—historically expensive valuations for the overall market mean that we recommend keeping exposure to spread risk neutral while finding pockets of value where available. Table 4Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation On that basis, some of the most appealing overweight candidates, shown in the top half of Chart 12, are Finance Companies, Office and Healthcare REITs, Brokerage Asset Managers, Life Insurance, and Other Industrials. Meanwhile, we are staying away from Cable Satellite, Media Entertainment, and Environmental sectors. Chart 12Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Australia Table 5 shows the output from our new Australia relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are sector credit rating, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg), and yield-to-maturity. Due to the relatively small size of the Australian corporate bond market, we are focusing our analysis on Level 3 sectors within the Bloomberg Barclays Classification System (BCLASS) rather than the more granular Level 4 analysis we have employed for other markets. Table 5Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with Canada, we have no exposure to this market in our model bond portfolio but are looking to maintain a neutral level of recommended overall spread risk while looking at sectors in Chart 13 that show positive risk-adjusted valuations and have a DTS close to the Australian corporate benchmark. On that basis, Finance Companies and Insurance appear attractive while Energy, Technology, and REITs should be avoided. Chart 13Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Comparing Sector Valuations Across Regions The above analyses have allowed us to paint a picture of sector valuation within regions. However, there is added benefit in looking at risk-adjusted valuations across the three major corporate bond markets—the US, euro area and UK—with the intent of spotting broader sector level trends in the global investment grade universe that are not limited to just one market. Table 6 allows us to highlight some clear trends: Table 6Valuations Across Major Corporate Bond Markets Industrials such as Chemicals, Capital Goods, and Diversified Manufacturing look overvalued across the board. These cyclicals, which are deeply sensitive to the health of business investment and confidence, rallied strongly on vaccine optimism but now look overbought. On the consumer side, there is weakness in cyclicals such as retailers and restaurants, and non-cyclicals like consumer products and food & beverages. The new round of lockdowns instituted in Europe and the UK are a major risk for these sectors as we head into the final stretch before mass vaccination. Energy looks undervalued in all three regions. This result is supported by the outlook from our BCA Research Commodity & Energy strategists, who are bullish on oil and believe that Brent prices will average at $63/bbl in 2021 as demand continues to grow and OPEC 2.0 keeps a tight grip on supply. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. These sectors have obviously benefited from the steepening in yield curves we have already seen but there is still remaining upside as inflation expectations continue to rise and push up nominal yields at the long-end of the curve. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. Bottom Line: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Political Strategy Report, "Buy Reflation Plays On Georgia’s Blue Sweep", dated January 6, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The full report can be found here: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2021: Leaning Into Reflation", dated January 6, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Hunting For Alpha In The Global Corporate Bond Jungle", dated May 27, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Further fiscal easing is likely in the US now that the Democrats are set to take control of the US Senate following Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia. With the end of the pandemic in sight, a growing chorus of commentators, including none other than Larry Summers, are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In the short term, the risk that economies will overheat due to excessive fiscal support is low. There is still too much labor market slack, the bulk of any stimulus checks will be saved, and the short-run Phillips curve remains quite flat. Looking beyond the next two years, fiscal policy could indeed turn out to be inflationary. Political populism is rising. Central banks, fearful of the zero lower-bound constraint on interest rates, want higher inflation. Falling interest rates have also made it easier for governments to run larger budget deficits. We estimate that the US can run a primary budget deficit that is more than 2% of GDP larger than at the start of 2019, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The “fiscal envelope” has increased significantly in other major economies as well. Ironically, in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth in GDP, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio permits larger budget deficits. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit more from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years once inflation begins to accelerate. A Race Against Time The past few weeks have seen a race between the virus, which continues to infect people at an alarming rate, and efforts to vaccinate the most vulnerable members of society. So far, the virus has the upper hand. Chart 1Tracking The Progress In Global Vaccination Rates The “UK strain” has become more prevalent around the world.1 By some estimates it is 70% more contagious than the original virus that emerged in Wuhan, China. Another, potentially even more dangerous strain, has surfaced in South Africa and has spread to South America. The early evidence suggests that the recently approved vaccines will be effective in fighting the UK strain. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to judge whether this is also true for the South African strain. Right now, only 0.2% of the world’s population has been inoculated, but that number will rise rapidly over the coming months (Chart 1). Assuming that existing vaccines are effective against the myriad virus strains, the infection rate should fall precipitously by the middle of the year.   Georgia Runoffs Will Lead To Even More Stimulus Governments eased fiscal policy significantly last year in response to the unfolding crisis (Chart 2). At the worst point of the pandemic in April, US real disposable income was up 14% year-over-year (Chart 3). Transfers to households fell sharply following the expiration of the CARES Act, but are set to rise again thanks to the recently completed stimulus deal. Chart 2Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis   The victory by both Democratic candidates in the Georgia Senate runoff races on Tuesday moves the political configuration in Washington even further towards fiscal easing. Having gained control of the Senate, the Democrats will now be able to use the “reconciliation process” to pass a budget that boosts spending on health care, education, infrastructure, and the environment. Granted, reconciliation requires that any extra spending be offset by additional revenue measures over a 10-year budgetary horizon. Thus, corporate taxes will probably rise. Nevertheless, the combination of more spending and higher corporate taxes will still produce a net boost to aggregate demand. This is partly because any revenue measures are likely to be backloaded. It is also because raising corporate taxes will not reduce investment by very much. The experience from the Trump tax cuts revealed that the main consequence of lowering corporate tax rates was to lower corporate tax receipts. The touted boost to corporate investment from lower taxes never materialized. In fact, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 4). Chart 3Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic   Chart 4No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment   For stock market investors, the prospect of higher taxes will take some of the bloom off the rose from additional fiscal stimulus. That said, the impact will vary considerably across equity sectors. Cyclical stocks such as industrials and materials will benefit from stimulus-induced economic growth. Banks will also gain because stronger growth will suppress loan losses, while leading to steeper yield curves, thus raising net interest margins in the process. Value stocks have more exposure to banks and deep cyclicals, and hence we remain positive on them. Small caps also have more exposure to these sectors, but are starting to look increasingly pricey. Stimulus: How Much Is Enough? Chart 5Commercial Bankruptcies Are Well Contained Fiscal stimulus helped avert the cascade of business failures that normally accompany recessions. Despite a tick up in bankruptcies among large companies shortly after the pandemic began, 16% fewer companies filed for bankruptcy in the first 11 months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 (Chart 5). Overall bankruptcy filings, which include personal bankruptcies, have fallen to a 35-year low according to Epiq AACER. The pipeline for bankruptcies also looks fairly narrow. Junk bond prices have been rebounding and consumer loan delinquency rates have been trending down (Table 1). Table 1Personal Loan Delinquencies Have Also Been Trending Lower Generous fiscal transfers have allowed households to accumulate plenty of savings, which should help propel future spending. Chart 6 shows that accumulated US household savings are about $1.5 trillion above their pre-pandemic trend. We estimate that the combination of increased savings, rising home prices, and a surging stock market pushed up household net worth by $8 trillion in Q4 alone, leaving it 11% above Q4 2019 levels. In comparison, household net worth fell by over 15% during the Great Recession. Chart 6Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Little Risk Of Near-Term Fiscal Overheat With the prospect of a vaccine-led economic recovery in sight, a growing chorus of commentators are sounding the alarm over fears that fiscal policy could end up being too stimulative. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Larry Summers contended that President Trump’s attempt to increase the size of stimulus checks from $600 per person to $2000 was “a serious mistake” that risked overheating the economy. Summers argued for a more streamlined approach that prioritized aid to state and local governments and increased funding for Covid testing and vaccine deployment. Despite Larry’s admonition, we see little risk that loose fiscal policy will cause any major economy to overheat in the near term, even if the Senate does enact more stimulus. For one thing, recent stimulus proposals have emphasized direct transfers to households. Unlike most other types of spending, across-the-board stimulus checks will go mainly into savings. The New York Fed has estimated that less than 30% of the direct stimulus payments in the CARES Act were used for consumption, with 36% saved and 35% used to pay down debt. Consistent with past experience, households expect to spend only about one-third of the forthcoming stimulus checks according to CivicScience, a market research firm (Chart 7). Chart 7How Will Americans Spend Their Second Stimulus Check? Chart 8Employment-To-Population Ratios Remain Well Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Moreover, there is still plenty of labor market slack. Chart 8 shows the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers remains well below pre-pandemic levels across the OECD. In a best-case scenario, it will take a couple more years for employment levels to return to normal. Long-term inflation expectations are also well anchored, implying that the short-run Phillips curve is quite flat. In simple English, this means that a temporary burst of stimulus is unlikely to trigger an inflationary price-wage spiral. Some decline in budget deficits is also likely after the pandemic ends. The Hutchins Center at Brookings expects the fiscal package passed by the US Congress in December to boost GDP by 7% in the first quarter. However, it expects the four-quarter moving average in the fiscal contribution to growth to turn negative in the third quarter, and stay that way right through 2022 (Chart 9). Likewise, in its most recent forecasts, the IMF projected a negative fiscal impulse in the major advanced economies in 2021-22 (Chart 10). Chart 9Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part I)   Chart 10Budget Deficits Set To Decline, But Remain High By Historic Standards (Part II) Long-Term Fiscal Picture Is More Inflationary Granted, a negative fiscal impulse simply means that the structural budget deficit is declining over time. In absolute terms, the IMF expects budget deficits to remain quite large by historic standards, even if they do come down from their pandemic peak. Remember, it is the level of the budget deficit that helps determine the level of demand throughout the economy. Economies overheat when the level of aggregate demand exceeds the level of aggregate supply. If private-sector demand recovers more quickly than budget deficits come down, overall demand will rise. As such, it is certainly possible that excessively easy fiscal policy will contribute to an inflationary overshoot once labor market slack has been fully absorbed in two-to-three years. Politically, such an overshoot seems quite plausible. Populism is rising both on the left and the right. It is noteworthy that the Republican candidates in Tuesday’s runoff Senate races supported President Trump’s call for boosting the size of stimulus checks. The same goes for Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio is widely considered an early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Economically, the case for bigger budget deficits has also become more appealing. Real interest rates are negative across the major economies. Low interest rates allow governments to take on more debt without having to make large interest payments. Indeed, the Japanese government today receives more interest than it pays by virtue of the fact that more than half of its debt was issued at negative rates. Persistent worries about the zero lower-bound constraint also encourage central banks to pursue policies that could fuel inflation, such as refraining from tightening monetary policy in response to looser fiscal policy. The current level of policy rates gives central banks almost no scope to cut rates in response to an adverse economic shock. If inflation were to rise, central banks would be able to bring real rates even further into negative territory should economic conditions warrant it. The Paradox Of Debt Sustainability When  r  Is Less Than  g One might think that today’s high debt-to-GDP ratios would force governments to slash deficits to keep debt from spiraling out of control. However, things are not so straightforward in a world of ultra-low interest rates. As Appendix A shows, the primary budget balance that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as: Where p is the primary budget balance (the difference between tax receipts and non-interest spending, expressed as a share of GDP), r is the real interest rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy. Notice that when r is less than g, a higher debt-to-GDP ratio corresponds to a larger primary budget deficit (i.e., a more negative p). In other words, by taking on more debt, governments would not only be able to raise spending or cut taxes, but they would also have enough money left over to pay the additional interest on the debt. And they could do all this without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable upward trajectory. Chart 11More Space For Bigger Budget Deficits In The US... What sort of funky magic allows this to happen? The answer is that even a small percentage increase in debt will correspond to a large increase in the absolute stock of debt when debt levels are elevated to begin with. If interest rates are low, most of the additional debt can go into financing a larger primary deficit instead of higher interest payments. One can see this point with a simple example. Suppose that initially, debt is 50, GDP is 100, and hence the debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%. Let us also assume that the primary deficit is 1% of GDP, the interest rate is 2%, and GDP grows at 4%. Next year, debt will be 50+50*0.02+1=52 while GDP will be 100*1.04=104. Hence, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain 52/104=50%. Now rerun the same example but assume that debt is initially equal to 100, implying an initial debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. In that case, it is simple to verify that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall to 103/104≈99% the following year if the primary deficit remained at 1% of GDP. The primary deficit would have to rise to 2% of GDP to keep the debt-to-GDP stable – double what it was in the first example. The level of the US primary budget deficit that is consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from 0.8% of GDP at the start of 2019 to 3.1% today if one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of trend growth and the 10-year TIPs yield as a proxy for the real interest rate (Chart 11). A similar trend is visible abroad (Chart 12).   Chart 12... As Well As In Other Major Economies Investment Conclusions Thanks to the drop in interest rates, governments today have more scope to run larger budget deficits than they did in the past. This suggests that the sort of fiscal tightening that impeded the recovery following the Great Recession is unlikely to reoccur. The combination of above-trend growth and continued low rates will buoy equities in 2021. Investors should remain overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical 12-month horizon, favoring “value stocks” which will benefit both from steeper yield curves and the dismantling of lockdown measures. Financial markets will face a period of extreme turbulence in a couple of years as unemployment approaches pre-pandemic levels and central banks begin to contemplate raising interest rates. A higher debt burden allows for a larger budget deficit when r is less than g, but requires a bigger budget surplus when r rises above g. If debt-saddled governments are unable or unwilling to tighten fiscal policy, they may end up applying political pressure on central banks to keep rates artificially low in order to suppress interest payments. As such, excessively easy monetary policy could trigger a bout of inflation. With that in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios, favor inflation protected-securities over nominal bonds, and hold other inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. Cryptocurrencies could potentially serve as an inflation hedge, but given the recent run up in bitcoin prices, we would avoid this area of the market for the time being. Appendix AThe Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  A number of SARS-CoV-2 variants are circulating globally. The WHO reported this week that the UK variant of Covid-19 has spread to 40 other countries. Initial research suggests that the UK strain is more transmissible, but is characterized by unchanged disease severity compared to the original virus. The South African strain is also believed to be more contagious and was detected in six other countries. Some have raised concerns about the high number of mutations found in the South African variant. Research is ongoing to determine the potential consequences of the emerging variants on the speed of transmission, disease severity, ability to evade detection, and the efficacy of current treatments and vaccines. Please see Antony Sguazzin, “South Africa Virus Strain More Transmissible, Not More Severe,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2021;  Gabriele Steinhauser, “The New Covid-19 Strain in South Africa: What We Know,” The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2021; “Weekly epidemiological update - 5 January 2021,” World Health Organization; and “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated January 3, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores